Comments on: Snake Eater Osprey in Flight

By: ert66

ert66 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:02:26 +0000

?
FX
FX
FX ?
FX ?
?
FX
FX ?
FX ?
FX ?
?
Abnaki Ski & Outing Club
The Ave Maria Foundation
?
FX
FX

By: Bobby

Bobby — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:14:00 +0000

No matter what else the V-22 can do, I think one of it’s most useful missions will probably be the medevac / troop transport missions. It can land without an airstrip and pick up wounded and get them to a field hospital in at least half the time that a traditional helicopter can get them there. It will save a lot of lives

By: Eva Maryam

Eva Maryam — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:05:44 +0000

I have searched for many weeks to find an article about this topic and I will continue to come back here for every articles. Thanks…
Eva Maryam

By: Christian Lowe

Christian Lowe — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:14:20 +0000

Roger that, Steven…I’ll reserve the “snake eater” term to Army SF from now on — though I DO understand none in the community particularly like it anyway…
Thanks…

By: Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:52:18 +0000

I was a crew chief on the H-46, the craft the V-22 replaces. On the ’46, the engines are internal and can actually be adjusted in flight. The ’22 has no such capability. The ’22 does not really need a crew chief especially as it is not armed. But two enlisted crew chiefs with the two commissioned pilots is standard, so they keep them as part of convention; technically the 46 or 53 do not need the crew either, but it helps immensely with operations.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:46:57 +0000

In the Marine edition, at least, I have to echo the “separate mission, separate capabilities” notion.
One of the big virtues of an Osprey over a comparable capacity helicopter is that it allows the ship from which it is being deployed to stay further out of harms way without jeapordizing the mission to land fairly far inland at a place with no airstrip.
Also, however vulnerable an Osprey may be to enemy fire, I have yet to see any convincing argument that a helicopter is less vulnerable. Its biggest advantage in this regard is that it spends less time during which it can be shot at between its point of departure and its destination. If you spend half an hour in transit, instead of an hour, that is probably safer.
Likewise, one of the big virtues of an Osprey over paratroop deployment is that the Osprey offers a two way trip, while parashoots generally only work in the down direction.

By: Mitch S.

Mitch S. — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:36:15 +0000

I’m confused.
The article states:
“There are very few planes with navigators anymore,” Lovell said. “With GPS and inertial navigation systems it simplifies the task …
Then Lovell goes on to say that in addition to the co-pilot helping with nav there is also a flight engineer helping with nav (in addition to a flight engineer helping the troops on board).
Does the CV22 always require a 4 (or 3) man crew?
I understand an extra crewman to help the troops on a mission but what modern aircraft requires more than a two man crew for transport jobs?

By: Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:28:10 +0000

The 60′ Long aircraft with 80′ wings that also happens to have a humungous heat signature? The aircraft with NO defensive armament? Who the F writes this sh*t?
Eh, chief, if you haven’t noticed, they do not do hot LZ landings much anymore. Not exactly Vietnam out there, tough guy.
That’s kind of the point with the V-22. It has a separate mission with separate capabilities. If they wanted it to be a faster Huey gunship, they would have–get this–bought Blackhawks or UH-1Ys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1Y_Venom
For some folks, if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Don’t give these guys torque wrenches. They’ll hammer it until it fits.

By: ExUrbanKevin

ExUrbanKevin — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:49:10 +0000

Mainstream media c. 1984…
“The Bradley looks like a tank and acts like a tank but it can’t protect our troops like a tank. It’s a death trap, and should never have been bought and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. It’s not a tank, it’s not meant to be a tank, and it turns out it’s pretty damn good, after all.
Mainstream media c. 1988
“The Apache is an overpriced piece of crap. It can’t fly in the rain or dust or anywhere, and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. Overpriced, maybe. But it’s a helluva tank killer and close air support aircraft.
Mainstream media c. 2003
“The Stryker is overpriced and underarmored and useless on today’s battlefield and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. Stryker units (with, admittedly, extra armor) are the “go-to” units in the toughest areas of Iraq.
And now this about the Osprey. See a pattern here?
Is it asking too much to have reporters covering the military to have 1/2 of a clue about what they’re talking about? You wouldn’t ask a sports reporter to cover a baseball game who doesn’t know about the DH rule or what’s a ground-rule double, would you? Can we at reporters covering this who know the military as well as the average sports reporter knows baseball ?
Please?

By: Wembley

Wembley — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:46:18 +0000

“out of the woods” ??
Out of the frying pan, more like…deploying the Osprey to somewhere that it’s going to be shot at will at least prove something. But I’m very sorry if it means that more lives are going to be lost as a result.
Wonder what they’ll replace it with?