[Rockcrusher]

is it me po'd at the MIC (Military Industrial Complex)?
After reading articles in "Time" and "SOF", am thinking
the Corps got screwed again. Memories of the Harrier
(Navy would not let their pilots fly it, but ok for the
Marines). The Army said no to the Osprey, but the Corps
got it shoved dowm their throats.
Only armament is a 7.62 MG at rear and only usable if
ramp is down. No autogyrotation. Engines that were never
tested in a sand environment. No flair capability to
make a fast descent on a hot LZ. But not to worry,
there will be fast movers to protect them ! Same
old, same old!
They could have mounted a .50 cal in the nose and co-
pilot would have operated but.. another $1 mill added
to cost.
Remember "Hillbilly Armour" for the Humvee's and all the
crap about the guys in the motorpools rigging them against regs to make them a "little" more survivable.
Then the official "uparmour kits" and now the Upparmoured
Humvee's. No, the MIC finally arrived at the MRAP,many
deaths and injuries too late.
IIRC, the Brits were using something like the MRAP in
N.Ireland 30 years ago, not a new concept.

 

[MauserboyM48]

How dare you insult the military! We buy only the best for our boys! Just look at our hummers early on in Iraq! Perfect! No more of your leftist drivel about the military-industrial complex! No such complex exists!


j/k

 

[montello]

I've seen those things, they don't look that safe to me to tell the truth. I'm amazed they fly. Isn't that a Boeing project?

We made 6 hydrofoils boats for the Navy in the 80's, for 60 million each, the Navy didn't want them and had no use for them but politics is politics and they got them. The company (Boeing)10 years later was begging me to go down to Flordia and fix the remaining three servicable ones. I wanted nothing to do with them. Worst peice of junk ever made.

The bad guys in Iraq are already figuring out ways to defeat the MRAPS. So far it's just using a larger charge in the roadside bombs, but they are having good results with those new Russian parachute grenades, (they are about 2 feet long and thrown from 15 feet or so, and as they are flying a parachute comes out and points the shaped charge forward) you just wait for a target to drive by, throw and run like hell.....

 

[jjk308]

See http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=4297&page=2

As usual the Liberal/Media complex has been feeding you a load of crap.

I worked on the start up of the V-22 program at NAVAIR, was responsible for killing its closest competition, the VSTOL A Lift/Cruise fan, a real abortion that would have been a disaster.

I was opposed to the V22 strictly on funding grounds. The only real drawback was money -not technical - the USMC didn't have nearly enough $, only 1/3 of the program cost in its projected budget at the time. Things actually got worse as the Cold War ended but the USMC managed to get Congress to fund it, although with a long, drawn out development program - that ran up overall costs and caused problems when funding limits cut testing and development.

With the availability of hand held guided SAMS and radar directed cannon going into any "hot" LZ with a conventional helo, except for very light opposition, isn't an option for the future. Putting guns on the troop carrier is pretty useless except as a morale builder for Vietnam vets. The LZ is going to have to be worked over and the landings covered by dedicated attack aircraft.

Going a lot further and faster is also going to be mandatory with the new AA weapons and new missions. Conventional helos were pretty useless in Afghanistan thanks to the distances and lack of prepared bases, and its awfully hard to catch someone like bin Laden when you can't go any faster than him. The original need for the V22 developed out of the Desert One mission, where we lost most of our already inadequate squadron of mine sweeping RH-53s, sinking the presidency of Jimmy Carter - well deserved, he'd zeroed the acquisition of more of those same helos. Anyway, it was pretty obvious that future targets wouldn't be conveniently within 100 miles of the sea, that low speed was dangerous, and that we had to do a LOT better.

 

[MauserboyM48]

See http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=4297&page=2

As usual the Liberal/Media* complex has been feeding you a load of crap.

Military-Industrial-Establishment complex.

Did you not see the post where I completely mocked you? I pretty much predicted your "leftist drivel....military hating propaganda" You have a big problem. You don't separate the country from the government. You think that when someone criticizes the government they are criticizing the country. You really don't like people critizing anything the government does. Thinking that way is dangerous in a bleeding Republic like ours.

 

[hairball II]

Military-Industrial-Establishment complex.

Did you not see the post where I completely mocked you? I pretty much predicted your "leftist drivel....military hating propaganda" You have a big problem. You don't separate the country from the government. You think that when someone criticizes the government they are criticizing the country. You really don't like people critizing anything the government does. Thinking that way is dangerous in a bleeding Republic like ours.

And how is that a refutation of ANYthing JJK posted with relevance to the Osprey? Or are you just miffed that nobody took you on your little excursion through sarcasm?

I don't see where separation of country/govt/military fit into that particular post. JJK, being familiar with the project, merely posited that the Times article was obviously written by someone who knew little about what they wrote.

