In case you all haven’t seen it, we have a proof of life that the Osprey has indeed landed in Helmand (though I can’t tell if 10 have actually landed — or maybe it’s shot on the same set as the American moon landing was staged…?)
I did notice that the Remote Guardian system is not installed at least on the ones you can see in the footage. I can’t get the Marine Corps to cough up a straight answer on what the status is of that system they said would be capable for the Afghanistan deployment.
Best line: “It’s kind of like going from a VW bus to a Maserati…”
As someone who owned a Westy for a while, I can definitely relate.
I’m sure we’ll soon have more operational footage from the deployment, and when we come across it, it’ll be here.
– Christian
I’m not sure you can relate. Have you also had a Maserati?
Driven in one Jim…
Have you also had a Maserati? …
I think what christian means is that it’s must be much like a VW bus — just 6 times the price, half as reliable and you have to watch out for potholes because it will flip over and barrel roll into the ground if ti sees one.
Do you mean it does the job of a beetle vww for the price of a mazerati?
Best line: “It’s kind of like going from a VW bus to a Maserati…”
Can you put that in context? Is it better or worst to own a Maserati vs a VW?
No, no, no,…this was all photoshopped or made in a studio in LA!!!
If u knew anything about anything USMC you would know that the Marines, (unlike the Army), have an appreciation for keeping ANYTHING that may compromise the safety of its troops and the operations from the ever watchful eyes of the enemy.
So what if your article sucks? Think big picture stupid.
I’m actually surprised they spoke to you at all.
Umm, brain stem, the Osprey is IN Afghanistan? Do you think it will be more likely for the Taliban to discover their presence from the Internet that they don’t have access to, or by looking in the sky as it flies over?
Moron.
Obviously your brain stem is stuck.…of course they can look up and see the birds flying around the sand pit, that’s not the point. You are assuming they don’t have access to the internet and/or technology assets, when chances are their internet connection is faster than yours. As with most “opinion makers” in this country you assume you know the Taliban’s capabilities and they can and can’t do…you must work in Army intelligence. Back at you: moron.
Compromise safety of its troops? You mean like an EFV driving on land with 17 exposed Marines and crew in a lightly armored and IED-susceptible vehicle?
And a V-22 at 10,000′ in a radar air defense environment doesn’t work well, either. With vertical props at speed, it can’t fly under air defenses like a UH-60M (VW?) at 1/4th the price with similar high/hot payload.…and equal speed with an external load since suspect your MV-22 doesn’t fly too well with sling loads at 250 knots (Maserati in a 55mph zone).
Ok… what bastards sold the Talirats radar air defense systems?!?
This is all fine & dandy, Cole but, last i checked, there AREN’T any air defense systems in the Stan, except our own.
What is sad is that a lot of these Ospreys weren’t deployed earlier.
The Afghans, had they known that the Ospreys were there, would have surrendered immediately.
Now it is to late for us.
Even the almighty Osprey can not save us.
But it can still continue to crash, and kill the occupants.
The US Military in action, once again.
Total incompetence x 1 billion.
Zandor
You know what yall.…..i agree we should stop using the after the dozens dead in crashes this year its a crime we havent!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait.…no one has died in a osprey this year?…really?.….oh.…um.…Well we can certainly ban those stupid “helicopter things as dozens have died this year!!!!!!!.
Data can be made to look like anything you want it to be. Just depends on how you spin it.
Most military advancement would not have happened if we depended on the veiws of internet posters.
Part I :
Mr. Lowe,
You wrote: “…maybe it’s shot on the same set as the American moon landing was staged.”
Okay, today is the day: So, you’re finally asking for a public showdown with anyone over the alleged, crudely staged, hilarious U.S. American “Moon landings” ? (You NEED them to be an U.S. American, admit it)
Disclaim THIS … or shut up forever:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moo...
(Fortunately for you I have no access right now to my BEST , most irrefutable collection of links about this subject)
(Continued)
Whoa there little fella… FRIDAY night is tin-foil hat night at Defense-Tech. Friday.
Come back tomorrow and repost all the moon-landing stuff, ok?
holy shit i cant belive you wrote all that
Be careful! Rotor wash from the Osprey will blow off your tin foil hat!
Dear Mr. 1–11 posts:
I have an older brother that will inherit the family fortune down here in Arkansas, almost over 101 acres, and the chickens, and both cows, and “thud” our coon dog.
I hate him.
I don’t mean “thud”, I mean my brother.
What should I do?
Should I smooth my brother into the astrnout corps, wich only is 50% fatal, or just hit him on the head, realy, realy hard with a meat ax eight or nine times?
