jeffg

21st I would suggest you correct your above statement for accuracy as follows:
"In addition to your lack of knowledge of tiltrotor technology, military operations in general and military aviation specifically, you have now demonstrated your ignorance of knowledge of the political situation in South Sudan."

I think we should leave inaccurate statements based on little to no evidence, knowledge or supporting facts to FH.

21stCen

Spot on Jeff, thanks!

21stCen

Congratulations FH, you have managed to convince everybody on this thread except one that you do not have a clue as has been demonstrated over and over by you on this thread in the past. But keep dribbling the unsubstantiated nonsense and even that last person will finally realize you are a space cadet (that last person is of course you…). Read through what you wrote and give yourself a good slap on the back of your head for embarrassing yourself.

FH1100 said:
Your obvious prejudice and continued assertion that the actual threat on the ground that the Ospreys encountered was minimal is based on your imagination, not fact. Try doing a little research before flowing at the mouth with falsehoods derived from your lack of knowledge. Although those on the ground do not compare to a western military force by any means, they are armed well enough to have defeated the country’s army and taken control of the town (they include former soldiers that have defected to the opposition). At this moment the South Sudan Army is in a battle to take it back. The arms supplied to the rebels are apparently being funded by the Sudanese government in Khartoum.

A barrage of ”small arms” fire (AK-47s,mortars, etc.) at close range can stop either tiltrotors or helicopters from accomplishing their mission as anybody even remotely familiar with military operations would know.



South Sudanese rebels have taken over a key town, the military has said, as fighting continues after Sunday's reported coup attempt, BBC reports.
Rebels take South Sudan town Bor after 'coup attempt'

In this case all three aircraft took the hits and made it out with the ability to fly 500nm so the injured could be treated. This is to the credit of the crews and the aircraft. It was not a weakness in the aircraft that the mission had to be aborted, the primary reason was the fact that the bullets were tearing through human flesh just as would have been the case if helicopters were in the same hot LZ. It has always been agreed by members participating on this thread that both type aircraft will be equally vulnerable when faced with this situation. From that perspective it does not matter whether it was due to bad intel, bad planning, or bad luck that put them in harms way as either tiltrotors or helicopters can find themselves in the same situation. The crew members and aircraft could not have performed more admirably under the circumstances and anyone who says otherwise will prove their ignorance.

As others have said here, with the Osprey's proven track record they will be going back out there on the ‘pointy end of the spear,’ along with other proven helicopters and airplanes. Get used to it!!!

Merry Christmas

rh200

Quote:

The arms supplied to the rebels are apparently being funded by the Sudanese government in Khartoum

Has that been confirmend yet. I was wondering if there was a bit of interfering going on in the background.

Vertical Freedom

I remember too many Moons ago whilst doing my Helicopter theory back in 1986-88 being told that the 'tilt-rotor' IS the future & we will ALL be flying only these ungainly contraptions in the very near future OOOPS now 27+ years later; no GA certification, still being trailed, tested & ironing out bugs what an incredible machine

21stCen

It has been reported that Sudan is supplying the rebels with light weapons, ammunition, and rockets in a deal with Iran and China:
Sudan supplying fighters against South Sudan in arms for oil deal with Iran, China | World Tribune

riff_raff

The V-22 should have less potential to threats like small arms fire or RPGs than a conventional rotorcraft. The V-22 spends less time flying at low altitudes.

SansAnhedral

Vertical, you're still flying a vintage 1975 helicopter design on a near daily basis!

Surely you dont think we have "arrived" in the future.

Also, not sure how flying daily in a warzone for a few hundred thousand hours is still being "tested and ironed out". That was an argument maybe a decade ago.

SASless

Sans,

The 22 concept began a long time ago......and when the latest Sikorsky thing comes to being in a few years it will have been around since the late 70's. The S-69 ABC first flew in July 1975. Had the US Government picked up the full cost of Flight Testing back then.....the project would have been much further along but the decision had been made to go with the Tilt Rotor and not the ABC concept.

We see a renewed interest in the Sikorsky design concept today as the Tilt Rotor design does not lend itself for use as an Attack Helicopter.....which the ABC concept is very well suited.

The XV-3 first flew in March 1955 and was already in the Museum when I started flying Helicopters in 1967. The V-22 is just the latest of the line.

The days of six months from initial sketch to start of production ended with the P-51.

Vertical Freedom

G'day SansAnhedral

Yaar & still going 'if it ain't broke, why fix it?'

An entire decade later the V22's only use (still) appears to be Military theatre ........

Happy Landings

VF

SansAnhedral

SAS/Vert

V-22 is to XV-3 (1955) as XH59 is to Hiller X-2-235 (1945!)



The high hinge offset rigid rotor is a dinosaur in and of itself

A better ancestor comparison for the V22 is the XV-15, which flew for 3 decades with nary a hiccup. It's even the only display at Udvar-Hazy to self-deliver!