That was pretty simply stated, without need to insert sarcasm or hidden meaning.

 

[Clyde]

jjk commented "Putting guns on the troop carrier is pretty useless except as a morale builder for Vietnam vets. The LZ is going to have to be worked over and the landings covered by dedicated attack aircraft". I am a Vietnam vet. I recall armed Hueys (NOT AH-1 Cobras, though they were in country and getting commoner for the role) doing escort for the "slicks" that carried the troops. Old short-cabin -B models, most of them, with a chin turret with a 40mm GL (used a long0case, higher-powered round than the M-79 with teh came projectile) or a 7,62 Mini-gun or (sometimes) both. And rockets and/or gun-packs (usually a pair of M-60s on an articulated mount), plus, usually, M-60s in each door. Slicks often had door-gunners, but that was all. Weight couldn't be spared for more sophisticated guns, plus - they were friggin' TROOP CARRIERS. Get the guys in, pick them up and get them out. Plus Dust-off. Teh Hogs and Cobras took care of the shooting from the air.

If I were riding an Osprey, I'd want an escort, not a chin turret. But that's just me thinking and talking. My times to ride vertical-lift birds into places with villains waiting are long past, for which i give thanks to God every now and then. But if I were young again...

 

[ret_marine2003]

I have always been interested in them, but never really wanted to fly one.

I would rather pilot a Cessna.

As far as military equipment goes, there is a purpose and reason for everything.

Many things don't make sense to me until I see them in action or have to use them myself.

There will always be critics of equipment who have their own purposes in mind.

There will at times be bad ideas that are short lived. (Because the Marine Corps has a relatively small budget, it tends to accept more "gifts". Some of this gifts are less than terrific, others can be great.

We will see how this is used and decide in time.

Some, if not most of these critics have no foundation or experience for their critic and have no time in grade or service to base their opinions on. (just cut in paste a fellow critics assault)

All they have is their blind hatred for the American fighting man and the desire to take the tools necessary to win with away.

It is sad, but the way they choose to live.

 

[Rockcrusher]

USAF adds belly gun....

to the Osprey.Read this at "Armor, APC's, Artillery....
Forum", "V22 Osprey" Thread. cpw (Charlie) provided
this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2007102...ymorefirepower
My typing is lousy, linking to article over there
might be easier.

 

[Sporky]

That link is dead.

 

[Rockcrusher]

Dead here, ok at the thread on the Forum mentioned
yesterday. Also, a link ok over there on p.1, start
of the thread. A lot more info over there on the
Osprey program. Whether you agree with the media,
"Time" (both articles) or not... Want to direct
everyone to more info and discussion.....
The link by cpw is on p.3
There was a article in SOF, "Soldier of Fortune", that
was not complimentary to the Osprey. I have a lot of
respect for Col. Brown (Ret.), do not believe he would
allow "bad/false" info to go out in his mag.
If i lived in Amarillo or worked at the assembly plant
there.....am sure my "opinions" would/could be quite
the opposite.

 

[Clyde]

Brown PROBABLY wouldn't knowingly allow known false information to go out. But he has a slant on things and isn't above allowing slanted material out. In my opinion. I would NOT pick SOF for unbiased evaluation of a program like V-22. JJK308 is a pretty good source though.

 

[jjk308]

A little more factual information: Our initial H46 replacement study, post VSTOL A, was for a USMC troop carrier. The primary design missions were to carry a squad a fairly short distance and to carry equipment to the beach.
It pretty much ignored the deep penetration and long range requirements.
Fortunately the USAF had gotten its toe into the VSTOL A program with a special operations mission that required much higher spreed and longer range than any pure helicopter could provide.
The USMC brass, not being dummies, decided to go ahead with the tilt rotor, the best concept to meet the USAF requirements, because they also saw the handwriting on the wall for limiting big development programs post Cold War. If they hadn't they would have been stuck with a limited performance tandem rotor helicopter, really just an upgraded CH46, as the main assault transport, those airborne assaults may well have become to dangerous to perform in that helicopter, and they'd have a very difficult time justifying starting a new V22 program after having developed a new helo, supposedly for most of the same missions.
So they decided to take a leap into the future, despite an estimated V22 cost of nearly 3 times a basic helicopter development program.

 

[Clyde]

Seems like the Army was also interested in the V=22 at one point, but bailed pretty early. And at current costs, I doubt they will have that interest rekindled (even if they got an advance commitment that the USAF wouldn't yell "Key West violation!" at them).

Didn't somebody write some techno-thriller novels about a Coast Guard/Border Security bunch in armored up and armed V-22s a few years ago? Struck me as (like most Clancy imitators, as well as Tom C himself) reaching pretty far.