|
another V-22 conspiracy theory
What the Air Force admits is that they were using the ramp-mounted machine gun and firing...backward at targets?? Uhhh, ooooookay... As far as teenagers with RPGs you should quit towing that line. The reality and your strawman version are vastly different. |
FH, set aside that tinfoil hat, that accident really happened like the report said. If the AF were experimenting with a gunship mod to the Osprey, they wouldn't have crashed doing gunnery training at 300ish feet operating in "helo mode."
|
As far as teenagers with RPGs you should quit towing that line. The reality and your strawman version are vastly different. Additional Note: The four injured soldiers that were onboard the aircraft were ALL US Navy Seals. I'm sure they'd have a good idea where to stick FH's pea shooter. |
each received 40-50 rds, much of it 'large caliber' aka 12mm/.50 cal in the belly. Not sure what the damage to the aircraft actually was I've heard much the same from the V-22 community. I may not know much but I do know this, the HELICOPTER I flew in combat wouldn't have flown a mile much less 500nm if it had received that kind of damage. Heck if it had been hit with 50 rounds of 7.62 I'm not sure how far it would have flown. But I defer to FH and his prowess in all things related to military aviation and pea shooters. |
Jeffg, that would be like deferring to me and my understanding of neurosurgery. :E
Osprey looks to be fairly robust. |
Jeffg, that would be like deferring to me and my understanding of neurosurgery. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif |
It's funny, really. The V-22 proponents always want to have it both ways. If I say the "rebels" were shooting the V-22's with "small arms," the V-22 apologists immediately claim that the rebels were well-armed with tanks and RPGs.
An actual witness to the fiasco reported in this very thread that, "...Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns." (There is no evidence to suggest that these particular "rebels" around Bor have obtained the ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank. If they had such a weapon - and more importantly used it on the V-22's - the outcome would have been far different for those V-22s.) After-action reports indicate that the V-22s were hit with 40-50 rounds of 12mm/.50 caliber. Now, a .50 caliber round would be considered a "large caliber" but let's admit that it can still be fired from pistol, eh? Okay, so the largest round to reportedly hit the V-22s was a .50 caliber (12mm). Ergo, this is still small-arms fire. My statement stands: If even *one* of those rebels had an RPG and knew how to use it, we'd be singing a different song about that mission. Is this not correct? One of you military experts chime in here? The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!" Uhhhhhh... Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?" Come on. Get real. If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Maybe they were practicing to shoot backward at any "enemies" they had just passed over. But I think that's a rather silly tactic. Don't you? And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. And again, any gun on a V-22 will have problems if they want it to fire forward unless it's in the very vulnerable helicopter mode. But hey, I'm on board here! I'd prefer that the V-22 get some defensive weapons. That's one of the things we've always been critical of: The utter lack of ability to defend itself. The attempted rescue in Bor drove that point home pretty clearly. When going into hostile territory, the Osprey is a sitting duck. |
|
There is no evidence to suggest that these particular "rebels" around Bor have obtained the ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank No one said they had a ‘ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank’...whatever that is. The ZSU-23 comes in many forms with the Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Weapon Shilka being just one of them. See attached picture below for example of the Toyota mounted ZSU-23 'tank'. But of course with your vast knowledge of all things military you already knew that. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sh_%285%29.jpg The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!" Ok. So tell us what would a C-130 have done? A CH-53E? If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. Care to offer any evidence? The fact of the matter it has not. But please enlighten us with your background in the military procurement and test and evaluation process. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Yes we do. They were doing exactly what they said they were doing. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. The one thing we know for certain is that you have no idea what you’re talking about on this subject. Instead of being concerned about the V-22 proponents you should be more concerned that you let an inanimate object get under your skin so. |
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot
(Post 8331686)
I The V-22 proponents always want to have it both ways. If I say the "rebels" were shooting the V-22's with "small arms," the V-22 apologists immediately claim that the rebels were well-armed with tanks and RPGs.