If he becomes an astro it could take years for him to be killed.
I could ax him any mornin of the day when he is sittin in the privi.
Please advise.
Zandor
Pisscough Ark.
That way he will look like he got hit by an astonought from space
Not just a Troll but a RETARDED Troll.
There is an analogy Christian will never use again.
I’m sure the Marine spokeswomen didn’t intend to say “rate of speed”. She probably was thinking rate of descent and then though better of it (1g all the way down), and changed it at the last moment to speed.
Christian is probably right there are probably more Ospreys deployed at movie sets around the world then in ‘combat’.
Meanwhile the Israelis have decided to pass on the turkey:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/12/3...
Taiwan-China…
Cards mislead a bluff with arts.
Bulls are scare as china goes.
China men will under arms.
China peoples fear their gods.
Leaders’ gods are lords to rule.
Gallows looking all are dull.
Peoples kick the skies to eat.
Hateful laws as there are hatch.
Fickle laws are china thick.
Eat the carrots there are sticks.
Candling heads have peoples’ rights.
Pitches in battles Taiwan fight.
Taiwan ranges are full of ranks.
Pleased our china those are tanks.
Missiles get the busses on ways.
Welcome Taiwan days are hays.
———-Cheung Shun Sang=Cauchy3———-
It is obvious that you want to go back to China.
So go there, and stop writing drivel shit.
There are planes leaving every day, and in a few short hours you can impress millions of Chinese with your drivel.
Then the Chinese, if they are smart, will have you on your way out to somewhere else.
Say that three times fast.
LOL WJS,
Um Zandor.….this is the internet.…he could be anywhere. And from what i understand of that…he doesnt really like china or at least its laws.
To all of you complaining about the Osprey. Look up the following numbers for yourselves. How many of our other birds have gone done while the Osprey has been deployed to Iraq, Mali, and now Afghanistan? Keep in mind, not one Osprey has gone down in any of these deployments.
Cole, It makes sense to compare them. Since all of the Armchair Generals that are here complaining about the Osprey in favor of more helicopters, just look at the accident reports. The Osprey did perform well in Iraq and Mali despite what the nay sayers are squawking about.
Christian, please ban “freefallingbomb”. His incoherent ramblings are ruining the comments section.
Tesla, I’ll keep FFB around for now…he’s been a good commentor in the past and this latest rant helps deflect the wolves from me!
My god your keeping him around to irritate us!!!!!!.….…..thats low christain…real low.
For the love of god atleast Zandor.….i feel my IQ dropping even before he begins to type. If aliens read his post we are doomed theyll get pissed throw a asteroid at us.
The ignorance on display here is astounding. If I were to address it all, I’d be here all day.
All military rotorcraft execute precautionary emergency landings from time to time. In the phrog, I remember at least two. In the TH-57, a Bell 206 derivative and the most prolific helo in the world, I’ve done at least six. The one that was mentioned for a V-22 in Jordan was not “toast.” They waited a short while for parts, got them, and proceeded to join the rest of the unit in Iraq.
The Marine Corps did not manage this program well initially. Since Marana, it has done a pretty good job of fielding the aircraft. I wish it hadn’t taken a mishap to straighten things out. If they had done the same job before that mishap they have since, no one here would have anything to bitch about.
It has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as feasible. Its rotations into the two major combat theaters are at a similar rate and proportion to the number of squadrons available as most other aircraft in the inventory. It’s successfully completed three Iraq tours, a MEU shipboard deployment, and is now in Afghanistan. Yet, doubters will continue to claim every test is not good enough. “It’s never been shot at,” they say. It’s not supposed to be. That’s why more speed and higher altitude are good things. It’s hard to hit something moving that fast and high with RPGs and small arms. Moreover, its ability to displace greatly enhances its survivability versus MANPADS.
As for the cost, I’m not a bookkeeper. I don’t know whether it’s capability merits its cost relative to other aircraft. But, I’d rather have a capability our enemies don’t. More importantly, having flown or flown on a variety of helos, I can’t think of any I’d rather fly into bad guy country than the V-22. Or, for that matter, any I’d be more comfortable flying into a brown-out landing.
We need these piece’s of crap just like we needed the F-22
The issue in Afghanistan if flight ceiling and bad weather. My impression is that the Osprey has an advantage in both compared to Rotary winged aircraft.
The problem will be when they are on the ground. Their base is bound to be a magnet for mortar and rocket fire. Any Taliban worth his salt would love a lucky hit on one of these gold plated aircraft.
don’t flatter yourself FFB…i haven’t touched your posts…except the one where you get all anti-semitic…
Ed, please don’t compare the mishap rate of literally thousands of helicopters flying many hundred of thousands of flight hours over this war, to the mishap of a few 10-ship MV-22 squadrons flying 65 hours a month.
