Article

2007-10-15 Science & Technology

Osprey First Combat Deployment - 5 Cool Pics

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-15 01:13|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 GolfBravoUSMC, they look both kool and deadly wicked.. here's hoping our enemies feel the PAIN!

fingers crossed,

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-10-15 01:47|| 2007-10-15 01:47|| Front Page Top

#2 How many troops can they drop off in a combat zone?

Posted by gorb 2007-10-15 01:54|| 2007-10-15 01:54|| Front Page Top

#3 RD-the book says 24 seated and 31 on the floor. Real advantage is speed and range. When I left the Corps in 97 they said the last Frog (Ch-46) pilot had not been born. He (or she!) might be in flight school now.

Posted by Bangkok Billy 2007-10-15 03:36|| 2007-10-15 03:36|| Front Page Top

#4 It's hard to appreciate the power in one of those things, they look so weird. One flew over my house a couple of weeks ago heading for Ohio and and nearly rattled the nails out of the wood.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-10-15 06:55|| 2007-10-15 06:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Newsweak had an article on these about how they had been troublesome and killed people then headed to Iraq. Not one mention of the complete redesign and the expanded capabilities it gives the Marines. Just doom and gloom.
Ya know, the helicopter also had a lot of crashes and deaths (still do) but look at everything it does to help not only the military, but humanity.
Bunch of damn anti-military, liberal asshats that bunch is.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-10-15 07:14|| 2007-10-15 07:14|| Front Page Top

#6 check out the stains on the aircraft deck

Posted by Unenter Claviling5807 2007-10-15 10:07|| 2007-10-15 10:07|| Front Page Top

#7 I had thought that the improvements in Helicopters over the years that the Osprey had teething problems pretty much ended the actual need for the things. Guess I was wrong, or political procurement is stronger than need.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-10-15 12:49|| 2007-10-15 12:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Funny thing about the Osprey, I had a GI Joe jet back in the 80s that was similar to a smaller version of the Osprey. Jets instead of props and it seated one but basically it was the same thing.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-10-15 12:51|| 2007-10-15 12:51|| Front Page Top

#9 RJS. These tactical requirements have only become MORE important. Range, speed and load carrying capability are ever more important and helo's don't have either the range or speed. I expect that there will be shakedown problems but I suspect they will be worked out if the politicians (both military & congressional) don't kill the program after the first crash.

Of course the politico's will whine about all the casualties (if fully loaded) but they won't say anything when the first fully loaded A380 crashes with the equivelence of a small mid-western town on board. High capacity equals high casualties when an aircraft goes down but you do your risk calculations and go for it.

Posted by Throger Thains8048 2007-10-15 13:36|| 2007-10-15 13:36|| Front Page Top

#10 They are going to need bigger platforms (helo carriers) for the V-22 if it is truly going to be effective. Also, got to do something about range or deploy refueling units with the bird. Also, need to provide some ground support and self-defense ordinance. Just my two cents. But hey, for a jarhead its like upgrading to a Caddy.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2007-10-15 13:52|| 2007-10-15 13:52|| Front Page Top

#11 What is really sad is the US and Britian could of had the same basic capability 40 Years ago. In the late '50s early '60s the British company Fairey was developing an aircraft caled the Rotodyne. With both an eye towards the civil market and the military it was touted as a short haul city center to city center aircraft. Vertical or short rolling take-off. Vertical landing capability plus a lot more engine out capability than the V-22 IMO. Granted the perfomance is a little lower than the V-22 but then 40 years or so seperate them. Plus the article was in Time

Posted by Cheaderhead 2007-10-15 13:53|| 2007-10-15 13:53|| Front Page Top

#12 Cheaderhead,

If 2007 technology and materials were used to manufacture a "NEW" Fairey Rotodyne prototype it would be even more capable than the original.

/thanks for reminding us about this combo aircraft, an old bird before its time..

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-10-15 14:34|| 2007-10-15 14:34|| Front Page Top

#13 Plus today instead of the cluth driven compressors used to provide air to the tip jets air could be bled dierectly from a turbo fan that then supplys the trust for forward flight. A bonus is no props to bend if you can't get the gear down. What happens to a V-22 if the engines can't be rotated back to vertical for landing

Posted by Cheaderhead 2007-10-15 15:33|| 2007-10-15 15:33|| Front Page Top

#14 What happens to a V-22 if the engines can't be rotated back to vertical for landing

Pray you find a mountain of pillows before you run out of gas?

How do the engines get their power to the turbofans reliably through a connection that swivels up to 90 degrees? Seems like both the mechanics and the hydraulics would be very susceptible to damage, possibly even by a fortunate bullet from an AK-47.

