V-22

[oren_m]

Anyone know if the V-22 is operational already?

And if so, would we see it in the game?

It could be very nice!

Oren_m

[GNFAN]

According to this website:

http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/

Full production was approved in October 2005.

The site does not say (at least I could find it on the site) how many are actually operating now. Perhaps others have more details. It would be an interesting addition to the game. --

David

[junk2drive]

I have seen pairs of them flying low near my town recently.

[Tagwyn]

Were they cigar shaped? Did they just up and disappear? Did they leave marks on the ground? You just a visit by a UFO. Raelians perhaps?

[junk2drive]

Actually I am near area 51.

We get C17s doing touch and go's, Blackhawks going down the river very low on Friday, A10s a couple of weeks ago, you get the idea.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Actually I am near area 51.

Wow I bet those Ospreys are COOL

[ March 04, 2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[junk2drive]

V-22's aren't "Deep Black" either.

When did we get off subject?

I am in NW Arizona and Nevada is across the Colorado river about a mile from here. California is about 6 miles.

Within a 4 hour drive I can be at Luke AFB in PHX, Yuma AZ, 29 Palms, Nellis AFB, and so on.

Anyway the Ospreys are fun to watch.

[Abbott]

[Peter Cairns]

Abbott,

Nice picture, looks impressive from a civilian point of view...

Looks like a big, vulnerable, slow moving target from an Iraqi point of view.

Peter.

[oren_m]

But, it could be very usful when you need to send a small force to an enemy country, let's say, Syria.

In their aircraft mode they fly faster than helicopter (350 Kts, if i remeber right), and they can land where ever they like.

Oren_m

[Peter Cairns]

But we have learned in iraq, that Helos and ground fire don't mix, so whats the plan Oren.....

Fly them rapidly to Syria so that they can be shot down sooner than helicopters would.

Peter.

[M1A1TC]

V-22s are used by the USMC, and there is only US Army in the CMSF. So you might see them in the USMC module, if we ever get one in the future

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Abbott,

Nice picture, looks impressive from a civilian point of view...

Looks like a big, vulnerable, slow moving target from an Iraqi point of view.

Peter.

Peter,

I posted the picture so (some) folks would know what was being discussed. I am glad you are available to let us know everyone's opinions. What's my mom's opinion?

Oren_m,

I agree. From an operational point of view I can see where the vehicle could be useful in a variety of situations.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Abbott:

What's my mom's opinion?

Your mom thinks it would make for a good blender and asks can it whip cream.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way?

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Andrew H.:

Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way?

Yes, if equipped with the V2 pelican clamp.

[Peter Cairns]

The civilian point of view refers to the fact that lots of the things you see at air displays are really impressive, like loops and rolls, but most of them are virtually never used in combat because they bleed off far to much energy and that can be pretty much fatal in a dogfight.

So what looks impressive when you see it at a display or in training isn't necessarily a good thing in combat.

Peter.

[Spanish Bombs]

V-22 Squadron becomes operational

Thunder Chickens, heh.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The civilian point of view refers to the fact that lots of the things you see at air displays are really impressive, like loops and rolls, but most of them are virtually never used in combat because they bleed off far to much energy and that can be pretty much fatal in a dogfight.

So what looks impressive when you see it at a display or in training isn't necessarily a good thing in combat.

Peter.

What the the V-22 Osprey aircraft brings to the table is;

* increased speed because it's twice as fast as a helicopter.

* much longer range resulting in greater mission versatility than a helicopter.

* multi-mission capability: amphibious assault, combat support, long-range special ops infiltration and exfiltration, transport, search and rescue, medevac, and, in the future, tanker capability.

* can transport 24 combat troops or up to 20,000 pounds of internal or external cargo using its medium lift and vertical takeoff and landing capabilities

* meets U.S. Navy requirements for combat search and rescue, fleet logistics support, and special warfare support

* can be stored aboard an aircraft carrier because the rotors can fold and the wing rotate

* has air-to-air refueling capability, the ability to self-deploy

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andrew H.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

Can an Osprey capture enemy vehicles this way? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The civilian point of view refers to the fact that lots of the things you see at air displays are really impressive, like loops and rolls, but most of them are virtually never used in combat because they bleed off far to much energy and that can be pretty much fatal in a dogfight.

So what looks impressive when you see it at a display or in training isn't necessarily a good thing in combat.

Peter.

What the the V-22 Osprey aircraft brings to the table is;

* increased speed because it's twice as fast as a helicopter.

* much longer range resulting in greater mission versatility than a helicopter.

* multi-mission capability: amphibious assault, combat support, long-range special ops infiltration and exfiltration, transport, search and rescue, medevac, and, in the future, tanker capability.

* can transport 24 combat troops or up to 20,000 pounds of internal or external cargo using its medium lift and vertical takeoff and landing capabilities

* meets U.S. Navy requirements for combat search and rescue, fleet logistics support, and special warfare support

* can be stored aboard an aircraft carrier because the rotors can fold and the wing rotate

* has air-to-air refueling capability, the ability to self-deploy </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I think Peter means that in combat zone it'd be shot down right away. Has no place in CMSF.

I think everyone (at least on this forum) knows it is a support aircraft, not a combat aircraft. Unless equipped with the V2 pelican snout/clamp for scooping up enemy vehicles from the surface of the water.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

I think Peter means that in combat zone it'd be shot down right away. Has no place in CMSF.

I think everyone (at least on this forum) knows it is a support aircraft, not a combat aircraft. </font>

[Peter Cairns]

Abbot,

I'll give you the faster longer range, but aprt from that everything else you have listed can be done by a CH53,

Oh and a V-22 costs almost $100m and carries 24 troops or up to 11,700 pounds slung. A CH-53 costs £25m to upgrade to "X" standard and can carry up to 55 troops.

Like the Commanche, the Osprey has been overtaken by events.

Peter.

[Abbott]

I remember the same arguments concerning the absence of need for the C-5 when 747's were already available. I felt the same way then as I do now; I really could care less about it. Those who make the decisions obviously like the V-22’s expanded abilities and its top speed seems (to me) to be a big plus. The V 22 also matches the U.S. Special Operations Command's requirement for a high-speed, long-range, vertical lift aircraft that the upgraded helicopter does not. Whatever floats your boat is cool with me Peter.