The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2002, 10:19 PM   #1
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
If it can't have door gunners, why does the USMC want it?

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22alive.htm
Great article on the V-22.

The Osprey is one of my favorite aircraft designs ever... but I still admit that the thing is a huge failure. It's the new Sgt York. A good idea that just flat out didn't work. Looking at the Osprey and thinking realistically what could be done to fix it, I can think of only one thing. Ducted Fans. This could solve the stability problems that it is having due to the large slow moving (relatively) props. Using a ducted fan your protecting the blades from turbulent vortices, and better directing the thrust making it more efficient. Greater potential power too. Of course with a ducted fan set up, those fans don't need to be nearly so large. Read the editorial there and you will be as angry as I am. No door gunners? No aggressive maneuvering? The only use I can see for the Osprey is for the Navy and dipping sonar. That's it. That and for transporting democrats.

And since it can't have door gunners... Why do the Marines want it? It's HORRIBLE for everything they would want it for! Get in fast, sure, but you have to descend so slowly that it's counter productive. You can't move "aggresively" so that limits it out of every combat function I can think of.

Most Useless Aircraft Ever. And It failed, which is okay, but started production anyway? With almost 50 in storage now!

The chin gun problem... It can't fire near the ground. Also, the co-pilot is likely to busy keeping the thing from flipping over and helping seen through the brownout! AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 12, 2002, 10:34 PM   #2
gburner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Location: at the intersection of naivete and cynicism
Posts: 1,365
Biggest POS in a long time. It doesn't serve the Marine mission,
it cannot defend itself and ANY hostile fire will bring it down like the Hindenburg. I'd almost rather go into battle in a Bradley....at least then you could hoof it if the
vehicle was disabled. This thing is gonna kill a lot of Marines while it puts money in some contractors pocket....and that sucks!
gburner is offline  
Old May 12, 2002, 10:46 PM   #3
C.R.Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Location: Dewey, AZ
Posts: 12,858
Interesting article. For many years that thing has sucked at the taxpayers pockets to line the pockets of those with vested interests.
Couple points about VTOL.
Helicopter has lowest blade loading and downwash velocity.
Tiltroter has higher blade loading and downwash velocity.
Ducted fan has even higher of both.
Pure jet has the highest.

When used as a STOL Osprey can maintain forward/vertical airspeed relationship that will insure clean air to the blades.

When used as VTOL, the rate of descent becomes critical, above a certain rate the blades will stall. Same for helicopters but easier to avoid with helicopter.

Helicopters can and do run into problems with downwash blowing debris and reducing visibility and harming engines.
Osprey with it's hybrid propellers is worse.
Ducted fan would be worse yet.
Jet, such as the Harrier is terrible on unprepared surfaces when used as VTOL

I think this is a terrible idea that has been perpetuated in the interests of ill gotten gains for some.

Sam
C.R.Sam is offline  
Old May 12, 2002, 11:01 PM   #4
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
Well, the ducted fans are an improvement for the blade stall issue... and with thrust vectoring vanes at the aft end of the ducts, you could be aggressive and actually fight the aircraft.

Not a perfect solution.

Why can't the US just built Mi-24s? It's Fast. Powerful. Can do everything the US military needs a rotor-bird for - and more.

The most retarded thing about the V-22 - is the proposed escort aircraft for it! Not an armed gunship version... an AV-22... no... not an Apache... a whole new aircraft with fictional technology. Oh, and its UNMANNED. WHAT!!??!
http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=570
KILL THIS PROJECT!
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 12, 2002, 11:39 PM   #5
C.R.Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Location: Dewey, AZ
Posts: 12,858
George, you are rough on our all wise and benevelant leaders.

I have flown a few birds that tended to self destruct without outside help.

At the rate this trend is going, my grandkids will have even worse equipment to work with.