Actually one MV-22 did make a serious precautionary landing in Jordan due to a fire in flight and was essentially toast. This bird deserves a chance to improve its readiness rate and reduce its $10+ grand flying hour cost. But that cost, procurement cost and any objective analysis of alternatives would reveal that an all MV-22 fleet to replace CH-46 is a nice to have, but more helicopters in that replacement mix would make more budgetary and warfighting sense.
The Corps FY2010 aviation plan is on the net.
http://www.marines.mil/units/hqmc/aviation/Docume...
big file in pdf.
Like last year, it calls for the CH-53Ds to be replaced by CH-53Ks rather than MV-22s. So why hasn’t the V-22 requirement been cut from 360 to 320?
Recall that 156 MV-22s have been procured for the Corps through FY2009, but Corps only has 82 in its inventory. There have been no class A mishaps since 2000, yet the Corps scrapped another new MV-22 in FY09 (AA in that chart, aircraft attrition)
The Corps has begun to establish VMM squadrons on the West Coast, but that presents a problem. Broke down MV-22s at New River are trucked up to the depot 30 miles away at Cherry Point for repair, and swapped for another to keep readiness up. This will not be easy from California.
For the curious, the chart shows severe shortages of AH-1s and UH-1s, but that is because the Corps decided to add six new HMLA squadrons a couple years ago.
DON’T FLY AROUND SOMALIA
Dip$hits all those who say it was a hoax.….….…THE LANDERS AND ALL THE EQUIPMENT ARE THERE.….….…ON THE MOON AS WE SPEAK.…YOU ARE RETARDED AND HAVE SHOWN YOURSELVES TO BE MORONS.
My god what makes people like you? Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?
Wait.….…ospreys are supposed to fly higher than regular choppers right? So how will that hurt them?
>I wish it hadn’t taken a mishap to straighten things out
Not so much mishaps as training as you expect to fight.
>The issue in Afghanistan if flight ceiling and bad weather. My impression is that the Osprey has an advantage in both compared to Rotary winged aircraft.
And your impression would be wrong. The Osprey doesn’t have a functioning de-icing system – takes longer than 20 years to develop one apparently, and has half the lift of an equivalent powered helicopter. The osprey can’t even take a full load out of the US embassy in Kabul because of the altitude – instead they would use choppers to evacuate just like old Siagon.
It’s a mongrel of half a helicopter and half an aircraft glued together and performing both roles worse then the equivalent. For this privilege you pay six times the price. The idea that it magically combines the best of both vehicles is just ignorance of basic aerodynamics.
The only missions that an osprey is good at are those that an aircraft can’t do, and helicopter can’t do, and yet only an Frankenstein helio-transport can do – and those missions are very rare indeed.
The marines invented a very flimsy one – airborne assault from beyond the horizon over the defenses of a nation that is too strong to assault directly but for some reason forgot to buy air defenses.
Ah sorry that should be “flimsy” I meant a critical mission that is the whole justification for the marines now that people laugh openly at the suggestion they are going to assault the beaches.
About the only one that makes any sense at all is CSAR and that’s a huge expense for a couple CSAR aircraft.
I thought the belly-gun was primarily an Air Force effort on the CV at this time?
Does anyone have an actual well-thought-out, meaningful, and reality-based criticism of the aircraft, or is this board completely overrun by Carlton Meyer-conspiracy theory-wannabes?
This aircraft is BETTER at surviving enemy air-defenses than any existing helicopter. It has the capability to overfly a low threat, and go into the low altitude regime against a medium threat. Only a moron sends a rotorcraft into a high-threat environment without a butt-ton of SEAD. Even coming into a zone, its speed and low audio signature make it a better bet than a helo. With the IDWS installed, hopefully the “but it doesn’t have a gun” crowd will STFU.____There are plenty of missions where the “franken-aircraft” is well suited. Most prominently, it will cut the CASEVAC travel time in half. If you want examples where over-the-horizon would be handy, think the Somalia NEO, the Iranian hostage rescue, or the seizure of Camp Rhino. All of these would’ve been much easier, and much lower risk if they had been done with MV-22s.
As for the guy who said that broken V-22s are trucked to Cherry Point for a swap out. That is completely and demonstrably FALSE. Every aircraft in the armed forces inventory does depot-level maintenance. It’s based on the number of flight hours on an aircraft, and is done on a scheduled basis. Or is all of military aviation a scandal?
Ok here ya go.
http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-ima...
BTW you do know ANYONE can put up images on the web right and people can lie?