An actual witness to the fiasco reported in this very thread that, "...Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns." After-action reports indicate that the V-22s were hit with 40-50 rounds of 12mm/.50 caliber. Now, a .50 caliber round would be considered a "large caliber" but let's admit that it can still be fired from pistol, eh? To classify machine gun fire like 7.62 or .50 cal as 'small arms' is valid when using USAF/Joint doctrinal defnitions of anti aircraft fire ... which you don't appear to be doing. You are trying to play games. Small arms fire, as opposed to artillery, not "small like a pistol" as you insinuate up there. If even *one* of those rebels had an RPG and knew how to use it, we'd be singing a different song about that mission. FH, since about 50 years ago in Viet Nam, it has been a very well known problem that slow moving aircraft in the LZ are very susceptible to small arms fire: rifles, machine guns, etc, per above. A few thousand helicopters went down in Viet Nam. I will share with you an interesting point learned over there: over 600 fast moving jets went down due to AAA, some of which were from small arms, some of larger caliber (57 mm, for example). Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?" And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. When going into hostile territory, the Osprey is a sitting duck. Your spin and condemnation hurt your case, they don't help it. Edit: mcpave, thanks for the pointers to those two programs. We learn something new every day. :ok: |
The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!" Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?" Come on. Get real. If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Maybe they were practicing to shoot backward at any "enemies" they had just passed over. But I think that's a rather silly tactic. Don't you? And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. And again, any gun on a V-22 will have problems if they want it to fire forward unless it's in the very vulnerable helicopter mode. |
An Apache or Cobra has the huge disadvantage of having to set off twice as far in time ahead of an Osprey to get to the same place, and not being able to get that far.
If Ospreys are to look after themselves, without requiring F35s to coordinate to depart later and arrive at the same time, then something armed and the same shape as an Osprey might be required. The Osprey has unique capabilities, that likely will eventually redeem its high cost and apparent sensitivity to careless handling/mechanical abnormalities. |
Jeffg, LW, Mcpave,
(and honorable mention to Sans for comedic relief) Congrats on countering every false claim, exaggeration, and complete distortion of the truth on the most recent FH post by presenting the true facts as has been done repeatedly on this thread. I had a couple of comments I wanted to add, but I feel it would be like kicking a handicapped kid when he was laying on the ground (really!). FHruitloops, Get a life... If you want to avoid the repeated embarrassment, post about the things you truly have knowledge about like warming cherries which can be quite interesting (really!). |
Marines Train for Long-Distance NEOs in Japan
|
Hovering, Fast Roping SpecOps Operators, hostile LZ.
RPG Team at Two O'Clock. AK's at Nine O'Clock. Gunner Engage! Nope, I would opt for the three gun configuration like on Helicopters that have ramps. |
|
LEHMAN: Proving the mettle of the military’s Osprey
LEHMAN: Proving the mettle of the military’s Osprey The tilt-rotor aircraft has saved lives all over the globe By John Lehman Friday, March 28, 2014 Thirty-two years ago, the secretary of the Navy, the commandant of the Marine Corps and chief of naval operations had to decide on a replacement for the old Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopter, the heavy-lift workhorse of Navy fleet replenishment and Marine air assault. The options were a new twin-rotor such as the Sea Knight, or an entirely new tilt-rotor technology that had been developed and flown by NASA. We established a blue-ribbon panel of the top aeronautical engineers and operators, chaired by Hans Mark, former secretary of the Air Force. The unanimous conclusion of the panel was that the tilt-rotor was the way to go. It was an aircraft designed specifically for survivability. In combat, on lifesaving search-and-rescue missions, performing humanitarian airlifts or moving troops and equipment, the tilt-rotor could fly faster, higher and further. It took off and landed like a helicopter but cruised at twice the speed of any helicopter. It provided the capability to do many new missions, but most importantly, was much less vulnerable to groundfire and could save thousands of lives in combat. After careful engineering evaluation and risk analysis by the Navy, we committed to the program and the secretary of defense signed the decision document in 1983. A joint team of contractors from Boeing and Bell was chosen to develop the airplane after Sikorsky showed no interest. A very tight contract was negotiated to develop the aircraft as a team and then to compete each year for production, with the lowest bidder being awarded the larger number and high-priced bidder a smaller number, thus keeping a constant pressure and incentive to improve productivity and reduce cost. The program proceeded very well until the Bush administration took office in 1989. As part of a sweeping defense review led by the defense bureaucracy, new Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney signed off on its recommendation to de-emphasize naval aviation and to kill all new Navy and Marine aircraft programs except the F-18. Thus, the Osprey was canceled, along with the A-12, A-6F Intruder, F-14D Tomcat, P-8 and ES-3B, leaving the Navy with only one aircraft program for the first time in its history. Congress, to say the least, was perplexed. After