V-22 osprey. Is this it or just a hoax?

[daranz]

No, but my brigade commander whom I worked with as a security detail for about 4 months was. His name was Col Michael Steele, you might have heard of him. Yes, they were used in the initial defense as gunships until the second chopper went down. The movie is rather horribly inaccurate in its portrayal of how the air to ground operations were carried out in the Somalia incident.

So, the question now is, were you there?

Or in Iraq/Afghanistan campaign to say how blackhawks are/aren't used?

My pet peave is that the UH-60 should have M240's in it, not that dumb chaingun as only 160th hawks have those.

Good luck with that. Every single movie, game, tv series, comic book and cave painting portrays the UH-60 with the miniguns for door guns...

Also, I *really* don't feel too comfortable flying the BH in gunship role when there are all those APCs, tanks, and MANPADS equipped infantry around. Yeah, I guess BHs make sense for support against ground troops with small arms, but don't really seem like a good idea on your average PR map.

[<SS&D>Bys0n]

Nice video! I loved the drop of hydraulic fluid that falls from the overhead when you sit in the loadmaster's seat to open the door LOL!

Byson, do some googleing,



Of the four, three were caused by human error, including the much talked about vortex ring state crash (choppers are much more prone to this than the V-22). One was a computer programming error.

As for the issues on the carriers, since there is now 2 full squadrons of MV-22's in service with the Marines I'm guessing that's been resolved.

The Marines need something to replace the CH-46, its been flying for 45 years and is a piece of junk held together by duct tape and the sheer determination of the Marines who have to maintain them. Many of the "troubles" associated with the MV-22 are every day events in a CH-46. A popular saying in the 46' community is "If it ain't leaking its out of oil."

Anyway, enough side tracking the thread. PLEASSSSSE Give us the Osprey, the Marines want it, and so does the PRM crowd!

Its you that need to learn how to use google mate, go and get your mum to help u do a search

For the last time there has been a hell of a lot more than 4 crashes with the osprey and no a majority are technical failure NOT human error! it is plagued with problems, the only reason the US have them is because if they dont they have wasted soooooooooo much money on as quoted from below "A flying truck", an osprey is roughly the same price as a modern fighter jet, money well spent? maybe not, it is not even capable of sustained desert warfare, I admire you persistance in trying to convince me this is a diamond aircraft which will influence how a war is played out but personally i would stick with the chinook, at least it works!

And I quote:

It’s like a bad poker hand, and the Marines have been investing in it for 20 years,” said Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester from 1994 to 2001. “They might have been better if they invested in brand new helicopters.”

The plane’s most widely cited design problem is that one of its propellers can get caught in its own turbulence as it comes in for a landing, and that can cause the V-22 to roll over and head into the ground.

For that reason, V-22 pilots are trained to steer clear of their own turbulence by rules prohibiting them from making the quick maneuvers used by helicopters to evade enemy fire. Instead, the V-22 must land at speeds as slow as nine miles an hour and in a fairly straight line.

A 2005 Pentagon report said these limitations “may prove insufficient” in protecting the V-22 from ground fire. As a result, that Pentagon evaluation said the V-22 was suited only for low- and medium-threat environments, and is not “operationally effective” in high-threat environments.

“The V-22 cannot do radical evasive maneuvers” said Lee Gaillard, author of a report critical of the V-22, “Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker” for the Center for Defense Information, which studies weapons programs. “But that’s what it will need for combat.”

Should the V-22 lose power, it can not “autorotate” like a helicopter and allow the updraft of air to rotate its propellers for a hard, but survivable, landing. Because of this, according to the 2005 Pentagon report, emergency V-22 landings without power at altitudes below 1,600 feet “are not likely to be survivable.”

“If you lose power on a V-22, you just burn and crash,” said one Pentagon official involved in testing the craft but who was not authorized to speak publicly. “There is no way to survive. ”

The cabin is not pressurized, even though the craft can fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet and above, where breathing is difficult and it is not climate-controlled.

Pentagon reports also say the V-22 is too cramped for the 24 marines it can carry. The marines are so packed into the windowless cabin that they can become airsick, their legs can grow numb and leaving the plane quickly is difficult.

There is no bathroom on board and marines have criticized the “piddle packs” they are to use as insufficient. And, there is no place on board to store them once they are full.

V-22 downdraft is so strong, and moves in so many directions that it can create “brownout” conditions, making it difficult for pilots to see and potentially knocking down marines on the ground.

As a result, when rope ladders are used, the V-22 must hover at higher altitudes, making marines more vulnerable to fire.

“Safety is a big issue,” wrote one V-22 crew chief, in a questionnaire filled out for the Pentagon’s 2005 operational evaluation. “If we had went down in the water we would have most likely lost at least 24 troops because of restricted egress. I felt like I was in a coffin.”