Sick

Sam
C.R.Sam is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 05:22 AM   #6
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
For those who think it doesn't fit into to the Marines concept of warfighting, obviously don't know about OMFTS and STOM, which is the emerging Marine Doctrine for warfighting. It is built around the Osprey and AAAV.
STLRN is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 09:32 AM   #7
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
Quote:
why does the USMC want it?
STLRN is absolutely correct. It fits the plan. However, the CH46E is more than capable of filling the medium lift role now that the dynamic component upgrades have been completed. The problem is that the new warfighting doctrine calls for more speed and range. I'm all for that, but the core mission hasn't changed enough to warrant exclusive focus on those two elements. The Osprey has a place, but it's beside the 46, not in place of it. The 46 has been given a bad rap solely to assist in the promotion of the Osprey. The Marine Corps is heading in the right direction now though. The Osprey will initially be used to supplement the MEU ACE, rather than to totally replace the 46. Unfortunately, ditching the 46 is still in the plan. Personally, I feel that the Osprey should be assigned to the HMH squadrons, the core HMM squadrons should be reduced to 8 46s (from 12), and the HMH should send over 4 53s and 4 Ospreys when the time comes to attach to the MEU. This will maintain the core medium lift capability for short range operations (the vast majority are) and provide the capability to insert a company sized element deep inland. The 53 has enough range and speed to bring in follow on elements in a big hurry. The 46s, accompanied by a 53 with the "flying FARP" (big fuel tanks in cabin) setup, can land part way into the flight to gas up from the back of the 53 while turning, and proceed to the objective. The 53 has some reliability problems (but oh man can they haul the mail!!!) and the Osprey has several safety issues. The old 46 might not take you there very fast, but ask anyone who's worked in Marine Aviation, and they'll tell you...it will get you there. They are rock solid.

I've worked on all three and flown as a crewman on the 46 and 53. If I had to rank them in order of trusting my life to them, it would be 46 first, 53 second, and V22 never. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 11:53 AM   #8
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
fix or someone, can you translate a bit of the jargon in that previous post? I caught most if it, but I think I lost some of your important points. MEU? HMH squads?
Dave R is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 12:06 PM   #9
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
OMFTS and STOM?
Gimme a break... Even a Seahawk would be better. The Osprey is useless if it can't fight. A Seahawk allows for guns, can fight, is a proven platform, and has greater range and lift.
Now, if you just want a COD aircraft, maybe an Osprey would be alright for that... But you can't really call it an "Osprey" can you?
Maybe Pelican or Puffin or some other goofy aquatic bird that is about as threatening as a badly made cheese sandwich.
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 12:24 PM   #10
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
Sorry...

MEU - Marine Expeditionary Unit
ACE - Air Combat Element (part of a MEU)
HMH - Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (CH53 Squadron)
HMM - Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (CH46 Squadron, Core element of the ACE)
FARP - Forward Area Refueling Point

George, The Seahawk doesn't have greater range and lift than the Pelican, but it can actually do what it's spec sheets say it can.

Of course, the 53 has greater lift than anything, and with in flight refueling, it has a pretty good combat radius...not to mention that they are VERY fast. Don't believe everything you read. The CH53E can exceed 180 knots. They regularly have to slow down so the Cobra escorts can keep up. Cobras are pretty fast, until you arm them...which is...uhh...important. So, were right back to the same problem...the transports are faster than the escorts, which makes going unarmed unwise.
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 01:29 PM   #11
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
Fix, I agree about the 53. Those are TOUGH helicopters. Very BA.
Ify they are outrunning the escorts - Why not outfit a 53 as a gunship to hold off the badguys until the Snakes arrive?
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 01:43 PM   #12
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
By your very responses and reaction, you apparently don't understand the Marine Corps view of future war fighting and in effect our doctrine that is replacing the current.


OMFTS, is operational maneuver from the sea. It uses the sea itself as maneuver space. By using faster lift, we can threaten more of an area and project deeper inland, the current platforms only give us a slight OTH capability, the Osprey gives us the ability to operate deep into foreign territory while still remaining far at sea.


STOM is ship to objective maneuver, as opposed the current amphibious concept of seizing and broadening of a beach head.
STLRN is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:01 PM   #13
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
No, I do understand it... I just have not articulated my responses using acronyms and jargon.

"OMFTS, is operational maneuver from the sea. It uses the sea itself as maneuver space. By using faster lift, we can threaten more of an area and project deeper inland, the current platforms only give us a slight OTH capability, the Osprey gives us the ability to operate deep into foreign territory while still remaining far at sea."
Sure, I buy the CONCEPT. But I don't buy the Osprey as meeting that goal. Without the ability to move quickly in different directions and without true all weather capability, how the heck do you see this as operating from a ship at sea? Right now, there are a few out there on ships - granted. But they are only allowed to fly when the weather is PERFECT and the sea is CALM. How can you land on a ship when the deck is pitching and rolling and you have some good winds to deal with. You need a bird that can jink and jive. The Osprey can't dance like that.
Or maybe MARINE FUTURE WAR factors in WEATHER CONTROL?

