V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.

Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the terrorists
to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

The local warlord will be happy to tell you who his enemies are.

"What's the matter? Your air force bombs the Canadians all the time."

"Yes, but not for destroying poppy fields."

-HJC

William Black wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.
Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the terrorists
to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

Get the point aircraft to buzz them. If they shoot then they are hostile.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.
Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the
terrorists to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

Get the point aircraft to buzz them. If they shoot then they are hostile.

Andrew Swallow

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

:/

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

BB is a submariner.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:23:15 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

BB is a submariner.

Sorry - I thought it was clear I was responding to Dan.

Actually the blue on blue problem has been there for quite a long
time. One personal friend was a MP the Canadians on D-Day - his job
was to get troops off the beach and into the woods beyond (basically
what the US army called a beach master).

He said his unit headed for the nearest trench anytime they saw a
plane flying over BEFORE they checked national IDs. He claims to have
been strafed by both USAAF and RAF but never by the Luftwaffe. He said
strafing only, no bombs, and that of his men a couple were lightly
wounded but nothing worse.

No doubt someone can come up with similar stories concerning WW1.

On Oct 14, 12:58 am, The Horny Goat wrote:

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

Wow, what a bargain! Incorrect conclusion, prefaced by an assumption,
based on an incorrect statement. All in one paragraph! Thanks!

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...