extensive hearings and testimony, Congress directed the continuation of the program now called the V-22 Osprey. There followed then for the remainder of the Bush administration a tragicomedy, in which the Pentagon would kill the Osprey each year, and Congress would direct its resuscitation. Needless to say, this created havoc in the program office and at Boeing and Bell. That mulish behavior by the Pentagon, refusing to accept that Congress has a constitutional right to make such decisions, delayed the Osprey by at least 10 years and more than doubled the price. Today, after years of distinguished service on a diverse range of missions, the V-22 has earned a stellar safety record and proven its mettle time and again. Never has this been more obvious than during 2013, which truly was the Year of the Osprey. As a humanitarian asset, the Osprey has become a key element of international relief efforts. Following Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines last November, V-22s have been carrying supplies and ferrying people to and from remote areas, working 24/7 from both land and sea bases. The news media, Philippine government and nongovernmental organizations have heralded the V-22 as a game-changing asset in around-the clock relief operations. Rescue and extraction is a key mission for the Osprey, and nowhere has it performed better than in Sudan last December, when three V-22s sent to rescue Americans were subjected to heavy groundfire. The cutting-edge composites and design of this remarkable aircraft ensured its survival. All three Ospreys continued flying, carrying four seriously wounded U.S. troops 500 miles to safety. V-22s are now strategically placed in key locations to ensure the capability for immediate extraction of individuals serving in harm's way across the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East, ensuring that tragedies like Benghazi will not happen again. Combat was always a primary mission for the V-22, and 2013 has seen Ospreys continuing to perform remarkably in Afghanistan. More operationally efficient than helicopters, the Osprey has more than 200,000 flight hours while executing thousands of missions in harsh environments and terrain, such as Afghanistan. On the home front, because of their unique safety and survivability, V-22s have joined the presidential fleet. Over the years, the V-22 Osprey has evolved into a game-changing asset that ensures the U.S. succeeds and prevails in the hardest, most challenging missions. Indeed, 2013 saw the V-22 come into its prime, flawlessly performing missions across the globe while serving as a standard-bearer of freedom, projecting U.S. power, compassion and innovation. John Lehman is a former secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and served as a member of the 9/11 Commission. He has no relationship with any contractor mentioned in this article.
Note: Lehman was actually Secretary of the Navy under Reagan |
It is truly amazing, the extent some people will go to try to make the V-22 a success where it is not. Like that former U.S. Secretary of Defense, John Lehman. His little opinion piece in the Washington Times seems so...I dunno...desperate to me. Doesn't it seem desperate to you too? It's like he's trying really, really hard...too hard, I think...to convince us that the Osprey is such a valuable aircraft. That desperation must come from some inside knowledge that the V-22 is still on the verge of cancellation. As it should be. He probably still has good contacts at the Pentagon.
In the article linked, Lehman states: Rescue and extraction is a key mission for the Osprey, and nowhere has it performed better than in Sudan last December, when three V-22s sent to rescue Americans were subjected to heavy groundfire. The cutting-edge composites and design of this remarkable aircraft ensured its survival. All three Ospreys continued flying, carrying four seriously wounded U.S. troops 500 miles to safety. Come on, John, you can be more honest than that, can't you? Oh wait- no you can't. Because you put forth one other bit of misinformation earlier in your article... Thirty-two years ago, the secretary of the Navy, the commandant of the Marine Corps and chief of naval operations had to decide on a replacement for the old Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopter, the heavy-lift workhorse of Navy fleet replenishment and Marine air assault. The options were a new twin-rotor such as the Sea Knight, or an entirely new tilt-rotor technology that had been developed and flown by NASA. The trouble is, people who are unfamiliar with aviation will read Lehman's self-serving, bull!!!!! WT piece and take is as gospel. "Well, he's the former Secretary of Defense - he must be telling us the truth!" Calling that FAILED mission to South Sudan a success really takes the cake. All it proved was that the V-22 can take ground fire and run away fast and far. Heck, a C-130 could've done that. And double-heck, an AC-130 could've returned fire. So maybe it wouldn't have had to run away at all. |
FH,
It is truly amazing, the extent some people will go to try to make the V-22 a success where it is not. Like that former U.S. Secretary of Defense, John Lehman. One very small problem with your post. John Lehman was the Secretary of the Navy, not SecDef. I don't suppose that matters much to you, but it shows a certain lack of accuracy in your research into the Osprey Program. 21st Century and McPave are far more on top of things than you I would suggest. |
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot
(Post 8416174)
His little opinion piece in the Washington Times seems so...I dunno...desperate to me.
The trouble is, people who are unfamiliar with aviation will read Lehman's self-serving, bull!!!!! WT piece and take is as gospel. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:12. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.