Osprey Would Make Nice Addition to Game

[Victoria Cross]

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/osprey_inches_i.html

It would be interesting seeing an Osprey land and unload a company onto the battlefield

[YankeeDog]

Well, considering that helicopters aren't goingto be graphically represented at all, I really doubt you'll see Ospreys.

And actually, if you read the full NYtimes article, the Osprey is not yet cleared for operation in high-threat zones; only low- to medium- threat. Apparently, there are concerns about its ability to safely engage in evasive maneuvers, while low and slow, landing or taking off.

So no hot LZ insertions with the Osprey yet, even though that is what it was originally designed for. From the sounds of things, for now, its misson will be little different than the venerable Chinook. It does have the advantage of higher altitude and speed over the Chinook, though I'm not sure the massive cost of the Osprey program is really justified, if all its good for is as a VERTOL truck. . . hopefully, it will prove itself in Iraq, and end up overcoming its checkered development history.

Cheers,

YD

[civdiv]

The whole program is a huge waste of money. While a feat of technology the Osprey is an example of the exact type of aircraft you don't want in the military. I could see a few dozen for special missions, but it is not a helo replacement.

All the services have a big, dumb, overpriced, albatross of a military development project. The Navy just shut down their LCS program after unit cost reached over 300 million per hull. Throw enough money at a program and you will end up turning a big, ocean going, patrol boat into a destroyer. What are they fighting, Martians? At least it works, but it is over priced. The Army has Stryker or the self-propelled howitzer or the FCS program, and now the USMC has the AAAV and the Osprey. The air force has the F/A-22 program at what, 130 million per air frame? No service, IMHO, is as unscrupulous as the Air Force about money.

civdiv

[ April 14, 2007, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[rudel.dietrich]

As the Syrian player I would love to see this!

15 free casulties a mission without even lifting a finger

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

As the Syrian player I would love to see this!

15 free casulties a mission without even lifting a finger

Sadly I laughed, (because it is more then half true, "15 free casualites per mission") but its not so funny considering how many service members including test pilots have lost their lives and left behind grieving family members during the lengthy testing process of this overly expensive alabatros.

Statistics about the deaths caused by this aircraft are not handy at the moment, but last time I looked there was a website with a timeline and an alarmingly long list of service members lost in Osprey crashes. The last time I looked I was deeply moved and greatly saddened by the loss of life this aircraft has caused in crashes and failures.

[/rant off]

-tom w

[civdiv]

36 dead, I think. A friend of mine saw one crash. He said that because of all the ceramics used in the thing, it shattered like a plate when it hit the ground.

civdiv

[Thomm]

Originally posted by civdiv:

36 dead, I think. A friend of mine saw one crash. He said that because of all the ceramics used in the thing, it shattered like a plate when it hit the ground.

civdiv

Ceramics?!?!?!

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-design.htm

The airframe is constructed primarily of graphite-reinforced epoxy composite material. The composite structure will provide improved strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and damage tolerance compared to typical metal construction. Battle damage tolerance is built into the aircraft by means of composite construction and redundant and separated flight control, electrical, and hydraulic systems. An integrated electronic warfare defensive suite including a radar warning receiver, a missile warning set, and a countermeasures dispensing system, will be installed.

The V-22 fuselage has a number of advanced composite structures. A rear loading ramp has been incorporated, which when closed, comprises the lower portion of the aft fuselage section. There is one side-entry personnel door. The fuselage is a semi-monocoque structure that connects the wing, nacelles, landing gear, sponson, ramp and empennage. External skin, bulkheads, and stringers are primarily constructed of carbon/epoxy with some metallic and fiberglass skin panels. Cabin floor panels are honeycomb sandwiches. Frames are constructed of either aluminum or carbon/epoxy.

No ceramics.

Best regards,

Thomm

[flamingknives]

Carbon epoxy composites do, however, shatter.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

36 dead, I think. A friend of mine saw one crash. He said that because of all the ceramics used in the thing, it shattered like a plate when it hit the ground.

civdiv

Ceramics?!?!?!

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-design.htm

The airframe is constructed primarily of graphite-reinforced epoxy composite material. The composite structure will provide improved strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and damage tolerance compared to typical metal construction. Battle damage tolerance is built into the aircraft by means of composite construction and redundant and separated flight control, electrical, and hydraulic systems. An integrated electronic warfare defensive suite including a radar warning receiver, a missile warning set, and a countermeasures dispensing system, will be installed.

The V-22 fuselage has a number of advanced composite structures. A rear loading ramp has been incorporated, which when closed, comprises the lower portion of the aft fuselage section. There is one side-entry personnel door. The fuselage is a semi-monocoque structure that connects the wing, nacelles, landing gear, sponson, ramp and empennage. External skin, bulkheads, and stringers are primarily constructed of carbon/epoxy with some metallic and fiberglass skin panels. Cabin floor panels are honeycomb sandwiches. Frames are constructed of either aluminum or carbon/epoxy.

No ceramics.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

As the Syrian player I would love to see this!

