The Osprey Goes to War

On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46


SNIP

If it has a cobra escort.. Well.. It loses it's altitude/ speed
advantage over alternative modern helicopters..

Rendevous scenario. The Cobras launch from a forward base and meet at
the LZ with the Osprey which has travelled from a base further away.

BB

BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46


Why not compare it to a conestoga wagon? that way it will look even
better!!Considering the incredible cost of the Osprey comparing it to an
antique helicopter that cost a fraction of the Osprey simply shows how
desperate its proponents really are.

Vince

On Oct 1, 8:25 pm, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46

Why not compare it to a conestoga wagon? that way it will look even
better!!Considering the incredible cost of the Osprey comparing it to an
antique helicopter that cost a fraction of the Osprey simply shows how
desperate its proponents really are.

Vince

Because that would be hyperbole and doesn't belong in a discussion.
Kerryn replied to a paragraph that directly compared the
susceptability of the V-22 to the CH-46 and the -53. Then he directly
asked about the survivability. I responded to his question, nothing
else.
What was that comment you made in the past about showing your
students the fault in getting emotional in an argument/discussion?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 8:25 pm, Vince wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?
Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46
Why not compare it to a conestoga wagon? that way it will look even
better!!Considering the incredible cost of the Osprey comparing it to an
antique helicopter that cost a fraction of the Osprey simply shows how
desperate its proponents really are.

Vince

Because that would be hyperbole and doesn't belong in a discussion.
Kerryn replied to a paragraph that directly compared the
susceptability of the V-22 to the CH-46 and the -53. Then he directly
asked about the survivability. I responded to his question, nothing
else.
What was that comment you made in the past about showing your
students the fault in getting emotional in an argument/discussion?

BB

There is no emotion in my comment at all. I was simply pointing out hat
the comparison was meaningless.

Vince

BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46


SNIP

If it has a cobra escort.. Well.. It loses it's altitude/ speed
advantage over alternative modern helicopters..

Rendevous scenario. The Cobras launch from a forward base and meet at
the LZ with the Osprey which has travelled from a base further away.

Ships
Its the Marines
They are launched from ships
The same ships
Vince

BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46


SNIP

At least the CH-46 gets to auto-rotate if hit...

And comparing the "brand new" V-22 with the CH-46 which is how old? (And
last up-graded?) says a lot for just how good the V-22 must be...

How does it compare with a modern military helicopter? Heck, how does it
compare in survivability with even a Blackhawk?

On Oct 1, 10:41 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?

Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46


And comparing the "brand new" V-22 with the CH-46 which is how old? (And
last up-graded?) says a lot for just how good the V-22 must be...


It was in response to your question about survivability, which
directly followed a paragraph comparing the susceptability comparison
between the -22,-46,-53.

How does it compare with a modern military helicopter? Heck, how does it
compare in survivability with even a Blackhawk?

Can't speak for the Blackhawk (Army) but we did perform tests on the
upgrades for the Seahawk, Cobra, Sea Stallion, and UH-1Y and Z.
Similar systems and component technology that are original equipment
in the V-22, have been retro-fitted into the upgrades for those
(previously listed) platforms.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:41 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:11 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
***
Maybe no more vulnerable to being shot at.. but the effect of being hit?
Although there are no perfect survivability systems out there, the
systems on the Osprey are 1) more numerous and 2) more advanced, than
the survivability systems on the CH-46

And comparing the "brand new" V-22 with the CH-46 which is how old? (And
last up-graded?) says a lot for just how good the V-22 must be...


It was in response to your question about survivability, which
directly followed a paragraph comparing the susceptability comparison
between the -22,-46,-53.

***
It wasn't a dig at your response.. Just at the fact that the comparisons
are always V-22 against the CH-46...


How does it compare with a modern military helicopter? Heck, how does it
compare in survivability with even a Blackhawk?

Can't speak for the Blackhawk (Army) but we did perform tests on the
upgrades for the Seahawk, Cobra, Sea Stallion, and UH-1Y and Z.
Similar systems and component technology that are original equipment
in the V-22, have been retro-fitted into the upgrades for those
(previously listed) platforms.


***
So it comes down to the ability to auto rotate versus lack of that
ability (Once you get hit...)?

So it comes down to the ability to auto rotate versus lack of that
ability (Once you get hit...)?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is a confluence of things.

If you try and fly it without escorts you'll get hit. You'll need to
auto-rotate.

If you try and descend at a constant rate into a zone you'll get hit.
You'll need to auto-rotate.

If you don't have effective armament on the bird you'll get hit.
You'll need to auto-rotate.

So it is is ignoring these vulnerability factors and saying, "We'll
ignore even the modicum of survivabilty provided by auto-rotation."

The ability to auto-rotate was originally required, but it was
dropped.

I wonder how many retired Marines are making 2-3 times (or more) of
their retirement pay to work on this thing.

It is the poster child for problems with the Military-Industrial-
Complex of the type that Eisenhower warned about.

Walt

On Oct 4, 3:08 am, Walt wrote:
So it comes down to the ability to auto rotate versus lack of that
ability (Once you get hit...)?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is a confluence of things.

If you try and fly it without escorts you'll get hit. You'll need to
auto-rotate.

If you try and descend at a constant rate into a zone you'll get hit.
You'll need to auto-rotate.

If you don't have effective armament on the bird you'll get hit.
You'll need to auto-rotate.

Your statements make a false assumption that poor susceptability =
poor survivability. They are two different subsections of the overall
vulnerability of the platform. Flight parameters/performance can
certainly make a platform more susceptable to receiving hostile fire.
However the survivability of the platform is determined by completely
different parameters. Every hit does not mean a mission kill.


I wonder how many retired Marines are making 2-3 times (or more) of
their retirement pay to work on this thing.

Unfortunately probably about the same number as the Admirals that
pushed for NMCI .
:/

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...