If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
Tiger wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " wrote: reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some Henderson Hall flack making up war stories. You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies excepted of course.... 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 Vince |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
Live fire testing of the F-22 - National Research Council (U.S.).
Committee on the Study of Live Fire Survivability Testing of the F-22 Aircraft. either at www.nap.edu or www.nas.edu or google them DOD did a Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and Evaluation Report on the V-22 Osprey in 2000. sources: V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker: Full Report. Center for Defense Information. http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Gailliard%20on%20V-22.pdf USNI Proceedings Magazine Issue: October 2007 Vol. 133/10/1,256 The Osprey Goes to War By Richard Whittle then that ANSER V-22 study mentioned at The short version is at http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index...nload&docId=29 JSF-F-35 in 2003 F-22 ooopps, can't write..... Mike |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
On Feb 6, 8:14*am, 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 Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran. You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf, too. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
On Feb 6, 10:11 am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:14 am, 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 Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran. You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf, too. The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks? AIRFORCE SYSTEM Inventory 2005 2010 FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302 F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65 F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60 F-14 TOMCAT 25 25 F-7 (China J-7) 25 25 MiG-29A/UB 25 25 Su-25K 7 7 Su-24MK 30 30 Mirage F-1 25 25 MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15 IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the air |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
On Feb 6, 10:34*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks? AIRFORCE SYSTEM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Inventory * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2005 * *2010 FIGHTER / ATTACK * * * * * * * * * *302 * * * * 302 F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM * * * * *65 * * * * * *65 F-5E/F TIGER II * * * * * * * * * * * * *60 * * * * * *60 F-14 TOMCAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25 F-7 (China J-7) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25 MiG-29A/UB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * * * 25 Su-25K * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *7 * * * * * 7 Su-24MK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *30 * * * * 30 Mirage F-1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * *25 MiG-23 FLOGGER * * * * * * * * * * * *15 * * * *15 IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the air Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010? Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire. Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you should have identified in planning. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
On Feb 6, 10:46 am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:34 am, Jack Linthicum wrote: The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks? AIRFORCE SYSTEM Inventory 2005 2010 FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302 F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65 F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60 F-14 TOMCAT 25 25 F-7 (China J-7) 25 25 MiG-29A/UB 25 25 Su-25K 7 7 Su-24MK 30 30 Mirage F-1 25 25 MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15 IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the air Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010? Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire. Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you should have identified in planning. Again ask the Afghanis if they every did in a Hind while it was landing. RPGs, mortars and 122mms would work if they always landed in the same direction and at the same speed. Think of it as medium range IED. Omar, the guy who sweeps the HQ, tags his cellphone and Omar's brother and cousins drop mortar fire or RPGs on the spot. Asymmetrical warfare. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
Vince wrote:
Tiger wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " wrote: reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some Henderson Hall flack making up war stories. You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies excepted of course.... 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 Vince 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
Tiger wrote:
Vince wrote: Tiger wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " wrote: reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some Henderson Hall flack making up war stories. You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies excepted of course.... 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 Vince 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. no ,not better, just pricey Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the mail faster Vince |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
Tiger wrote:
Vince wrote: SNIP 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 Vince 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. 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. It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important. And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the V-22.. They're in trouble... As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or "BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when" the V-22 is used in similar circumstances... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"
On Feb 6, 3:50 pm, Kerryn Offord wrote:
Tiger wrote: Vince wrote: SNIP 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 Vince 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. 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. It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important. And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the V-22.. They're in trouble... As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or "BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when" the V-22 is used in similar circumstances... You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is stoking up the game to get just one V-22. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 50 | November 30th 07 05:25 AM |
Citizen stuns congresswoman: "Why should we divide Iraq for israel?" | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 24th 07 10:12 AM |
"Afghan war has lessons for U.S. pilots in Iraq" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 23rd 07 06:07 PM |
SQUADRON TAXI - "IMG_1276.JPG" 172.4 KBytes | Peter Hucker | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 11th 06 06:54 PM |
Marine Corps Now Authorized To Use "Involuntary Recall" To Force Thousands Back To Iraq (for Israel, of course!) - see comments on page 1 of following URL: | dontcowerfromthetruth | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 23rd 06 09:23 AM |