15 free casulties a mission without even lifting a finger

Sadly I laughed, (because it is more then half true, "15 free casualites per mission") but its not so funny considering how many service members including test pilots have lost their lives and left behind grieving family members during the lengthy testing process of this overly expensive alabatros.

Statistics about the deaths caused by this aircraft are not handy at the moment, but last time I looked there was a website with a timeline and an alarmingly long list of service members lost in Osprey crashes. The last time I looked I was deeply moved and greatly saddened by the loss of life this aircraft has caused in crashes and failures.

[/rant off]

-tom w </font>

[flamingknives]

Most fibre-reinforced composites are primarily fibre (50-70% by volume) rather than polymer. Composites and ceramics are vastly different - calling them similar is like saying that beer is similar to whisky. Different production methods, different properties, vaguely similar end effects in certain situations.

Composite design and technology (amongst other things) is my day job.

[c3k]

Actally, the IDEA behind the Osprey represents a key improvement in force deployment. Before you get your panties all wadded up, look at the capabilities which separate the Osprey from other aircraft:

1- Lift capacity (15? fully combat equipped Marines. That includes all their field gear ~100lbs per man.)

2- Range

3- Vertical Take-Off and Landing

4- Speed

Now, no other aircraft can combine these. What helicopter can lift 15(?) combat equipped Marines? Seems only a CH-53 or CH-46. What are their ranges and speeds? Far less. Etc., etc.

Okay, men have died testing a radical new (and EXPENSIVE) aircraft. Please post the number of deaths in the testing of various helicopters, and post about your sadness.

Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it expensive? Maybe too much, maybe FAR too much. Shrug. Spears are cheaper than laser sighted, night vision enhanced, full-auto, selective fire, grenade-launcher assault weapons. Yet, you won't debate their relative costs.

These kinds of cost debates with an unproven (and some could say not fully tested) item often incudes all the development costs, ignoring any future return on the investment.

Am I defending the Osprey? Not really, just defending a new concept against a conventional mindset bias.

Thanks,

Ken

[hellfish]

Originally posted by civdiv:

The whole program is a huge waste of money. While a feat of technology the Osprey is an example of the exact type of aircraft you don't want in the military. I could see a few dozen for special missions, but it is not a helo replacement.

All the services have a big, dumb, overpriced, albatross of a military development project. The Navy just shut down their LCS program after unit cost reached over 300 million per hull. Throw enough money at a program and you will end up turning a big, ocean going, patrol boat into a destroyer. What are they fighting, Martians? At least it works, but it is over priced. The Army has Stryker or the self-propelled howitzer or the FCS program, and now the USMC has the AAAV and the Osprey. The air force has the F/A-22 program at what, 130 million per air frame? No service, IMHO, is as unscrupulous as the Air Force about money.

civdiv

I'd argue that the Stryker has been an uncommonly successful program. What, like 3.5 years from concept to combat and within all reasonable budget parameters?

The big Army albatross these days is indeed the FCS, which is thankfully being gutted anew every month.

[c3k]

Oh, I just realized I never addressed the original question in this thread: I hope the Osprey is NOT included in CMSF. I agree with rudel.dietrich that it would be an almost guaranteed kill for the the Syrians.

Thanks,

Ken

[Thomm]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Composite design and technology (amongst other things) is my day job.

Hi flamingknives!

Please check the email I have sent you from thommson@hotmail.com!

Best regards,

Thomm

[civdiv]

Originally posted by c3k:

Actally, the IDEA behind the Osprey represents a key improvement in force deployment. Before you get your panties all wadded up, look at the capabilities which separate the Osprey from other aircraft:

1- Lift capacity (15? fully combat equipped Marines. That includes all their field gear ~100lbs per man.)

2- Range

3- Vertical Take-Off and Landing

4- Speed

Now, no other aircraft can combine these. What helicopter can lift 15(?) combat equipped Marines? Seems only a CH-53 or CH-46. What are their ranges and speeds? Far less. Etc., etc.

Okay, men have died testing a radical new (and EXPENSIVE) aircraft. Please post the number of deaths in the testing of various helicopters, and post about your sadness.

Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it expensive? Maybe too much, maybe FAR too much. Shrug. Spears are cheaper than laser sighted, night vision enhanced, full-auto, selective fire, grenade-launcher assault weapons. Yet, you won't debate their relative costs.

These kinds of cost debates with an unproven (and some could say not fully tested) item often incudes all the development costs, ignoring any future return on the investment.

Am I defending the Osprey? Not really, just defending a new concept against a conventional mindset bias.

Thanks,

Ken

Bias, schmias. Aircraft that lose power either have the crews eject, or they glide to a crash landing. Helos auto-rotate. The Osprey does neither and turns into a 27 ton coffin. The passengers are packed into a very small, wondowless cabin. You can't put a vehicle in the thing, you can't fast rope out of it. The heat of the exhaust lights dried grass on fire and the down draft blows the roofs off buildings. And thus far they haven't even figured out how to mount a gun on it. The cramped passenger compartment combined with longer range just means you have less capable troops when you get to where you are going.