Posted by gorb 2007-10-15 16:07|| 2007-10-15 16:07|| Front Page Top

#15 "What happens to a V-22 if the engines can't be rotated back to vertical for landing?"

"How do the engines get their power to the turbofans reliably through a connection that swivels up to 90 degrees?"

To answer the last first, the props and the engines are a unit and swivel through a common joint. there is a cross wing connection that allows one engine to drive both props in the event one engine dies.
The answer for the other, is that you can bet that it was analyzed and a statistical answer would show that the gear-up, no vertical transistion of the blades would only happen once every ( fill in some obscenely huge number here) flight hours.
I asked a similiar question during the development of the Navy A-12 bomber: what would happen if the weapons bay doors didn't close and one of the main landing gear tires blew on landing? answer: analyzed at a once in 5 million flight hour occurrence, but it would cause the aircraft to be written off. funny thing about stats: they don't alsways happen in an orderly fashion......
back to the Osprey: i would expect the blades to shred the fuselage and pray that there was enough time for the cockpit crew to get the PAX moved out of the line of fire when the pieces come flying through......

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-10-15 16:59|| 2007-10-15 16:59|| Front Page Top

#16 Every time we develope spmething radically different their is pain during initial delivery. Remember the B-29 and all the engine fires. But instead of just trying to make the B-17 better we departed on a new path and it finally proved to be the right course.

Remember when the early jets were prone to Flameouts and took the areodynamic characteriscis of a flling brick. We couldn't go on trying to improve the piston powered plane, we had to move forward even if it was painfull.

In recent years remember all the problems with the Apache in Kosovo. Would we like to do without it now.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-15 17:04|| 2007-10-15 17:04|| Front Page Top

#17 A few notes: CH-47F new build $30M, V-22 $110M (est for 450 frames). V-22 is useless in urban or forested ops since troops cannot fast rope due to prop wash. Unarmed. Operations were limited (may still be) to hard surfaces (i.e. no combat sorties) due to prop wash kicking up rocks and trees that get sucked into the turbines. Limited to cargo hauling base 2 base. Get a CH-47 for 1/3rd the cost and get 50% more payload. Not ready for combat and never will be.

Posted by ed 2007-10-15 18:21|| 2007-10-15 18:21|| Front Page Top

#18 Ed: Flew plenty in CH-47s in Nam. Rotor wash up to 100mph. Powered by Turbines subject to FOD strikes.

Osprey has winch cable, can they use it?. Special Ops to get Ospreys, Only hard surface special ops?

Payload (24 troops is issue) but I can assure the CH-47 can't carry 14 tons very far.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-15 19:01|| 2007-10-15 19:01|| Front Page Top

#19 CH-47 rotor wash is small compared to the V-22. Much smaller rotor area providing more thrust (2270 sq. ft vs CH-47's 5650 sq ft). The V-22 kicks up much larger debris. Helicopter turbines can and do have filters on the inlets. The V-22 cannot both for space and air volume requirements. Take a look at the inlet. It's not just large debris, but dirt and sand impinging on the turbines blades will wear them down very quickly.

Sure you can land on soft surfaces. Once. I may exaggerate, but ingest something large into those unprotected inlets and watch the turbines shred. No one would think of running a fighter on dirt and gravel. Same principle.

I know almost nothing about the winch, other than it has one, or how stable it is in the V-22's high speed prop wash. While it may work to rescue a pilot, it not any answer to deploying troops in combat.

The listed range of the CH-47D/F is greater than the V-22. The V-22 is 50% faster.

Posted by ed 2007-10-15 19:42|| 2007-10-15 19:42|| Front Page Top

#20 Thanks Ed. Actually the Marines are repalcing the CH-46. Not nearly the horse the 47 has been.

Acually has less payload. They I'm sure will keep the 53s for some time.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2007-10-15 19:48|| 2007-10-15 19:48|| Front Page Top

#21 CH-53 is a great aircraft and getting better.

Posted by ed 2007-10-15 19:58|| 2007-10-15 19:58|| Front Page Top

23:46 gorb
23:36 Mike N.
23:35 gorb
23:30 Mike N.
23:22 Zenster
23:17 Zenster
23:15 Eric Jablow
23:06 Zenster
23:05 Mike N.
23:00 Zenster
22:45 Zenster
22:14 trailing wife
22:10 eLarson
22:09 Zenster
22:07 trailing wife
22:07 DMFD
22:05 Zenster
22:03 Leonard Plynth Garnell
22:00 trailing wife
21:59 DMFD
21:57 Zenster
21:44 N guard
21:39 49 Pan
21:39 Beau