The lack of civil certification to this point is largely a result of no certification agency thus far being capable of determining preceisely just how to determine actual cert requirements of a tiltrotor; not the machine itself.

Udakat

To lay to rest the speculative talk on what happened, here is the detail of events as they unfolded when they got hit in Bor, South Sudan. On that particular day the US Air Force was to send a C 130 Hercules for extraction of US Citizens from Bor. Accordingly the Rebel forces were informed. However the US Air Force landed up with 04 Ospreys and not the C 130 as had been planned and coordinated. Unfortunately the arrival of the Ospreys coincided with an Air Raid carried out by the Govt Jets over Rebel Positions not far from Bor. Thus due to lack of knowledge about the Aircraft, the Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns. However, the OSPREYS were majestic in their flight and impressed those of us watching the drama unfold. The American Pilots could have been less aggressive in their flying over a hostile zone. They first made a very fast low flying recce run over the airstrip and then turned back at steep angles for the landing approach. If they had come in slowly as helicopters do with rotors up and landed, the firing would not have taken place. The Aircraft which took the maximum hit flew directly over the rebel firing position at a very low altitude during its approach for landing. Due credit due to the pilots who after taking so many hits were able to pull up the aircraft and then fly it to Uganda. Superb Aircraft though...

Lonewolf_50

Your attention is directed here. Apparently, the folks at Bell disagree with you, and so apparently does the Army.

I think the V-280 concept art looks a lot like a Blackhawk body with a novel variation on tilt rotor (but not tilt engines) ... Your Mileage May Vary.

PS: Udakat, thanks for that.

FH1100 Pilot

To me, events like the one in Bor, South Sudan are hilarious. Yes, hilarious. The tiltrotor Kool-Aid drinkers continue to fantasize that the V-22 is "better" than a conventional helicopter. To wit:

riff-raff:"Should" have? All very well and good, but it really comes down to the LZ, doesn't it? Yes, as long as the V-22 can cruise in a way that minimizes its exposure to "small-arms fire" it's golden. Then again, I suppose a helicopter could do the same, no?

But then we must eventually land somewhere. And in that old "fog of war" thing, sometimes the wrong guy shoots the wrong guy, which we don't like to admit but does happen (:::cough-cough::: Pat Tillman).

I joked that the V-22's in Bor were deterred by naked teenagers with pea shooters and spears. Then I was immediately criticized as knowing nothing about war, NOTHING! To prove the point, pictures were displayed of well-armed rebel forces in camo uniforms, holding bazookas while sitting on tanks, which certainly exceeds the definition of "small arms." And then it turns out (thanks to Udakat's supposedly first-hand description) that the unarmed V-22's were shot at by...well...teenagers with pea shooters. HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

So...let's recap. If the V-22 does a fast, straight-in approach it's likely to crash (Marana, 4/2000 and Afghanistan, 4/2010). If the V-22 does a circling, recon-type approach it's likely to get shot up by either enemy forces or uneducated teenage "friendlies" who don't know what the hell it is and assume it to be hostile. Or maybe it'll just crash while "maneuvering" (a USAF one in 2009 that they won't talk about, one in Morocco, 4/2012 and one on Eglin AFB, 6/2012).

Yup, sooooooooo much better than a helicopter!

And yes, yes...I know that all aircraft crash- don't bother to remind me. I just find it curious that the V-22 crashes so often considering that only about 160 of the things have been built so far (as opposed to...how many helicopters?). The Osprey production line is going to have to be continued if for no other reason than to replace the ones the U.S. military keeps crashing!

We are left to wonder which idiot General made the misguided decision to swap the C-130's for *four* V-22s in Bor? We are left to wonder why the V-22 mission continued despite and in the midst of, according to Udakat, "...an Air Raid carried out by the Govt Jets over Rebel Positions not far from Bor." We are left to wonder why there was no drone or other surveillance to give the V-22 crews real-time intel? We are left to wonder why the V-22s had no air support.

LOTS went wrong with that mission and I suspect, not knowing ANYTHING about the military or war, that somebody is going to get his ass handed to him by somebody higher up in rank.

I mean, I get it. The military is desperate to use the V-22 in different ways that to prove that it really, really, really...we swear!...is a good aircraft.

COMMANDING GENERAL: "Hey, here's a perfect mission for the Osprey! Let's send it to extract the Americans in Bor! Cancel the C-130's. Send the V-22's!!"

UNDERLING: "Good plan, sir! You are without a doubt a military genius! Uhhh...do you want me to arrange for some fighters for cover?"

COMMANDING GENERAL: "Naaahhhh, they'll be fine. Quick in and out. That's what they do, right? I mean, that's what the Osprey community keeps telling me. We'll prove to that damn FH1100 guy that the V-22's are battle-proven aircraft that can get the job done! Fire 'em up!!"

But in the end they did not "get the job done," and now the U.S. military has to figure out some other way to do it. My guess is that they'll go back to Plan A.