They should have left it as a technological model and skipped to the next generation of STOL/VTOL technology. OR, bought a few dozen for special missions. The Corps would have been much better off just developing a modern CH-46 replacement. That would have left them with a more capable helo for years to come and at a significant cost savings.

civdiv

[c3k]

civdiv,

, you haven't actually addressed any of my points (not that you NEED to). Um, so if the USMC develops a CH-46 replacement, would it be different? Like, um, say, a tilt-rotor?

As for power loss, the Osprey should (and has been tested) to enable continued flight on a single engine - just like the CH-46. Why couldn't the Osprey glide in a total power loss? Or do you suggest that everyone on every military transport have a parachute?

Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

As for lighting fires and blowing roofs off, damn, that's a great tactical advantage you could hardly have hoped for, let alone designed it.

Thanks,

Ken

Edited to change "CH-24" to "CH-46". If anyone knows what a CH-24 is, let me know...

[ April 17, 2007, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[Moronic Max]

Why couldn't the Osprey glide in a total power loss?

It has to be going fast enough not to stall immediately, to begin with. Fine if it's already cruising along at 300 mph with the nacelles horizontal. Less fine if the nacelles have a 30 degree tilt and it's only going 40 mph when someone puts a few .50 rounds into an engine.

And I'm guessing it's most likely to take small arms fire when it's transitioning.

SAMs, of course...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The Osprey is an intriguing vehicle, but it does seem it's a complete failure too. a nice try but no cigar effort, and it's amazing that no-one pulled the plug. It's a jack of all trades, master of none. While it's speed and range sound interesting at first glance they are outweighed by the downsides.

There's always something that can do it better then the Osprey.

It can't lift much compared to such workhorses as the Chinook. Sure the Chinook isn't fast and hasn't the range, but how often are you going to really need that? For the hum drum stuff not that often and spec ops can make arrangements with a tanker. Not as often as you need to have an ability to auto-rotate, I'm sure. No door gunners? That's just daft, especially something that's reportedly so vulnerable on the approach as this.

I wanted to like this aircraft when I first heard of it but it just falls so far short of what it needs to be. And for that money troops could've designed a new powerful new helicopter and build a massive fleet of them.

It was a nice try, an idea worth exploring but they should have given up much, much earlier, when the problems first started becoming apparent. I don't mean the crashes and stuff, that's what you get with new ideas. No, cancelled it when it became apparent it's performance wasn't living up to the hopes.

All in all the Osprey is confirming me in my belief that the US is too focussed on neat gear for every occasion. Developing Maus tanks while they should be building MkIVs.

[civdiv]

I addressed your points;

Higher speed than a helo? Yes.

Longer Range? CH-53Es can refuel in flight. So how much further are you going to fly considering the Osprey is not pressurized? Cold, extremely loud, and very cramped; exactly how far are you going to fly?

Carries 15 combat loaded troops? The 53 can carry twice that. And carry vehicles.

More or less survivable? What is survivable? A/C crashes but some or all of the crew and passengers survive? Remember, all of the Ospreys that have crashed have been close to the ground. And so far just about everyone on board of all of them have died. I think like 2 survived, and 36 were killed. The crash in Arizona occurred from 245 feet and 19 people died there.

And the thing is still plagued by fires from leaking hydraulic fluid. The whole fleet has been grounded due to problems twice since August 2006. And the PR thing the Corps has been doing is just completely disengenuous. I saw some General saying that every Marine is eager to ride in the thing. I can tell you that just about every Marine is scared to death of them.

CH-46 replacement a tilt rotor design? You said that, not me. I was talking about an advanced helicopter.

Perfection IS the enemy of good enough. They went for perfection when good enough was available sooner and cheaper.

Just my $.02.

civdiv

[MikeyD]

Oh, I thought this thread was suggesting the purchase of the new Osprey Vanguard Stryker book to go with the game

[c3k]

MikeyD,

Good point.

Civdiv,

Please, I'm really not defending the Osprey. Note that I agree that it would be almost sure to be destroyed in an environment with active defense. As well, seeing pictures of the interior from which every single cover panel has been removed to save a few pounds tells me it's not ready for prime time. My point was that the IDEA - not the machine as it exists - had a lot of positives. Also, a lot of arguments against it could be countered.

The 19 deaths in the one crash were due to inadvertantly entering its own vortex, a phenomenom known to helicopters, but which requires a high sink rate after hovering to encounter. (Your blades create a downdraft. If you enter you own downdraft, you then need to fight it. Say a 3000 feet per minute downdraft: after entering it, to stay level, you'd need to climb at 3000fpm.) So, now they have descent rate limits.

For what it's worth, if I were king, I'd have bought new CH-53's with modernized avionics and engines.

Refueling is a poor option. (Tanker availability, time, equipment failures etc.) Better to toss a fuel blivet inside, and add a few more helos to make up the lift requirement.