If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
On Oct 12, 3:06 pm, Mike wrote:
V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...efender-s.html V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of Roger Williams, the executive director and site leader at Bell Helicopter Military Aircraft Assembly Center in Amarillo, Texashttp://www..amarillo.com/stories/100707/opi_8622521.shtml, wrote the following in the Amarillo Globe News on Mark Thompson's critical TIME magazine article on the V-22 Ospreyhttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html: The Time article contends the Pentagon eliminated the autorotation requirement for the V-22. The "autorotation requirement" has in fact never changed, as it was never a specific requirement. Why? Because the Osprey is not a helicopter. The Pentagon's list of requirements for "Survivability and Crashworthiness" from 1994 states: "Power-off glide/autorotation: The JMVX (1994-era designation for the V-22) must be capable of a survivable emergency landing." The current requirements document says the V-22 "must be capable of performing a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative (Threshold/Block A/10)." [emphasis added] What I don't get is Williams' claim that "autorotation" was never a specific requirement, yet then he quotes from the Defense Department's 1994 list of requirements for the V-22 which explicitly states "autorotation" as a means of achieving a survivable emergency landing when the V-22 is in helicopter mode (when in plane mode, it will need to be able to glide with the power off; note that it won't be able to switch between helicopter mode to plane mode if the power is down). CORRECTION: A reader writes that the V-22 can switch from helicopter to plane mode if the engines lose power: The reason is that as long as the rotors are turning (and they would keep turning), there is power to the hydraulic system -- and it is the hydraulic system that provides the power to convert. Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical generators still operate, providing electrical power to the flight control system for stability and control. -- Nick Schwellenbach October 10, 2007 in Defense | Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/22330512 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of: Comments I love this "Retired Naval Aviator" opinion like that's some holy grail of knowledge. News break for you, there are hundreds of Naval Aviators on both side of this debate. Most of the ones in favor are actually flying it now (their life at stake) or recently retired after years of working on it. Many of the those that don't like it are crusty old "Nam era guys that can't find their ass with both hands. The grey beards are so far removed from reality that they don't warrant being taken seriously. Thanks boys, if it was up to you, we'd buy some 1950 technology Phrog and it be just like the good old days right? You'd be eating AAA and MANPADS up the ass, as you putt-putted around at 100kts, but you could auto-rotate provided you didn't desynch and die instantly and burn up on the ground. Great. Thanks for the support. The fix-wing guys have gone through 4 generations of front line fighters but here you are supporting your rotary wing brethen's attempt to modernize with an endorsement for the same old piece of crap you flew in the 60s. Hay, thanks for weighing in. Better idea, shut up and stop doing damage to the Corps. Survivability is a complex subject. Often times you need to sub- optimize in some areas in order to take advantage of others. No A/C has been as thoroughly tested ballistically and done so well. The IR and noise signature is non-existant relative to the CH-46. Exposure time in the zone is also much less. Pay no attention to those that assert it to be a lumbering giant. It's VN diagram performance exceeds that of the UH-60. Of course, IT"S NOT A HELICOPTER !!! so stop constantly comparing it to one. For all things in life there is a bottom line and for THIS retired Naval Aviator, it's that I'd rather fly in harm's way today in a V-22 than in a CH-46 or any other helo. Can't give a stronger personal endorsement than where you'd risk your life. Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:39 PM Check your facts before mouthing off, wise guy. The V-22 is very capable of converting from airplane to helicopter mode and back, if needed, without engine power. The reason is that as long as the rotors are turning (and they would keep turning), there is power to the hydraulic system -- and it is the hydraulic system that provides the power to convert. Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical generators still operate, providing electrical power to the flight control system for stability and control. We should all be glad that we had real engineers and, not idiots with nothing to do but write blogs, designing the V-22. (Of course, you also probably don't have the guts to post this one.) Posted by: Jim | Oct 10, 2007 7:37:02 PM It's not even proven that the V-22 CAN'T autorotate - maybe it will be able too, but the power regulating systems do not allow a large build- up of Nr (rotor speed) above normal range to aid in the auto. The "blue ribbon panel" has already researched this. It would take A LOT of things to go wrong for the V-22 to find itself in a perdiciment where an auto would be necessary anyways. That's the beauty of triple- redundancy. Everyone stresses how important the auto is, because helo guys practice it routinely. I don't have any figures on it, but I feel that an auto is seldom used - nice to have - but practiced and not utilized. I'm sure that in the building of events that would neccessatate an auto