"STOM is ship to objective maneuver, as opposed the current amphibious concept of seizing and broadening of a beach head."
Sounds like your selling the concept of a fighting aircraft. Your talking about penetrating enemy space hitting the Objective and then controlling that area. With an OSPREY? NO WAY. Again, you need a craft that can FIGHT.

We will ALWAYS need the ability to grab a hunk of beach. That mission will be a part of the Marine Corps mission packet wether you like it or not. You guys are not Army Airborne/Air Assault. You guys work from the sea. That means eating sand once in awhile. Sure, you can do similar mission profiles as Airborne, and thats fine... I get that. But that can't be your main focus. Take the Beach, make a place where the Navy can off load the heavy hardware.

Look, I have a lot of respect for the Marines, I really do...
But I think the Marines have some Rectal-Cranial-Infusion issues when it comes to the V-22.
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:10 PM   #14
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
Quote:
Why not outfit a 53 as a gunship to hold off the badguys until the Snakes arrive?
They are armed with 2 M2 .50 Caliber guns, but as powerful as the ma deuce is, it can't take the place of an armed Cobra. There was some testing done with MK19 Grenade lauchers mounted in the 53s and 46s a few years back. They just don't have enough range. A helicopter is a sitting duck at anything under 1000 yards unless it's pouring lead out the windows. The M2 can reach out there effectively. The MK19 can go out to 1000 and beyond easily, but it just isn't as effective from a rapidly moving platform. Firing accurately from a moving helicopter isn't as easy as it seems.

STLRN,

I understand very well. I just don't buy into the theory that the V22 is the key to the strategy. The CH53E is here...now...today. It can go just as far, carrying more weight, than the V22. It's just not as fast. It just needs to re-fuel in flight. Since 2 KC130s are attached to the ACE anyway, that capability is but a phone call away. I agree that we need to be prepared for all contingencies, but at some point, we have to acknowledge that the Corps can't be everything to everyone. I don't care for the Pentagon turf wars. The Army has a role. The USMC has a role. In some areas, they overlap. Can the USMC do long range inland raids? Yes. Should it be one of the focal points in warfighting doctrine? No. We have the Army for a reason.
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:13 PM   #15
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
No no no... not with a pair of 50's.
I'm talking about breeding the 53 with a HIND.
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:18 PM   #16
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
What we really need is Airwolf!
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:24 PM   #17
C.R.Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Location: Dewey, AZ
Posts: 12,858
Quote:
Firing accurately from a moving helicopter isn't as easy as it seems.
In the running for understatement of the year.

Sam
C.R.Sam is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 02:49 PM   #18
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
Actually weather does control a lot of things if you are operating from the sea or the air for that matter. Remember all the discussion on when D day was going to go? Remember what it was centered on, sea conditions and ambient light. Sea state will shut down not only air ops, but putting the anything into the water be it rigid raiders or AAVs they cannot go in much rougher weather than air ops.

The seizures of beaches is no longer the Corps preferred method of operations, most operations that MEUs have conducted in the last several years didn't involved amphibious ops in any way. The only thing we look toward the sea anymore is for sustainment and transport, we are not really into amphibious assaults. The entire doctrine of OMFTS was designed with the capability of the MV 22 as the corner stone, now right or wrong the Marine Corps has wed itself to the doctrine and the doctrine is based off of the aircraft and the AAAV.
STLRN is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 03:11 PM   #19
justice4all
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2000
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 327
Stlrn,

