[subego]

I hereby call the Armchair Generals of MacNN into session.

First up on the agenda: why are we deploying the Osprey? Even if it worked properly, the thing just screams "shoot me with an RPG". Why aren't we instead putting production of the new breed of armored personnel carriers into overdrive?

Second: I'm wondering if anyone has noticed the huge push in robotics?

I think it's interesting that when you hear the pitch for new robotics systems, it will briefly touch on how a robot can keep a soldier out of harms way and then spend the rest of the time talking about its value as a force multiplier (less soldiers doing the work of more).

I think it should be obvious who this pitch was designed for: Donald Rumsfeld and the Vulcans.

The question is this: since DR was run out of town on a rail, how much of his doctrine will we keep, and what will replace the stuff we throw out?

Most importantly, how much will we throw out because Rumsfeld came up with it, regardless of its validity?

I think if left to their own devices, the military is actually quite good at honestly assessing itself, it's when external political pressures get thrown in where things get really screwed.

[olePigeon]

Navy's spent so much damn money on the Osprey, I think they just wanna use it for something. They're pretty adamant about using it as a troop transport, maybe push it over the Army to replace the Blackhawk. I don't know why the Navy wants to convert the V-22 into fighter. They can use the Apache, or hell, just use the JST.

Robotics have been around for a long time. I think the reason we're getting so much buzz around it now is because robotics has advanced a huge amount. Rumsfeld or not, I think pushing robotics is a good idea and I hope officials don't overlook legitimate projects just because it has a Rumsfeld stamp on it.

[analogika]

The Osprey cost 20 billion dollars, 24 years, and 30 dead pilots to develop.

It will probably cost a number of lives in service.

BUT: if they don't deploy it, somebody in charge will lose their job over it.

Priorities, man.

[Nicko]

I read an article about this the other day, each osprey costs over 80M? How much does an RPG cost?

It looks pretty cool, taking off. But I wouldn't want to fly in something described as a "flying coffin".

Reminds me of a futurama quote:

Brannigan: "Let's show these freaks what a bloated, runaway military budget can do!"

[subego]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Osprey cost 20 billion dollars, 24 years, and 30 dead pilots to develop.

It will probably cost a number of lives in service.

BUT: if they don't deploy it, somebody in charge will lose their job over it.

Priorities, man.

I wouldn't be surprised if the person who came up with the idea is long gone, so we're talking about someone for who this project isn't even their "baby", they were just the schmuck who drew the short stick.

I find it hard to blame this person for not wanting to fall on their own sword.

Bureaucracy sucks.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Osprey cost 20 billion dollars, 24 years, and 30 dead pilots to develop.

It will probably cost a number of lives in service.

BUT: if they don't deploy it, somebody in charge will lose their job over it.

Priorities, man.

It did not kill 30 pilots.

The bulk of these deaths (19) was a compliment of marine troops on board in a single crash. No less tragic, but malformed/misrepresented figures to make a point doesn't work…

There were 2 others claim the remaining lives.

This was over a period of years and is a media whipping circus. It is a reason they are called experimental… and Boeings', Airbus' and Space Shuttles still crash too.

[analogika]

Ah, sorry. I just read of 30 deaths during development and assumed nobody other than test pilots would have been aboard before actual deployment.

[Buckaroo]

Never mind, I see it is being discussed.

[subego]

Okay, this is what I wanted. Some BS cut-through.

Four crashes over a 20 year period for a really whacked-out design? Not too bad.

I'm still wondering if anyone is at the point where they'd rather fly into combat in one of these rather than a Blackhawk? If that is the case, would you rather fly in one instead of sticking with the Blackhawk and also getting your squad a couple Strykers or Grizzlies?

Edit: I wanted to make extra clear that I'm talking about combat. I've conceded being wrong about it's test record (though since one of the crashes was into the Potomac during a demonstration for congress, you can see how things might have been blown out of proportion).

The nacelles just seem really vulnerable to me. IIRC the only thing the Somalis had that could take a Blackhawk down was an extremely good shot to the tail rotor from a modified RPG. I'd guess you don't have to be as good of shot to take one of these out, but I could be wrong. I have to assume the thing isn't as well armored in the "right places" because of the enormous amount of surface area that looks to be a suitable target. Can the wing even take a direct hit form an RPG?

Unless the person shooting at you has some pretty serious elevation, the entire body of the Blackhawk is effectively armoring the main rotor. Since that's the crew cabin, you have to armor the thing anyways.

Would anyone know where I can find info on what the crash sequence in the Osprey is like? Can you fly the thing with one nacelle? If you can I'm curious how they trumped the problem of the body of the plane trying to counter-rotate to the propeller.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

Would anyone know where I can find info on what the crash sequence in the Osprey is like? Can you fly the thing with one nacelle? If you can I'm curious how they trumped the problem of the body of the plane trying to counter-rotate to the propeller.

