scottinnj
12-23-2007, 09:35 PM
Story Here (http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=191).
I'm watching "FutureWeapons" on the Military Channel (Directv channel 287) and the host is going over the Osprey, a hybrid airplane/helicopter. I suddenly remembered a story I read in September, and wanted to let you guys know about this problem we are going to have. Here are a couple of pictures of the aircraft, you've probably seen this thing on TV:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/v22.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/v22_07.jpg
I have seen stories on this airframe since it's early days, and 25 years and 22 dead I have decided this thing is not worthy of our military men and women.
It costs as of now, no less then 80 million dollars apiece, and the Pentagon has allocated funds to buy them at over 100 million dollars in 2008.
NOBODY has shown me what the pilots are supposed to do to autorotate if one of the engine nacelles have been hit while in the hovering mode during takeoff or landing.
NOBODY has shown me how the pilots can land this thing, if the nacelles cannot be switched to hover mode from airplane mode. The propellers are so long, when the nacelles are down, the blades rotate lower then the fuselage and landing gear. IT CAN'T LAND LIKE AN AIRPLANE!
Those two questions should have been answered 25 years, and 200 billion dollars ago.
Now they are going into combat. In the place that loves shooting down helicopters.
The US Army has lost 41 helicopters over Iraq and Afghanistan this past year, with another 24 so badly damaged they are likely to be scrapped. This is proof that employing ultra-expensive V-22s over combat zones is unwise, especially since they are larger than any helicopter in the US inventory. The V-22 weighs twice as much and costs four times more than helicopters with comparable abilities. For example, the Navy's FY2005 budget requests 15 MH-60S helicopters for $400.8 million; or a unit cost of $26.7 million each. This helo weighs one-third as much as the V-22, but can pick up nearly the same payload. It has room for 13 combat equipped Marines, compared to 18 for the
V-22. If Congress canceled the V-22 and diverted its $1756.5 million FY2005 request to buy MH-60Ss, this could provide 67 modern helicopters for the Corps, which can also carry machine guns, rockets, and Hellfire missiles, unlike the V-22.
Complete Link to above quote HERE (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22costs.htm)
This was written in 2005, and the shootdown rate of helicopters has gone down, but even if you remove the shootdown numbers, the philosophy is the same as is the tactical impraticalities of deploying this thing instead of the C130 and the Sea King Helicopter.
Given the extraordinary costs of this airframe, and the unknown problems it will encounter in combat situations, I am against this being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I'd like to see the whole program scrapped altogether.
I'm watching "FutureWeapons" on the Military Channel (Directv channel 287) and the host is going over the Osprey, a hybrid airplane/helicopter. I suddenly remembered a story I read in September, and wanted to let you guys know about this problem we are going to have. Here are a couple of pictures of the aircraft, you've probably seen this thing on TV:
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/v22.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/v22/v22_07.jpg
I have seen stories on this airframe since it's early days, and 25 years and 22 dead I have decided this thing is not worthy of our military men and women.
It costs as of now, no less then 80 million dollars apiece, and the Pentagon has allocated funds to buy them at over 100 million dollars in 2008.
NOBODY has shown me what the pilots are supposed to do to autorotate if one of the engine nacelles have been hit while in the hovering mode during takeoff or landing.
NOBODY has shown me how the pilots can land this thing, if the nacelles cannot be switched to hover mode from airplane mode. The propellers are so long, when the nacelles are down, the blades rotate lower then the fuselage and landing gear. IT CAN'T LAND LIKE AN AIRPLANE!
Those two questions should have been answered 25 years, and 200 billion dollars ago.
Now they are going into combat. In the place that loves shooting down helicopters.
The US Army has lost 41 helicopters over Iraq and Afghanistan this past year, with another 24 so badly damaged they are likely to be scrapped. This is proof that employing ultra-expensive V-22s over combat zones is unwise, especially since they are larger than any helicopter in the US inventory. The V-22 weighs twice as much and costs four times more than helicopters with comparable abilities. For example, the Navy's FY2005 budget requests 15 MH-60S helicopters for $400.8 million; or a unit cost of $26.7 million each. This helo weighs one-third as much as the V-22, but can pick up nearly the same payload. It has room for 13 combat equipped Marines, compared to 18 for the
V-22. If Congress canceled the V-22 and diverted its $1756.5 million FY2005 request to buy MH-60Ss, this could provide 67 modern helicopters for the Corps, which can also carry machine guns, rockets, and Hellfire missiles, unlike the V-22.
Complete Link to above quote HERE (http://www.g2mil.com/V-22costs.htm)
This was written in 2005, and the shootdown rate of helicopters has gone down, but even if you remove the shootdown numbers, the philosophy is the same as is the tactical impraticalities of deploying this thing instead of the C130 and the Sea King Helicopter.
Given the extraordinary costs of this airframe, and the unknown problems it will encounter in combat situations, I am against this being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I'd like to see the whole program scrapped altogether.