"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"

On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum wrote:



You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
stoking up the game to get just one V-22.

That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
will target anything to hurt us.
The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.

BB

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

David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
ground.

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum wrote:



You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
will target anything to hurt us.
The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.

BB

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

David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
ground.
Jack, my name is Dean. And I didn't decide anything. I merely stated
that your writing made it sound like you were rooting for American
soldiers to die. I know what you mean now that you have clarified it.
However your original writing was NOT that clear.

Dean

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:50:24 +1300, Kerryn Offord
wrote:


It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
currently.

Vince has been making the claim that the V-22 has been delivering
toilet paper.

All this demonstrates is that the:
1) Has no clue about military logistics (and thus is totally
unqualified to comment on what type of aircraft is best for the
mission).
2) Has no clue about air operations in Iraq.

You see - Vince sits in a university (where the students have to
pretend to believe what he says in order to get a good grade) and as a
result feels that 'real world' information is irrelevant.

Of course Vince has a habit of pontificating on subjects he knows
nothing about. When I was in Iraq he tried to lecture me on enemy
car-bomb tactics when everything he knew about the subject came from
having lunch with an Irish policeman once.

Then he tried to lecture myself and red about Cavalry doctrine (both
myself and red served in the same Cavalry squadron about 10 years
ago).

Vince is little more than a source of amusement.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

Colin Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:50:24 +1300, Kerryn Offord
wrote:


It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
currently.

Vince has been making the claim that the V-22 has been delivering
toilet paper.

All this demonstrates is that the:
1) Has no clue about military logistics (and thus is totally
unqualified to comment on what type of aircraft is best for the
mission).
2) Has no clue about air operations in Iraq.

You see - Vince sits in a university (where the students have to
pretend to believe what he says in order to get a good grade) and as a
result feels that 'real world' information is irrelevant.

Of course Vince has a habit of pontificating on subjects he knows
nothing about. When I was in Iraq he tried to lecture me on enemy
car-bomb tactics when everything he knew about the subject came from
having lunch with an Irish policeman once.

Then he tried to lecture myself and red about Cavalry doctrine (both
myself and red served in the same Cavalry squadron about 10 years
ago).

Vince is little more than a source of amusement.

and all you have is personal attacks

sticks and stones

feel free to provide real cites and sources


how many combat attack missions where they take off and land un upaved
areas near enemy forces ?

otherwise it's toilet paper and VIPs no matter how much crap you throw

Vince

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger
wrote:


Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
better truck in the long run.

Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

Colin Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger
wrote:


Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
better truck in the long run.

Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.


It flies, that's about it. it uses 12000 hp to lift a massive empty
weight aircraft.

its a turkey and all the crap that a 12,000 hp aircraft should be
classified as medium lift aircraft cant cover up the crap


This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Vince

On Feb 7, 8:40*am, Vince wrote:

This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
conventional helos. They're not in helicopter mode until and unless
they're touching down somewhere. Even if it's just being used as a
transport, it's still getting from point A to point B faster. And I've
read at least one report that Ospreys have been sent out with Marines
on insurgent hunts.

In message
,
Typhoon502 writes
On Feb 7, 8:40*am, Vince wrote:

This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
conventional helos.

Trouble is, that lets you drop light infantry a lot further ahead of the
FEBA than ever before, without artillery or combat vehicles. If the
enemy is in the mood for a fight, the tactical models are places like
Arnhem or Dien Bien Phu...

That's not a particular technical fault of the V-22, it's a problem of
finding a role for it that justifies the cost.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message
,
Typhoon502 writes
On Feb 7, 8:40 am, Vince wrote:

This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
conventional helos.

Trouble is, that lets you drop light infantry a lot further ahead of the
FEBA than ever before, without artillery or combat vehicles. If the
enemy is in the mood for a fight, the tactical models are places like
Arnhem or Dien Bien Phu...

That's not a particular technical fault of the V-22, it's a problem of
finding a role for it that justifies the cost.

It has more speed but not more range with any given payload


Vince

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:14:39 -0500, Vince wrote:



If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Just as your claims of 'flying toilet paper' are crap.

Explain to us why we should listen to you instead of the people who
actually use the aircraft?

You know so little about the subject that myself and red spent days
ridiculing you - and you never even caught on!



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.