Devil Dog whether you like it or not, whether you think so or not, the Corps always has been and always will be "into" seizing and defending advance naval bases. As has been mentioned above, in a large scale war, you have to be able to unload supplies from ships. If you're already on good terms with the rulers of nearby territory, you can use that option. If you're not, you send in the Marines to take a port or beach. Without this mission and specialization therefore, it would be very hard to justify even having a Marine Corps. When the Marine Corps is no longer about seizing beachheads, it will no longer be.
justice4all is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 03:30 PM   #20
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
In April of 1998 the 26th MEU (SOC) conducted an excercise at Ploce, Croatia involving an amphibious landing via LCAC/LCU, and a simulated Air Assault at Mostar, Bosnia. This excersise culminated in Excersise Dynamic Response/Dynamic Strike at the Glamac range in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. The overwhelming majority of the force was transported via the amphibious landing and resulting convoy. A small number of Marines from the GCE flew into Mostar with the ACE. This was a capabilities demonstration. We were showing off our amphibious capability. The commanders in attendance were impressed. They did not come to see the air assault. The current leadership of the Corps may not be "into" amphibious operations. However, that is the mission of the Marine Corps as outlined by the civilian authorities who run this country. The current leadership of the Marine Corps would better serve all Marines (past and present) by embracing our amphibious heritage and proving that it is still relevant in today's world. This turf war with the Army does nothing but make the Corps look redundant. The Corps should focus on amphibious assault first, long range air assault second, and special operations third.
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 03:42 PM   #21
Shin-Tao
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2000
Posts: 1,528
"Over the horizon landings" is a flawed, bass-ackwards theory.
Any enemy system along the landing zone that can engage the ships can likewise be destroyed by the ships. Prepatory air strikes and bombardment can also blunt the enemies' blade a great deal. The number one goal of a landing should not be to protect the pretty navy boats but to deliver the Marines quickly and safely. The ships should support the landing, not hide behind the curvature of the Earth.
If the ships are unable to properly defend themselves or provide fire-support, they need to be refitted and rearmed. Removing them from the area is simplistic and assinine.

Equally questionable is the comically expensive and complex super-amtrack that is being developed. A flawed answer to a flawed question. Ditto the V-22.
Shin-Tao is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 03:47 PM   #22
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
 
Join Date: October 14, 1998
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,546
Come on now guys... we just don't really understand the Marine Corps view of future war fighting.
(insert the Army's march cadence here: You wanna be, but can't be, 11-B, Like Me! )

But this thread isn't about the Marines, but the V-22. With everything described - the MV-22 doesnt fit the Marine Corps view of future war fighting.

So WHY DO THEY STILL WANT IT?

Who cares if we spent a lot of money on it... Why are we STILL spending a lot of money on it? Excuse me for questioning the Marines on this... but the whole mess is retarded. Do they think the V-22 will get better? It WONT! We are BUILDING V-22 and putting them straight into mothballs so that they can be UPGRADED to some package that hasn't even been invented yet and most likely wont be until well after 2008 - IF EVER.

What the Marine (and ARMY) really need are a bunch of Mi-24s... The most PERFECT military helicopter EVER.
__________________
MAD OGRE
George Hill is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 04:07 PM   #23
fix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2001
Posts: 919
The Hind only hauls 8 troops. That's a space limitation that can't be overcome with more horsepower. It's maneuverability is not as good as it's "legendary" reputation would lead you to believe. It is more vulnerable to ground fire than almost everything flying because of a lack of low speed maneuverability. The rotor wing world doesn't quantify speed in the same way as the fixed wing world. From a survivability standpoint, it matters little how fast you can get to and from the zone. What really matters is how fast you can get into and out of the zone. This is where the CH46E (with all its supposed flaws) truly shines. They can get on the ground very quickly and take off quickly. The tandem rotor design aids the process, the rest is a result of 30+ years to develop sound tactics. There's nothing in the world that can match the feeling of approaching a zone at 100 knots at treetop level, dipping below treetop level immediately after clearing the aft rotors, and flaring as the pilot pulls the collective into his armpit and the cyclic stick into his chest, feeling that thump as the mainmounts touch, watching a squad of hard charging killers debark, and...seemingly half a second later, you're back at treetop level on your way out. This is where a troop carrier is most vulnerable. In a 46, it's a 30 second process (1 min at the most). In a V22, well...it might as well be an eternity.
fix is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 04:57 PM   #24
Blackhawk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2001
Posts: 5,040
Outstanding V-22 thread!

Thanks, George. This turkey has needed plucking for far too long!
Blackhawk is offline  
Old May 13, 2002, 05:23 PM   #25
Kaboom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2000
Location: North Mo.
Posts: 640
Whose congressional district is the osprey manufactured in? Who are the Senators? Start looking here. Appairantly they forgot about the KISS principle when in comes to warfare. Loading up several troops and killing them before they get to the battlefield won't accomplish much. The V-22 may be a workable design but there are several problems to work out before depending on them. If they are such a hot ticket let the aviation industry foot the bill. This will tell if it is a viable program or a money sucking pork barrel deal. 46's 53's and others have worked well for a very long time. Gee whiz doesn't always get the job done.
Kaboom is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08038 seconds with 7 queries