Will the V-22 Osprey be a harder RPG target?

[Henry J. Cobb]

Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
helicopters?

-HJC

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

(Henry J. Cobb) writes:

> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> helicopters?

It will be a harder target because it doesn't stay in the air long
enough to get a good shot....

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[J]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
om...
> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> helicopters?
>
> -HJC

Well speed is life as they say, and with the engines on the wing tips away
from the body, a hit in one engine my be survivable. (The engines and props
are connected). I will have to bring this subject the next time I see some
jarhead zommies at the club.

Red Ride

[John Hairell]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:03:53 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

(Henry J. Cobb) writes:
>
>> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
>> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
>> helicopters?
>
>It will be a harder target because it doesn't stay in the air long
>enough to get a good shot....

It will still have to come to a hover to drop off troops, and will
still be a target.

John Hairell )

[James Cho]

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote in message >...
> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> helicopters?
>
> -HJC

Seems to me that of course a faster moving target is harder to hit,
but there are many significant factors specific to the V-22, other
than speed, that affect the Pk of a missile. Much larger size,
vulnerable driveshaft connecting the rotors, higher cruising altitude,
no tail rotor worries but still worries over the tail.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"JP" > wrote:

> Not while in or transitioning to/from a hover....

Sounds like it's time to upgrade/supplement door guns.

5.56 miniguns with night sights are a personal fave.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[JP]

Not while in or transitioning to/from a hover....

[Kevin Brooks]

John Hairell > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:03:53 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
> wrote:
>
> (Henry J. Cobb) writes:
> >
> >> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> >> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> >> helicopters?
> >
> >It will be a harder target because it doesn't stay in the air long
> >enough to get a good shot....
>
> It will still have to come to a hover to drop off troops, and will
> still be a target.

True, but which would you choose--an aircraft that remains within the
primary engagement envelope of *most* of the threat AAW systems
throughout the entire (slow) flight profile, or one that can operate
above it if necessary and flies substantially faster to boot?

Brooks

>
> John Hairell )

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
>
> True, but which would you choose--an aircraft that remains within the
> primary engagement envelope of *most* of the threat AAW systems
> throughout the entire (slow) flight profile, or one that can operate
> above it if necessary and flies substantially faster to boot?
>

I just hope they make it robust enough. Let them prove me wrong, but so far
I don't have a good feeling about how complex it is.

[Henry J. Cobb]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "JP" > wrote:
>
> > Not while in or transitioning to/from a hover....
>
> Sounds like it's time to upgrade/supplement door guns.
>
> 5.56 miniguns with night sights are a personal fave.

Wouldn't an automated defense turret or at least an optical scanner
that searched for weapons pointed at your craft be more useful?

-HJC

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > "JP" > wrote:
> >
> > > Not while in or transitioning to/from a hover....
> >
> > Sounds like it's time to upgrade/supplement door guns.
> >
> > 5.56 miniguns with night sights are a personal fave.
>
> Wouldn't an automated defense turret or at least an optical scanner
> that searched for weapons pointed at your craft be more useful?

Obvious defense: dozens of wooden AK-47s/dummies in the open, nowhere
near your troops, to make the auto system waste all of its ammo.

Also a good use for empty RPG launchers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > True, but which would you choose--an aircraft that remains within the
> > primary engagement envelope of *most* of the threat AAW systems
> > throughout the entire (slow) flight profile, or one that can operate
> > above it if necessary and flies substantially faster to boot?
> >
>
> I just hope they make it robust enough. Let them prove me wrong, but so far
> I don't have a good feeling about how complex it is.

The CH-46 is complex. The CH-47 is complex. Even the UH-60 is rather
complex. Heck, all modern multi-engine helos are complex, as are most
of the single engine new aircraft. If by robust you mean
bulletproof--no, it will not acheive that, but neither will any other
airframe. But I believe its survivability will be enhanced by its
ability to fly faster/higher, and I would guess that its climb rate
will be another survivability advantage versus a lot of AAW threats.

Brooks

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote:

>Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
>for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
>helicopters?
>
>-HJC

It breaks down into a whole lot of variables. The higher ingress speed
and lower acoustic footprint of the V-22 will reduce the vulnerability
in that area. If you're operating out of a fixed area, the Bad Guys(r)
will know where you are a and will have all the time in the word to set
up a trap. The V-22 does have IR surpresors on the engines. Will they
fool an SA-7 idunno. All 22's will have chaff/flare dispensers. Will
they work? Maybe. The drive system is cross connected. That will
improve survivability. The V-22 accelerates, climbs, and flys far
faster than any other Helo. That might help. The composite body is
hell for stout. The surviving AC at the Marana AZ crash hit the ground
at more than 600 ft/min vertical speed. No damage. THe seats are made
to absorb energy in a crash. The CV variant will have DIRCM. DIRCM is
an SA-7's worst nightmare.