These are more than theoretical concerns. On April 8, 2000, 19 marines were killed in a training exercise when a V-22 descended too fast and crashed near Tucson. It was the third V-22 to crash — seven people were killed in two previous crashes.

In December 2000, four more marines, including the program’s most experienced pilot, were killed in a crash caused by a burst hydraulic line and software problems.

These accidents led to program delays to make design changes. But as tests resumed, so have the problems.

Three engine fires occurred recently because of problems related to hydraulic lines. In March 2006, a computer problem led an idling V-22 to suddenly take off on its own. It then slammed into the ground, breaking off its right wing. All 54 V-22’s were grounded for weeks in February because of a faulty computer chip.

In preparation for deployment, the Pentagon ran tests last year in the New Mexico desert, similar to the climate of Iraq. In January, the Pentagon wrote about frequent failures with various parts and systems. The reason: “Extended exposure to the desert operating environment.”

Because of these problems, Mr. Coyle, the former Pentagon weapons tester, predicted the Marines will use the V-22 to ferry troops from one relatively safe spot to another, like a flying truck

xW0LFx']Byson just got ownt, I truly say fear the MOO!

I would call you a muppet but you’re a dev so I wont lol

[Bob_Marley]

Good luck with that. Every single movie, game, tv series, comic book and cave painting portrays the UH-60 with the miniguns for door guns...

Also, I *really* don't feel too comfortable flying the BH in gunship role when there are all those APCs, tanks, and MANPADS equipped infantry around. Yeah, I guess BHs make sense for support against ground troops with small arms, but don't really seem like a good idea on your average PR map.

Its already been confirmed that the BH will be down gunned to M240s in a future release of PR.

[[KSK]Black Snake]

Last week i saw a german film whit two armed V-22 ... something whit bermuda triangel and marines who made experiments whit it ...

[daranz]

Its already been confirmed that the BH will be down gunned to M240s in a future release of PR.

Yay!

(I can see the forums now: "Y DONT BH HEAV MINIGUNZ> IT HAS THEMS IN RLF!")

[TexLax]

meh, seems like the only good task it could have would be medi vac under safe conditions, VTOL and fast speed, could work. but then again, it can crash. but most things learn through mistakes... like games and mods. the F-22 had computer problem after it was deployed...

[DarkTalon]

hopefully the V-22 won't have nearly as much exaggerated roll sensitivity as the blackhawk. it fells like i'm walking on a tightrope whenever i fly the thing.

[Bobert08]

Its already been confirmed that the BH will be down gunned to M240s in a future release of PR.

I don't know what to think of this at the moment. It sounds equally good and bad to me.

It's not like mini guns aren't on UH60s anyway.

[Liquid_Cow]

Rather than bore everyone with a full quote of your response I'll just cite the relavent sections.

For the last time there has been a hell of a lot more than 4 crashes with the osprey

Show me.

and no a majority are technical failure NOT human error!

OK, I didn't want to do this, but here it goes...
Crash #1, a miswired control. Miswired by who? A human
Crash #2, Pilot ignored a serious mechanical problem with the bird that should have grounded it, but he wanted to make the show and flew anyway... Poor Judgement = Human error
Crash #3, the dreaded VRS crash, pilot was hot-dogging and exceeded the published flight envolope, Human Error
Crash #4, Software glitch, and who writes software? Maybe a human? But I'll give you this one as a computer error.

it is plagued with problems

Perhaps I should introduce myself, you see I've got a little bit of experience in this field. I was in the Marine Corps, and I did work in Marine Corps Aviation. IMHO (and one shared by many) the only aircraft that the Marines own that is not "plagued by problems" is the C-130.

i would stick with the chinook, at least it works!

Acording to the DOD, between 1997 and 2002 there were 5 fatal accidents involving CH-46's caused by mechanical failures (not counting those that were lost in combat). There were rougly 23 dead Marines as a result. The scariest ride I've ever taken, and I've flown on a lot of military aircraft, was in a CH-46.

Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester from 1994 to 2001

Lets see, Mr. Coyle is anti Osprey, anti balistic missle defense, does not believe N.Korea is a threat to the US, oh I see, this explains it, he was appointed by Clinton


.
THIS IS A MAN WITH AN AXE TO GRIND

“They might have been better if they invested in brand new helicopters.”

I don't disagree with this statment, but they didn't so there's no point in bringing it up. Would of, could of, should of, DIDN'T.

The plane’s most widely cited design problem is that one of its propellers can get caught in its own turbulence as it comes in for a landing

Ah, the dreaded Vortex Ring State, or VRS. After crash #3 extensive testing was done to figure out more about this little know phenomenon which can affect all rotory wing aircraft. As it turns out, the V-22 is both harder to induce a VRS in and easier to recover from than any other rotory wing aircraft. Don't believe me, go look it up since your google skills are much better than mine

Instead, the V-22 must land at speeds as slow as nine miles an hour and in a fairly straight line...