I read an NYtimes article on it which explained that it can't counter-rotate slowly to the ground and would just drop out of the sky.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I read an NYtimes article on it which explained that it can't counter-rotate slowly to the ground and would just drop out of the sky.

I would imagine that is what would happen, or even if they could get some counter-rotation, the propeller is so armed out that you lose stability and the propeller would flip you over.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm still wondering if anyone is at the point where they'd rather fly into combat in one of these rather than a Blackhawk? If that is the case, would you rather fly in one instead of sticking with the Blackhawk and also getting your squad a couple Strykers or Grizzlies?

I don't think they are intended for heavy combat areas, but I would argue that both the Blackhawk and Osprey are vulnerable systems. When either are hovering, they are sitting ducks.

The major advantage to the Ospray is raw speed and distance. It could move a medium sized payload nearly twice as fast with twice the distance (OK, it does neither, but it goes 100 knots faster (~240k) and has a range 200km further (~500km).

Originally Posted by subego 

The nacelles just seem really vulnerable to me. IIRC the only thing the Somalis had that could take a Blackhawk down was an extremely good shot to the tail rotor from a modified RPG. I'd guess you don't have to be as good of shot to take one of these out, but I could be wrong. I have to assume the thing isn't as well armored in the "right places" because of the enormous amount of surface area that looks to be a suitable target. Can the wing even take a direct hit form an RPG?

Unless the person shooting at you has some pretty serious elevation, the entire body of the Blackhawk is effectively armoring the main rotor. Since that's the crew cabin, you have to armor the thing anyways.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think the Osprey is designed to replace the Blackhawk, but rather the two are designed for different tactical objectives.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I see what you are saying, but I don't think the Osprey is designed to replace the Blackhawk, but rather the two are designed for different tactical objectives.

Makes sense.

I'm still a little confounded by the lack of a push for balls to the wall deployment of improved armored personnel carriers. It's a true testament to how dysfunctional our government has become.

I bet I could whip up 80-90% support for this idea even here. Why is this such a freakin' stumper in D.C.?

[:dragonflypro:]

Personally, I think the concept of the v22 is great. But at $80M a pop, that seems a bit much vs the $6-10M each for UH-60 variants.

Perhaps the tactical pluses merit the expense… as Dustoffs, almost a certainty.

I don't think there is any side-by-side structural data… one would hope it is harder under fire than a Blackhawk.

As for auto-rotation, while 'doable' it is not a magic landing mode so v22 vs UH60 in a crash has more, again, to do with the hardness of the airframe.

[subego]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Personally, I think the concept of the v22 is great. But at $80M a pop, that seems a bit much vs the $6-10M each for UH-60 variants.

Yup.

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Perhaps the tactical pluses merit the expense… as Dustoffs, almost a certainty.

Excellent point.

I know it's an excellent point because I was going to make the same point but forgot.

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

I don't think there is any side-by-side structural data… one would hope it is harder under fire than a Blackhawk.

This seems tough from a laws of physics standpoint. A Blackhawk is shaped like an egg. This is about as good as you can get in terms of an inherently strong design coupled with minimal surface area vs. capacity. In the Osprey you have to separately armor a crew compartment, two sets of fiddly bits (rotors) and two wings/arms, which as big honkin' flat surfaces laying perpendicular to incoming fire are the most difficult thing to armor.

If you made it as hard under fire as the Blackhawk it would be too heavy to get airborne.

Not that the Blackhawk is invulnerable or something, it's just that all the important pieces fit inside the same armor cocoon. You can't do that with any type of plane, tilt-rotor or not. Planes tend to rely on speed and maneuverability over armor. There's a reason full-on armored planes are enormous.

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

As for auto-rotation, while 'doable' it is not a magic landing mode so v22 vs UH60 in a crash has more, again, to do with the hardness of the airframe.

Are you saying there is no difference having the rotor directly above your head vs. having one armed all the way out to one side?

Seems to me having it armed out would tend to flip you over (which is exactly what happened during one of the V-22 crashes). If your rotor is directly above you, while you may not auto-rotate, you ain't gonna flip, right?

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you saying there is no difference having the rotor directly above your head vs. having one armed all the way out to one side?

Seems to me having it armed out would tend to flip you over (which is exactly what happened during one of the V-22 crashes). If your rotor is directly above you, while you may not auto-rotate, you ain't gonna flip, right?

No, I wasn't comparing the two craft directly… my bad.

Many like to just point out that a helo can 'autorotate' and land damaged, yada yada. While true it has become one of those urban legend kinda deals. The theory vs reality. Successful auto rotation, especially in combat is rare. For starters, you can't generally autorotate from a hover, forward motion is required.