Add it all together and statistically, the V-22 will out survive the
helos in the down low environment.

--
Dana Miller

[Simmsac]

>From: Dana Miller

>The composite body is
>hell for stout. The surviving AC at the Marana AZ crash hit the ground
>at more than 600 ft/min vertical speed. No damage.

Dana, that airframe is now a maintanance trainer. It was so badly damaged it
was not repairable...AL

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Simmsac) wrote:

> >From: Dana Miller
>
> >The composite body is
> >hell for stout. The surviving AC at the Marana AZ crash hit the ground
> >at more than 600 ft/min vertical speed. No damage.
>
> Dana, that airframe is now a maintanance trainer. It was so badly damaged it
> was not repairable...AL

I thought it was basically everything *inside* the actual airframe that
got damaged by the drop, and that the fuselage and wings held together
pretty well.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Dana Miller]

In article >,
(Simmsac) wrote:

>>From: Dana Miller
>
>>The composite body is
>>hell for stout. The surviving AC at the Marana AZ crash hit the ground
>>at more than 600 ft/min vertical speed. No damage.
>
>Dana, that airframe is now a maintanance trainer. It was so badly damaged it
>was not repairable...AL

Hmmm,

I was told by our field rep who was at the base where the mission
started that the only damage to the #1 ship was the refueling probe tip
broken off when it rolled through drainage ditch at the Marana Airport
after the hard landing. It was flown back from Marana a day or two
later. I was out of the V-22 world for tha last two years and could be
wrong.

Could it be the pre-production AC that was destroyed on its first flight
due to the roll rate gyros being miswired that is being used at the
maint trainer? Those airframes are fearsomely expensive to write off
without careers being wrecked. As Irecall, there were several
non-flight qual airframe sections being built up as the maintainance
trainers.

--
Dana Miller

[robert arndt]

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote in message >...
> Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> helicopters?
>
> -HJC

Absolutely not. The V-22 is a transitional flight machine that will
have to transition to achieve level flight and land, making it highly
vunerable. The helicopter, by comparison might be slower in level
flight but it takes a lot less skill and time to land. The helicopter
also has the advantage of not falling out of the sky like a brick
everytime there is a inflight mechanical failure. The V-22, OTOH, is a
flying death trap whose record had to falsified in order for the
program to stay alive. No matter how many claim the "bugs" are worked
out a transitional flight machine is inherently dangerous to both the
pilots and the crew aboard.
I favor cancelling this program along with the F-22 Raptor.

Rob

BTW, there is nothing new about the V-22. The Germans had two
transitional flight aircraft in the design stage at the end of WW2-
from Focke Achgelis and WeserFlug.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> (Henry J. Cobb) wrote in message
> >...
> > Will the increased cruising speed of the Osprey make it a better bet
> > for going downtown in the third world than the current fleet of
> > helicopters?
>
> Absolutely not. The V-22 is a transitional flight machine that will
> have to transition to achieve level flight and land, making it highly
> vunerable.

So, in your world, an aircraft coming in fast then landing slow is
supposed to be *more* vulnerable than one coming in slow and landing
slow? Apparently, you've found a gap in the basis of modern warfare...
"speed is good."

> The helicopter, by comparison might be slower in level
> flight but it takes a lot less skill and time to land.

Not really. The V-22 is supposed to be very nice to fly, and only has a
couple of tricky flight regimes, like the vortex ring state problem (as
long as you keep it below 800 feet per minute descent rates at slow
forward aispeeds, you're not going to run into that). VRS can affect
some normal copters at the same high sink rates, too...

> The helicopter also has the advantage of not falling out of the sky
> like a brick everytime there is a inflight mechanical failure.

Wow, you really are trying here. But the kinds of things that could
make the Osprey fall out of the sky are the same things that can make
big copters fall out of the sky. Lose a rotor, lose a transmission, et
cetera.

> BTW, there is nothing new about the V-22. The Germans had two
> transitional flight aircraft in the design stage at the end of WW2-
> from Focke Achgelis and WeserFlug.

A cartoon on a piece of drafting paper is not what most people call
"design stage."

It's kind of sad, really. Your whole point seem to be "the Osprey
sucks, but the Germans thought of this sucky aircraft first and never
built one."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.