The V-22 cannot do radical evasive maneuvers...

Obviously this guy does not know how helicopters fly. Any chopper in hover mode is hard to manuver, and the larger the bird the harder to manuver. I'm guessing his only "real" experience landing a helicopter is in a game. 9MPH is a pretty quick rate of decent. By compairison, anything above 15 MPH is considered a crash in fixed wing carrier aviation which lands much harder than choppers do.

Should the V-22 lose power, it can not “autorotate” like a helicopter

Nor can a C-130 autorotate, it's a freaking airplane, it doesn't need to autorotate, it glides.

emergency V-22 landings without power at altitudes below 1,600 feet “are not likely to be survivable.”

Now this one just made me laugh, really I laughed. So does that mean that landing made above 1600feet are OK? Again, this guy's flight experience is limited to flight sims and Tom Clancy novels. In most general terms, if you are in serious distress in any military aircraft and below 10,000ft, and should you be blessed with ejection seats, your orders are to hit the silk. Unfortunately helicopters are yet to be equipped with ejection seats, so trouble usually ends badly.

The cabin is not pressurized, even though the craft can fly at altitudes of 10,000 feet

CH-53 max alt 11,500ft
CH-46 max alt 9500 feet
CH-47 max alt 20,000 feet
It's not alone in this catagory

Pentagon reports also say the V-22 is too cramped for the 24 marines it can carry.

This is the inside of a CH-46. Now imagine 25 Marines with all their gear packed in here. I don't have a picture of that 'cause there's no room to swing a camera when its full.

Yes, 25 of these combat loaded Jarheads are going into that little itty bitty bird

In March 2006, a computer problem led an idling V-22 to suddenly take off on its own. It then slammed into the ground, breaking off its right wing.

OMG! You found one more crash!!! I humbly appologize, and stand corrected, there have been 5 crashes, if you count a bump as a crash (BTW, CH-46's and 47's fall apart when they hit the ground hard too)

I would call you a muppet but you’re a dev so I wont lol

I'm not a DEV, but thank you, muppets are adorable.

Now put your tail feathers away and take a deep breath before you respond to my post. WE'RE TALK ABOUT A FREAKING GAME HERE. That said, IRL, the V-22 has problems, just like all military aircraft do (just look at how many never make it past the prototype stage). I don't thinks its a "diamond aircraft" nor am I trying to convince you otherwise, but I do think its a good bird, and it fills a much needed gap in our military. And before you go off on the British do VTOL better tangent, the Harrier has quite a history too. The first gen of AV-8A's as we called them here were extremely difficult to control in a hover and prone to go splat, lending them the nickname "Scarrier." As I recall there's a rather nice video of one going for a swim before Her Magesty during one of its first flights.

And that's very brave of you to talk trash about my mother over the internet, I wish I was as much a man as you.

So tell me Byson, how many years did you serve in the military fixing and flying on combat aircraft, occationally being shot at in the process?

[Teek]

I bet Byson is going to conviniently not return for a while...

[Liquid_Cow]

I just found an interesting compairson for how the media and Congress have screwed up the development of the V-22. The F-117 is such a crappy flier it's nickname is the "Woblin Goblin." Without the computer the plane is completely unstable. There were several crashes of the plane in its early years. Despite that it was just under three years from OK of concept to first operational squadron. If Congress butts the hell out and lets the military do what it needs to do things progress swimmingly. When they get involved... (big sigh)

[Bob_Marley]

I don't know what to think of this at the moment. It sounds equally good and bad to me.

It's not like mini guns aren't on UH60s anyway.

It is, however, like they're only used by the 160th SOR.

[DarkTalon]

I know this is not really evidence but this might be convincing. doesn't prove much.

if any mods don't approve of this feel free to delete them.

[77SiCaRiO77]

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=GyfALv4p2fo

[Liquid_Cow]

Oh hey, look, is that an Osprey on a British ship? Wonder if they are shopping or just test driving?

[robbo]

Maybe its T3h 133t S4S being flown back from kicking Osama's ***

On a serious note possibly photo shopped?

[Clypp]

The F-117 is such a crappy flier it's nickname is the "Woblin Goblin." Without the computer the plane is completely unstable.

Yeah, that's the whole point of fly-by-wire. There are a lot of newer planes that will crash and burn without the computer assistance.


If anyone doubts the Osprey, or wants to give it a try start a local server, add the test map, join MEC team, get a pilot kit with "sv.numPlayersNeededToStart 1", grab a pilot kit and get in the osprey.

[Liquid_Cow]

No, its from a news story at Military.com where they are doing flight tests of Ospreys on Brit ships.

[sekiryu]

Why the hell is Youtube in Spanish for me all the sudden...

es.youtube.com/watch?v=GyfALv4p2fo