V-22

[juan_gigante]

I think Peter's point revolves around the comparative benefits per cost of the V-22 and, say, better equipping our guys on the ground. Like it or not, the military will not have unlimited amounts of money to spend. That money which we do have available should be spent as efficiently as possible. I personally believe that the money spent on the V-22, great vehicle that it is, would be better spent on higher pay and better equipment for soldiers.

Do I wish that the Marines could have the V-22? Yeah. As LtCol West pointed out, it is a really good vehicle that fills a need we don't have adequately filled. But given the choice between the V-22 program and having enough body armor for our troops (something we don't have yet), I'll take the body armor every day of the week. I'd also take more money on Strykers and other ground armored vehicles, including up-armoring HMMWVs, more money on VA hospitals and such, and more money spent researching energy independance, so we won't have to worry so much about the Middle East and oil at all, among other things.

There's things I'd cut before the V-22, even. I honestly think that the US probably never needs to build another submarine for another 50 years. Our naval supremacy is absolutely unquestionable, and to be building even more ridiculously expensive hunter-killer submarines to kill enemy navies that do not now and likely won't any time soon exist is a waste, in my book. Same for the F-22.

If I were in charge of the US defense budget, I'd immediately slash the Air Force and Navy's budgets by a third, and give that money to the Army and Marines, and insist they spend it on useful things.

LtCol West points out, correctly, that we do need to be prepared for the possibility of high-intensity warfare against a reasonably competent foe. But, I would argue that two basic points refute that:

1. I think we already have the capability to win any war against any foe, and that's a capability we aren't likely to lose any time soon. And besides, taking money from fancy projects and giving to soldiers on the ground will still help our high-intensity warfare capability.

2. The chances of a high-intensity war are, in my mind, fairly low. For all the talk of some Pentagon war simulators, we aren't going to be fighting China tomorrow or something. I do know, however, that now and in the near future, the US will be guaranteed to be involved in low-intensity conflicts in failed states, dictatorships, and peacekeeping missions. Why not concentrate on those capabilities we know we need instead of the maybes?

[Peter Cairns]

It all comes back to possibility and probability and the balance between the two.

If you try to head off every possibility you will probably dilute your efforts so much as not to be able to properly cope with likely events. On the other had if you focus to much on the likely you get caught by the unexpected.

Adding risk helps a bit, as you can say it's unlikely but for gods sakes look at the consequenced. That's pretty much a central argument against nuclear power, they rarely blow up but when they do.

The UK is immensly vulnerable to a surprise US nuclear attack, but doesn't do anything about it, because they just don't think it will happen ( although if people like me keep pissing yanks off you never know).

Equally the pentagon through NORAD had the worlds most sophisticated air defence network, but it didn't stop AQ flying an airliner in to it.

So it comes down to risk assessment and threat analysis, with no definite answer.

The problem I have with the current US (and UK) force mix and choice of future programmes is that I think to much is being diverted to high cost capabilities where there is very low probability and even if the consiquences could be very serious, existing capabilities are adequate, while not enough is being spent on gaps in capability to deal with the current threat.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

"Equally the pentagon through NORAD had the worlds most sophisticated air defence network, but it didn't stop AQ flying an airliner in to it."

that one deserves a WHOLE new thread of its own.......

Are you aware there were at least THREE live fly excersises going on that morning:

Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who is active in 9/11 conspiracy issues, offers the piggy back theory -- the hijackers found out about the overlapping war games and timed their attack to take advantage of the confusion. This is probably a limited hang out designed to keep military officers from whistleblowing, since the claim that al-Qaeda supposedly compromised US operational security procedures could be very effective at keeping insiders from explaining what they know about the exercises. Honegger has since made ludicrous claims that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was really Osama and that the Pentagon was hit several minutes before it was struck by the plane (probably false leads designed to soak up time and energy on a wild goose chase).

Seven Days in May / The Lone Gunmen -- fictional depictions

Michael Ruppert investigates the 9/11 wargames

9/11 wargames: no coincidence

Air Force wargames on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance

National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise on 9/11

parallel examples: "Internal Look" simulation of Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990, NSA spying on United Nations masked by exercise

web page

[MikeyD]

The one disadvantage of a V-22 over a copter is if the engine quits on one you've got a (admittedly slim) chance of auto-rotating safely to the ground. The old 1930s auto-gyro actually used an unpowered 'helicopter' wing! If it were a fixed-wing aircraft theres a chance to gliding in to safety (again, admittedly pretty low). But by the nature of its design engine trouble with a V-22 is Trouble with a capital T. I class the V-22 design among the many other 'bright ideas' of the 70s where designers pushed the technology farther than it could reasonably go, and the efforts needed to correct the original design tended to negate the original advantage. V-22 cannot fly nearly as fast or as far or with as much payload as envisioned 30 years ago, mostly due to weight gain as the thing got repeatedly 'fixed'.

[flamingknives]

Most fixed-wing aircraft have almost exactly the same gliding properties as a house brick. It's not a particular disadvantage of the V22

[SD Smack]

True. If you put enough power on anything it will fly. But MikeyD is right. If the V-22 looses an engine, while in the "helicopter" configuration then it will suffer an unrecoverable role and crash. While in "airplane" configuration as long as it has enough forward airspeed then it is reasonable (though a slim chance) that it could land without suffering an unrecoverable event.

[Peter Cairns]

SD Smack,

I though it couldn't do that on a carrier, as the blades in forwardflight mode are larger than the landing gear. If it is being used by marines and it can't hover I thought it had to ditch, though I could be wromg.

Peter.

[SD Smack]

let me check that out to make sure. on a carrier you are probably absolutely right. but the ground will chew up the blades pretty good. just hopefully you dont get parts flying throught the fuselage!

I'll get back to you on this.

[SD Smack]

Peter-

Ok here's the deal: The V-22 has a common drive shaft that allows one engine to supply power to both engines in the case of an engine failure. The power from one engine is not enough to hover but you can accomplish a run-on landing. There was an early V-22 that had the drive shaft snapped by the transient torque created by the engine failure and subsequent power applied by the other engine causing a crash but this was fixed.

Hope this helps.

[Los]

What the engineers thought of something before forum members here did? I don't believe it...

Los

:eek:

[Severin]

I seem to recall several stories about them crashing. Did they fix all of that, or are those just acceptable losses now that we are at war?

I recall hearing it was a good way to kill a bunch of marines real fast, but that was several years ago.

[Guest Mike]

There was a problem with flight characteristics that they didn't realise would be so strong - they've modified the aircraft and the training to lessen the risk from that.

there were also 2 mechanical failures that have required redesign of systems and software.

[Ellros]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[QB] Abbot,

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

With the slight exception that the CH53 is getting awfully long in the tooth. They are starting to show their age with metal fatigue and spare parts problems.

[Peter Cairns]

Heres an interesting option to the V-22 especially if the US comes onboard.

flight international

Peter