V-22 (Ospreys) headed to Iraq

[Wxman]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/v-22-osprey-03.jpg

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1817718/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1817718/posts)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Let's see if the pilots make up for the aircraft, then...

[The Avon Lady]

Aren't these designed to shatter to pieces over the heads of enemy forces? :hmm:

[Ishmael]

Aren't these designed to shatter to pieces over the heads of enemy forces? :hmm:

You are correct, my good woman. It's a capability that was inherent when the design was first introduced in the late 1970's and 30 years of throwing money at the problem has only enhanced it. All that & it's less maneuverable than a helo so it'll be a slower, easier target for insurgent fire. I pray for every poor slob who has to ride in one of those flying merde boxes.

[NefariousKoel]

We should build more of these so as to crash into the enemy with.:rock:

[bookworm_020]

Isn't the first field mod a Bullseye on the side of the aircraft??? I bet there will plenty of grunts that will prefer to walk!:dead:

[bradclark1]

Supposedly it's problems are fixed. I just hope it has enough redundant computerized flight systems onboard.

[The Avon Lady]

I just hope it has enough redundant computerized flight systems onboard.
No problemo!

Got 3 to 5 minutes?

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5439/image35yn1.gif

[Rilder]

Well if there running windows I'm betting 20 bucks that there all gonna get BSOD's :p

[SUBMAN1]

All of its problems are fixed, but sadly at the cost a quite a few lives. Even though it makes a poor helo, and it makes a poor airplane, its combination of these two things really makes it invaluable on the battlefield. I can see why commanders want it in action, it gives the enemy little time to react when troops are on station now versus 20 mintues from now. It is a strategic asset for what it can do.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Heh heh! Long live the USAF-SOC! (and the Navy and marines, too) :cool:

[XabbaRus]

At 230 knots it's slower than a chopper? Hmmm funny that.

I think not its problems have been ironed out I think it might do a good job.

[SUBMAN1]

At 230 knots it's slower than a chopper? Hmmm funny that.

I think not its problems have been ironed out I think it might do a good job.
It is not slower than a chopper, or faster than an airplane. It is the perfect balance with what can be acvieved in modern flight to have capabilities from both. By the way, it can do 277 knots if need be - 2x faster than a black hawk.

-S

[bradclark1]

I think not its problems have been ironed out I think it might do a good job.I think it's an awesome addition if it doesn't fall out of the sky.

[moose1am]

That's still slower than a heat seaking missile. And it's still not as fast as a speeding bullet.

I am going to watch and see how this bird is used and how it works in combat.

It does make a big target and it's not so fast enough to outrun missiles and 20mm shells.

Still it's faster than a helicopter and it holds more men and goes much longer distances.

It's vulnerable when landing and taking off and that's it's main defect.

I predict more V22 losses over time due to malfunctions and combat damage. But war is hell. The trick is the make it more hellish on the enemy than your own forces.


At 230 knots it's slower than a chopper? Hmmm funny that.

I think not its problems have been ironed out I think it might do a good job.
It is not slower than a chopper, or faster than an airplane. It is the perfect balance with what can be acvieved in modern flight to have capabilities from both. By the way, it can do 277 knots if need be - 2x faster than a black hawk.

-S

[TteFAboB]

There's a really good side to this if things work out alright. Civvie use! It's a little more expensive than both a Cessna and a Robinson combined, but we can try cheapening it.

Let's see...

Do we need landing gears? Three of them?! Redundant. Loose 2. Keep one non-retractable landing skid.

Next, the engines. The small Cessnas have only one engine. The Robinson has only one engine. Who needs two engines?! Who the hell put two engines on this thing?! Were they trying to make it more difficult for us to afford it?! What were they thinking?! Our version will have only one engine and the luxury version will have a prop with 3 blades because it's too difficult to make 2 symmetrical ones in photoshop.

Talk about redundancy. If we only have one engine now, we don't need two rudders. Out with one of them, and since our new center of gravity doesn't leave much airflow to it we can cut it in half aswell.

We can't afford Windows and we can't bother to learn how to use Linux so no computers for us.