would already have the pilots in airplane mode for gliding - if they weren't already. I would take my chances with a V-22 on glide than a CH-46 or CH-53 in an actual auto - anyday! http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...ssessment.html V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator UPDATE: A friend says that Les Horn is wrong when it comes to the cost benefit trade-off, in particular his comparison of the H-46 and the V-22: A, you can't buy H-46s anymore. B, it never carried 20-24 soldiers (I don't believe) or the weight of a V-22 and existing ones fly half-full about 100-plus miles, which is why Marines always compare V-22 to H-46. See the Fort Worth Star Telegram story "V:22 Ready for Combat," which I believe has comparisons with S-92 and EH101, better comparisons. It doesn't do any good to attack this thing with inacurrate data. The Star Telegram article does include the following comparison: When loaded with cargo or 24 troops, the V -22 has a documented round- trip range of about 460 miles. The Marines' CH-53 helicopters can fly about 552 miles carrying 35 to 45 troops. The newer US101 helicopter, which carries at least as many troops as the V -22 , can fly more than 690 miles. All three aircraft can be refueled in midair. Ok here's what was passed along earlier today... The following excellent, concise assessment of the MV-22 program was written by Les Horn, a retired Naval aviator, following a series of articles about the aircraft's deployment to Iraq. Autorotation. I talked with a number of helo drivers I know. All condemned the elimination of the V-22's autorotation capability. They see it as an unacceptable compromise of safety to meet cost & weight targets of an inherently flawed design. One helo driver -- disabled twice by enemy gunfire in 'Nam, is alive today (he sez) only because he was able to autorotate to a safe landing. Cost Benefit Trade-off. You can buy ten H-46s for the cost of one V-22, yet the H-46 can carry more than twice the personnel and has twice the cargo weight/cube capacity of the Osprey. Air Order of Battle. The V-22 has a Deck Multiple of 2.2, compared to 1.0 for the F/A-18A/B, 1.2 for the F-18E/F, and 2.0 for the H-46. Irrespective of the insurmountable cost "barrier," how many V-22's could actually be deployed on our-ever diminishing inventory of available deck space? Given the V-22's reduced carrying capacity, what does that portend for the Marine Corp's capability to project offensive force inland from offshore platforms? The obvious answer is that by embracing this platform, the Marines have abandoned the classical concept of "Vertical Envelopment," and the V-22 will be consigned to limited special forces-type insertions, or to low cost- benefit logistic support into low threat AORs. Face it --we will never be able to build & deploy enough of these platforms to make any real difference in a pitched battle against a determined and well equipped adversary. Survivability. Many unacceptable trade-offs & compromises: a. Armor: minimal to none. Weight limited. (Remember the 1000+ lbs of ceramic armor we packed into our A-7s?) b. Redundancy: Highly vaunted, but many necessarily non-redundant systems are on critical path; e.g., damage to cross shafting, with loss of engine, and no autorotate capability, would result of loss of aircraft. Further, many dual-path redundant systems converge (or are housed) in series in single non-redundant system components & black boxes as a weight-saving measure. c. Exposu A large, tender target during ground insertions, with excessive time on deck required to debark combat loads. For example, the light, thin-walled fuselage construction (another weight-saving measure), lacks sufficient strength for conventional tie-down hardpoints; consequently, twenty-four (24) tethers required to safely secure one lightweight specially designed wheeled vehicle. Over three to seven minutes have been required in OPEVAL demos to unhitch and clear all tethers -- forcing the aircraft to remain on deck in a highly vulnerable configuration, without sufficient self protection (as reported in the Time article) for a dangerously long time. Combat ... read more » All I can say is I wouldn't want to be inside that thing during a crash. Its crashworthiness sucks. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:41:33 -0000, Minnesota Fats
wrote: twenty-four (24) tethers required to safely secure one lightweight specially designed wheeled vehicle. Over three to seven minutes have been required in OPEVAL demos to unhitch and clear all tethers -- forcing the aircraft to remain on deck in a highly vulnerable configuration, without sufficient self protection (as reported in the Time article) for a dangerously long time. That long to take a knife to a couple dozen pieces of rope? Casady |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
"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.) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
The Horny Goat wrote:
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. The "if they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy" and "if they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well- disciplined hostiles" phrases go back at least as far as Viet Nam. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go back to when Oog organized the very first army. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V.V. Utgoff Naval Aviator | QDurham | Military Aviation | 1 | March 14th 11 01:49 AM |
Naval Aviator Slots- HELP!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 22 | April 23rd 07 05:15 AM |
Naval aviator & NFO attire while underway | Paul Michael Brown | Naval Aviation | 16 | July 16th 04 12:30 AM |