As for a v22, I am pretty certain a lost wing/flaperons/nacelle would doom the draft. Short of an A10 I imagine that is true of any symmetrical design.

Anyway, aside from that my only point was that rotors shot off, v22 or helo, you are up the creek.

[monkeybrain]

I would guess that only an ejut would fly the Osprey into a real warzone, but it does seem to have good applications in other areas, like disaster relief. You could deliver a very large supply of aid and being able to land vertically would mean it can get to areas where the transport planes could not.

Having said that, the cost of development is huge. I think it partly represents a misplaced faith in the role of aircraft in modern warfare. Before this new Gulf war everyone thought you could win things with many planes, so that's where all the money went. Now people are realising that the troops on the ground are what is needed just as much if you want to stay and rebuild/police the country attacked. The money could surely have been spend on developing better protection systems for soldiers, buying more APCs for soldiers rather than using those death-trap Hummers as 'armoured' cars. You could even use the money to train more soldiers to speak indigenous languages: hearts and minds.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

Having said that, the cost of development is huge. I think it partly represents a misplaced faith in the role of aircraft in modern warfare. Before this new Gulf war everyone thought you could win things with many planes, so that's where all the money went. Now people are realising that the troops on the ground are what is needed just as much if you want to stay and rebuild/police the country attacked.

I think more accurately, armies have always placed high hopes in the potential of aircraft to win wars with minimal "grunt/dirty work," and that hope has never materialized (from WWII, on!). The first Gulf War was the closest that dream came to being realized, and unfortunately...that wasn't even a war. So it kinda doesn't count.

They'll continue to dream I guess....

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I think more accurately, armies have always placed high hopes in the potential of aircraft to win wars with minimal "grunt/dirty work," and that hope has never materialized (from WWII, on!). The first Gulf War was the closest that dream came to being realized, and unfortunately...that wasn't even a war. So it kinda doesn't count.

They'll continue to dream I guess....

greg

Well, if we can use stuff that doesn't count, you have to throw in Kosovo too.

I personally didn't think that one had a chance.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

I would guess that only an ejut would fly the Osprey into a real warzone, but it does seem to have good applications in other areas, like disaster relief. You could deliver a very large supply of aid and being able to land vertically would mean it can get to areas where the transport planes could not.

I could see the Coast Guard and National Guard using it pretty extensively.

[subego]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Many like to just point out that a helo can 'autorotate' and land damaged, yada yada.

I was looking at this from the perspective that a Blackhawk is more likely to have a combat failure in the tail rotor rather than the main rotor. Unless the attacker has an altitude advantage (which if they do, you ain't using your helicopter properly), attacks on the main rotor have to get through the body of the heli, which is already armored to protect the crew. People get around this by attacking the tail. On a Blackhawk, the tail is armored to the beejesus belt, and since it doesn't need to generate lift, it's perpendicular to the ground and hence radically sloped vs. a ground attack.

Of course, having your tail rotor shot-off is bad news, I'm just guessing it's better news than a main rotor failure.

I'm seeing the V-22 as a combination of the worst of both worlds. Both rotors are accessible soft spots, like the tail on a Blackhawk only softer. Unlike the Blackhawk, either rotor failing is just as bad (if not worse) than a main rotor failure.

Edit: I agree with everyone though that it's slam-bang for fast response rescue.

[:dragonflypro:]

The more I think about it, I am not sure a v22 is intended to do hot LZ runs. It seems too large.

I, along with a few others, have mistakenly viewed it as a UH60 replacement. Seems more like a CH47 (Chinook) class unit.

So, as a ferry to the front lines and swift reinforcements and evac it does seem to poses an ability previously unmatched

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm seeing the V-22 as a combination of the worst of both worlds. Both rotors are accessible soft spots, like the tail on a Blackhawk only softer. Unlike the Blackhawk, either rotor failing is just as bad (if not worse) than a main rotor failure.

I'm not a helicoptor pilot, but I read that you can "counter spin" a Blackhawk to bring her in for a "soft" crash landing if you lose the rotor.

When a V-22 loses either propeller, they're screwed. So even if you take out the rotor in a Blackhawk, you still have a chance at surviving if the pilot can keep oriented enough to bring her down.

[Warren Pease]

I've only flown the V-22 in X-Plane and it is a very difficult, yet still fun, plane to fly. Transitioning from helicopter to plane mode is very hard and is where most of my crashes occur.

One niche I see the Osprey filling is that of a gun ship for the Marines. I'm not sure that all the firepower of the Spectre can be put into an Osprey, but surely a couple mini-guns out the side would have a similiar effect. Smaller, more-manueverable than the AC-130, carrier-based and VTOL.