The Refueling boom is irrelevant. There are no civvie tankers flying up there. It will be replaced by a machine-gun because that we can afford. The luxury model will have the A-10 cannon in its place.

Space. It's great to be able to carry marines all around. But we must cut the cost of the monster. There's too much metal on this thing. So let's leave only the minimum amount of space necessary. That leaves the cockpit and the hump behind it with enough space to hold the A-10 cannon on the luxury version.

Ladies and Gentleman, behold the Pandion haliaetus luxury, also known as the civilian version of the Osprey, better and cheaper than Bell's own model, even after all the law suits:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1103/newospreydn5.jpg

Nope, we can't load that cannon with ammo. But this bird now looks alot meaner than your puny Cessnas. It will eat them for breakfast.

[geetrue]

I wish I was a Marine General ... then I could tell them to test it as an unmaned radio controled aircraft over Bagdad first ... if it survives, great.

Fill her up and take off, but if it doesn't survive ... why waste another precious soul.

I think the V-22 was designed for carrier duty to ferry the Marines ashore in a hurry for a fire fight and to pick them up for the same reason.

Lord be with them ...

[ASWnut101]

There's a really good side to this if things work out alright. Civvie use! It's a little more expensive than both a Cessna and a Robinson combined, but we can try cheapening it.

Let's see...

Do we need landing gears? Three of them?! Redundant. Loose 2. Keep one non-retractable landing skid.

Next, the engines. The small Cessnas have only one engine. The Robinson has only one engine. Who needs two engines?! Who the hell put two engines on this thing?! Were they trying to make it more difficult for us to afford it?! What were they thinking?! Our version will have only one engine and the luxury version will have a prop with 3 blades because it's too difficult to make 2 symmetrical ones in photoshop.

Talk about redundancy. If we only have one engine now, we don't need two rudders. Out with one of them, and since our new center of gravity doesn't leave much airflow to it we can cut it in half aswell.

We can't afford Windows and we can't bother to learn how to use Linux so no computers for us.

The Refueling boom is irrelevant. There are no civvie tankers flying up there. It will be replaced by a machine-gun because that we can afford. The luxury model will have the A-10 cannon in its place.

Space. It's great to be able to carry marines all around. But we must cut the cost of the monster. There's too much metal on this thing. So let's leave only the minimum amount of space necessary. That leaves the cockpit and the hump behind it with enough space to hold the A-10 cannon on the luxury version.

Ladies and Gentleman, behold the Pandion haliaetus luxury, also known as the civilian version of the Osprey, better and cheaper than Bell's own model, even after all the law suits:

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1103/newospreydn5.jpg

Nope, we can't load that cannon with ammo. But this bird now looks alot meaner than your puny Cessnas. It will eat them for breakfast.

You expect that thing to fly? Good luck getting it off the ground without a tail jet/rotor. :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

That's still slower than a heat seaking missile. And it's still not as fast as a speeding bullet.

I am going to watch and see how this bird is used and how it works in combat.

It does make a big target and it's not so fast enough to outrun missiles and 20mm shells.

Still it's faster than a helicopter and it holds more men and goes much longer distances.

It's vulnerable when landing and taking off and that's it's main defect.

I predict more V22 losses over time due to malfunctions and combat damage. But war is hell. The trick is the make it more hellish on the enemy than your own forces.

It is about as vulnerable as a Helo. It can hide like a Helo. Its main strength is the ability to appear quickly, drop its payload and get the heck out of dodge much faster than any helo. SOme of its system designs take enemy fire into account incase you care. An example is its propellers are not only damage resistant, but crosslinked. So if you lose an engine, the other engine can power both rotors/blades. It is almost a modern day transformer which is kind of neat.

By the way, nothing is faster than missiles, not even an F-22!

[ASWnut101]

It's a wonderful achievment. Now, our LSD/LHD's no longer have to park themselves so close to the shore for air-amphibious operations, while the airplane still maintains that oh-so-critical hover capeability.


You also keep forgetting: It's not just for the Navy and Marines. The USAF Special Operations Command plans on using them too, and to good effect.

:smug:

[TteFAboB]

This thing is alot bigger than it looks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O22uRsuPUS8