Point is even an indian satellite took picture of an apollo site (apollo 15 i believe) So the case is closed and over. We landed. We won the space race to the moon. And then just pissed it away and have just stagnated sence.
Nasa’s budget back then was around 5% i think about where the militaries budget is now. Currently Nasa’s budget is around .01% of the GDP.
That is pathetic.
Thats one reason so many havent done it now is mainly cost, technical capabilities, industry, and much much more. Not to mention the fact that we didnt realize that there was a probability of our guys getting fried in the ship.
Nasa and other like space agencies are stuck on the belief they can make space safe. Which if you ever want to youll have to have much more up there so you can have much more to work with. Your not gonna make a tin can safe in a place so dangerous.
Space will always be dangerous. Everything is. But until Nasa and such stop looking at space as a experiment and start taking it more seriously nothing will change.
Going against a higher-threat obviously means higher risk. Hopefully SEAD takes care of the bulk of radar-directed weaponry. However the Osprey is still better able to contend with whatever remains. Of course, as missiles become more of a threat, it drives altitude down. But, which one is easier to hit? 200 feet/220+ knots or 100 feet/100 knots. When engaged by a missile threat, the V-22 can displace far more in response than a helicopter.
Assault support aircraft of any type need that suppression in order to survive in a medium-high threat environment. That’s just a fact. The Osprey is far more survivable than a helo.
The anti-V22 forces just keep ringing their talking points. Their knowledge of modern warfare stops at movies and conspiracy websits.
Do you really believe an MV-22 can survive at 200′ against radar air defenses??
I assure you that an Army UH-60M can fly considerably lower than 100′ at 100 knots AND can do a quick same-altitude flare in a few seconds and drop into a tree line at a hover should the RWR detect radar air defenses. An escorting Apache at the same altitude and Longbow RF missile can deal with that threat.
The 60M is a specops bird. It can only go fast and low by using terrain-following radar. The more apt comparison is to the CV-22, which is the AFSOC variant, and is certainly more survivable than any rotorcraft.
An Osprey can fly slow if it needs to, which is seldom. A helicopter can’t fly fast.
NOE is by and large an attack helo technique in the Marine Corps. Marine assaults don’t even practice it. The general rule of thumb is to go no faster than your altitude below 100′.
If you think you can do a company-size lift that way, try it. It’s not very practical for inserting conventional forces.
I’m not going into TTPs here, but the Osprey’s both preemptive and reactive capability against IR and radar far exceeds any helo’s. It’s harder to acquire and harder to hit. I’ve flown helicopters and the V-22. Believe it.
The UH-60M is an Army UH-60A/L replacement and costs $18 million…1/4th of the MV-22. It has no radar. The Navy uses variants so why not the Marines for part of the CH-46 replacement fleet?? The CH-47F is the CH-47D replacement and flies 170 knots while carrying substantially more payload and troops than the MV-22 at half the price for a new one, and 1/3 the price for a rebuilt D model.
Back in 2005, the UH-60L has flying hour cost of $2700 and the CH-47D had one of around $6800. Newer models of both with better diagnostics and maintenance lessons learned will be comparable in today dollars. Compare that to $11,000 per hour for the MV-22.
Yes, I know the Marines traditionally fly higher than the Army. The Army obviously have proven they can fly lower successfully. I’m not talking about NOE, but the Army does train its utility pilots to fly that low.
The Army hasn’t proven it can fly low successfully. It was getting the crap kicked out of it, post during and after the Iraqi invasion, doing exactly that. NOE is not viable as an assault tactic. Flying fast below 100′ is a guaranteed way to end up with a wire strike, with very little tactical advantage gained.
The V-22’s survivability is far better than any helo
Everyone quotes the CH-47 as being so fast–I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that a fleet configured version does not hit 170 sustained.
Turns out the osprey is a lot like a masaratti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32yyvmlGOdo
what’s the stat again – 80–90% of all enemy fire occurs at take off or landing where the osprey is low and slow and much less amnouverable than a helicopter.
But as prog points out there are some rare missions that the osprey is suitable for — though Solamila isn’t one of them unless you consider overflying the waiting media scrum to avoid looking like idiots is considered a critical mission.
So the marines have optimized themselves for the odd mission that happens once every 30 years at the great expense of the millions of other missions they have to do. Sounds like a stupid decision to me, perhaps they just don’t want to fight.
Sigh why do i try. Anyone that illogical is lost.
Oh no, Marines don’t want to fight…you got us there…jackass.
Are you under the impression that there’s a whole lot of evasive manuevering going on during short final? You either land or wave off. If you do have to wave-off, the Osprey will get you out of Dodge a lot faster than anything else, if need be.