SansAnhedral

Seems FH has crawled back out from under his rock! Nice to see you in 2014.

So I suppose this is our cue to pick apart your rambings point by point again...

I think you need a refresher on what a 23mm ZSU might be referring to. Pea shooter, it ain't. But there I am giving you credit for being ignorant versus disingenuous...

1 incident in testing where the AC decended *far* faster than permitted in the RFM (try decending at 2500 fpm at 258' AGL in ANY helicopter), and 1 incident in operation where the AC flipped after hitting a wadi on rollout of another botched approach deceleration does not make a determination of "likely" over the course of 200,000 flight hours of the aircraft performing these maneuvers (within NATOPS) on a daily basis.

Hard to argue a "secret crash" wouldnt you say? Morocco was a pilot who beeped the nacelles forward at low altitude before hitting 40 kts, fully in violation of NATOPS. Eglin was the same pilot from the 2010 Afghanistan incident who strayed into the well defined stayout zone of the lead formation aircraft during low altitude gunnery training. You know these facts, youve posted in these threads immediately after they happened. None of these incidents can be honestly construed as a valid indictment of the aircraft.

Crashes "so often"? You just listed 4 incidents in the span of A DECADE. Do you really not understand the premise of accident RATES? Of course you do, there I go assuming your ignorance again .

Firstly, as of June of 2013 the USMC had 214. This is not counting the CV-22s (whose incidents you chose to count above). In addition, the fleet is probably right around 200,000 flight hours to date, if not more.

You ask "How many helicopters?" Richard Whittle answered this question a couple years ago:
For example the venerable CH-46 experienced 44 Class A mishaps over its initial 5 years of operational service. This included a few that broke up in flight due to the notorious station 410 failures. Now you want to hammer on the V-22's mishaps in its operational infancy while using conventional helicopters as the baseline? The V-22 has been far and away safer. Full stop. There is no argument.


Now that the great Tom Clancy has passed, maybe you can pick up the torch with such an imagination.

Im sure I speak for the rest of the contributors to this thread when I say we all await with bated breath more of your stellar responses!

jeffg

L to R CR123 battery, .223, .308, .300WM, .50BMG, 20mm(pea round)

The ZU-23mm is commonly referred to by military experts as a pea shooter. Light enough to be carried by the average sudanese teenager on their way to school, goat herding, or protest. Known only to cause damage to tilt rotor aircraft, especially when used in conjunction with spears. While helicopters have been shot down with 7.62mm (aka coconut shooter), most helicopters, particularly the FH100 are known to be impervious to 23mm.

SansAnhedral

Perhaps not!

Udakat

Well I am not a Pilot and hence you can pick apart my argument with ease I guess. But from my experience I have the following observations.

Conventional Choppers - Two Helicopters shot down in South Sudan by the SPLA and White Army (South Sudan Army and White Army Refers to a Militia Group). SPLA Shot down the chopper (MI 08) at a range of two KM with a SAM 7. The second Chopper (MI 8) shot down by two bursts of AK 47 when one Bullet hit a fuel tank. Another chopper was able to fly to safety despite having a Blade damaged and one engine shot.

Ospreys - Just one experience of watching the Ospreys in Action. But it was 2000 Personnel located in the Bor Stadium who started firing with whatever they had (I mentioned the weapons earlier). All or at least two Ospreys got hit and badly damaged. The one which was unfortunate to make its approach for landing right over the Hostile area almost came crashing onto our heads but the pilot despite being hit was able to pull up and fly the Aircraft to safety. And not just fly it flew right from the middle of South Sudan to the middle of Uganda. Nonetheless as I mentioned earlier it is the man behind the machine which matters most of the time. The man in this case was a brave one and needs to be saluted for that. But the maverick style of flying in hostile territory when you are exposed and without cover is a practice better avoided.

Then someone earlier pointed out the issue of securing the airfield. How can you secure an airfield and surrounding areas with 300 Men when the armed personnel number 15000 (Armed to the Teeth)? You can take assurances and assurances were obtained for the C 130 with pictures shown and distributed with flight path coordinated. The coordination had not catered for Ospreys flying in as they would in an Air Show and doing low flying High speed recces.

But From my limited experience I would rate the Ospreys higher on than conventional Choppers on the following counts -

1. Speed.
2. Range.
3. Capacity.
4. Ability to take multiple small arms hits and continue operations.
5. Maneuverability in air.

As far as the conventional choppers are concerned no need to elaborate on the advantages as these are actually known by all. First and foremost being, that the Ospreys do require a large area for landing. I may be wrong or correct. Please correct if wrong.

jeffg

Not sure sans. I heard that it was a new heat seeking missile, the MK I Mosquito that brought that one down. Much more powerful than the 'pea shooter'. See engineering drawing below.

Lonewolf_50

Sans, was that one of FH's mishaps?

I guess that RPG that took out a Chinook with a load of SEALs on board was a pea shooter as well.

FH, suggest you stick with what you know. The mil side isn't it.