Most engagements happen on egress, not ingress.
BTW, the NATOPS limits for the V-22 for pitch/roll exceed that of most helos.
Manuever warfare is what we’re trying to achieve. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Then again, based on the statements of the anti-Osprey crowd here, probably not.
The Osprey has not crashed in about 10 years. Any other VTOL’s out there you can say the same about? Total fleet flight hours since resumption of flight in 2002 is well over 66,000 hours.
You know that the moon is within the earth’s protective magnetic shield right? Not full protection certainly, but not zero.
Oh and Dtech, congrats. The posts are getting pretty good. And the new look took some getting used to, but it is nice.
Mike, your stats are hardly worthy of any comparison. A quick internet search reveals that Army helicopters have over 2 million COMBAT HOURS in OIF and OEF and have lost around 120 aircraft…most to accidents in a much less hospitable low altitude flight environment with many field landings.
Despite these harsh flying condition, MC rates have stayed around 80% or higher at a far far lower cost per flying hour.
A little back of the envelope calculation leads to these estimates, sir:
*MV-22: $72 million upfront flyaway cost and $10,000 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $600,000 per aircraft per month
*CH-47F: $36 million upfront flyaway cost and $6800 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater= $408,000 per aircraft per month
*UH-60M: $18 million upfront flyaway cost and $2700 per flight hour x 60 hours/month in theater = $162,000 per aircraft per month
Marines use 12-ship MV-22/CH-46 squadrons which are about half the size of an Army aviation battalion. So another way of looking at it is that two Marine squadrons with 24 total MV-22 flying just 1440 hours a month would cost $14.4 million or about $4 million more per month than 3 squadrons: one with 10 MV-22, one with 10 CH-47F, and one with 10 UH-60M.
More aircraft (30) flying more flight hours (1800 vs 1440 hrs) for $4 million less a month, with far less procurement cost…and probably using a similar or less deck/hangar space aboard Marine ships. Sounds like a no-brainer.
Sure the UH-60M would carry fewer Marines but the greater aircraft numbers and the CH-47F would make up for it. 24 MV-22 carrying 20 Marines (heavier body armor/center belly gun/ hot/high) = 480 Marines in one lift. Ten aircraft of each carries 200 Marines in a MV-22, 300 in 10 CH-47F, and 100 in 10 UH-60M for 600 Marines in a single lift.
Typo above should say 200 Marines transported by 10 MV-22.
Figures above are based on 25% of 1800 flight hours in the MV-22, 30% flown in the Chinook, and 45% flying the cheapest UH-60M.
That ratio would result in a cost per month for 1800 hours equaling approximately $4.5 million for the 10 MV-22 (450 hrs), $3.7 million for 10 CH-47F (540 hrs), and $2.2 million for 10 UH-60M (810 hrs) or about $10.4 million a month vs. $14.4 million for 30 MV-22s flying only 1440 hours.…360 monthly hours less than the mixed fleet.
If we used Ashton Carter’s $45 per gallon combat cost of fuel, the difference is far greater.
So what’s best for our warfighters?
The Marines overemphasize the value of speed versus any other battlefield requirement.
To reach such speed the aircraft must have a cabin too small to hold normal equipment, big body-armored troops, and supplies. The props create excessive localized downwash and create fires. They don’t allow it to fit in many small LZs or closely adjacent to other aircraft. The capability to hover at high altitude in hot conditions is severely compromised, leaving an aircraft hauling around munchkin trucks and insufficient ammunition for the M-777 thus endangering the ground Marine.
There is more to warfighting than speed.
The aircraft’s size, complexity, and logistical requirements force a MV-22 bed down location farther from the battlefield. MV-22 launched from a carrier PZ 250 miles from the fight, reach the LZ no sooner than helicopters launched from adjacent allied land 140 miles from the fight. How much fuel does the MV-22 need thus eliminating realistically-sized and resourced FARPs close to the battle?
The sole case where Army aviation “got the crap kicked out of it” was a hurried interdiction attack where insufficient fuel and other airspace requirements dictated an inappropriate route. Even then only a single aircraft was forced to land and none crashed.
Two days later a similar deep attack was far more successful, as have been 8 years of combat flying ever since with helicopters.
Sure, there’s also range and manueverability, both of which the V-22 has more of.
That shipboard PZ requires no dip clearances to launch from and can move to threaten any part of the enemy’s coastline.
The Army’s been steadily taking a higher rate of being hit by SAFIRES than Marines. I’m willing to bet their mishap rate is higher, as well, from unnecesarily flying lower than tactically justified.