Boeing V-22 Osprey

Discussion in 'Tanks, planes & ships' started by mark3536, Oct 7, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I was just watching a programe about the Osprey, It seems the Yanks love it and has proved its worth (according to them).

    With the new Carriers being built, is this something we need? or is it merely a nice to have? I know we are skint, but in my unqualified view surely this is a capability that could enhance our projection of force and give Commander's an additional option?

    Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  2. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Even Dick Cheney tried to get that thing killed off - which should tell you something.

    Is there a list somewhere of how many people it's killed so far?
  3. During testing, there had been around 30 people killed i think, It seems all the problems have been ironed out and it's now been in full service since 2007/8 without any other deaths.
  4. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    No it killed 4 in April last year.
  5. Yep, just seen. Whilst there will always be aircraft accidents its unfortunate how many have been killed in the development and testing. Say if, once all the problems are ironed out, would this aircrat be suitable for say the FAA?
  6. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

  7. What would you operate it from? Will it fit the CV we hope to complete? What about other vessels? What role do you see it fulfill that Merlin/Chinook can't already do?
  8. I think that, early on in the carrier project, the Osprey was considered for the airborne early warning platform and for the carrier on board delivery role performed by Greyhound aircraft in the US Navy.

    As has been stated. initial performance of the Osprey was pretty disastrous. IIRC, it had been assumed that it would operate like a Chinook in helicopter mode. The designers had not considered the fact that the Chinook doesn't have wings but the Osprey does. Modification of the air flow from the rotors by the wings set up unbalanced, aerodynamic nasties like ring vortices that led to a number of crashes and deaths.

    Last time I read anything about the Osprey, which was a while ago, workarounds had been implemented to mitigate these problems. I don't think there can be a fix as the faults are caused by aerodynamics, that can't be changed. It all looks a bit dodgy.
  9. Its faster than a conventional heli(463kph vrs 295kph for uh60), and a slightly better range(3,590km vrs 2,200km for uh60) so on the face of it there are some advantages, but a LOT of problems to go with it.

    it can't autorotate, so in the words of the pentagon any engine failure below 1,600 ft is "unlikely to be survivable". 34 have died in v22 crashes so far.

    wiki puts the cost of a v22 at $67 million, where as the uh60 is around $7million. which is massively expensive

    it fills a gap that does not really exist, when you have air to air refuelling the only real advantage is speed and that not really worth the money. you might as well just use conventional aircraft. Even the guys that killed osama used a black hawk(a stealthy one).
  10. It's doubly redundant now that we're to have a "proper" aircraft carrier. With catapults and arrestor wires we could operate Hawkeye AEW aircraft and something akin to the Greyhound COD aircraft.

    In fact, the US Navy once landed a Hercules on one of their carriers and sent it packing again. As CVF won't be that much smaller than the US carrier involved, we should have no problems moving stuff around.
  11. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    A nice idea in theory that struggles in practice. It can get around more quickly, but can't go right up to the FEBA because landing's a more complicated, drawn-out (and therefore vulnerable) affair. So you can get somewhere near more quickly, but then have a longer advance to contact. And, as noted, there's the 'can't autorotate' issue.

    The Americans would've been better off buying more Sea Stallions but politics got in the way.
  12. Osprey was designed in response to the Desert Claw fiasco. The request was for an aircraft that was as fast a plane, as long enduring as a plane but capable of VTOL.

    Ospreys have killed a few people, and have been slated by the USMC old guard for a lack of armament.

    Having flown in one, around the time of April last year. I, for one, like them.

    They are a bit daunting at first, or perhaps the pilots were just gunning it to get out of the LZ.

    They go up, and then to max speed with remarkable speed. They can carry a fair whack too.

    Their dramas lie in the lack of wingspan required to glide and the lack of disc area (ie rotors) to auto rotate correctly. I think a parachute mounted where the wings and fuselage meet on top has been looked at.

    The death toll is probably unduly high as a fully laden Osprey came down, for those proponents of the Chinook, didn't they have a patchy start?

    and for what it worth having been in the situation of attempting to get a fcuking pallet over that ramp mounted gun that the loadies didn't think to move on the CH-53, I'd much prefer the cleaner aspect of the Osprey.

    A couple of them at least would provide a good capability, and for sea going ops such as aew etc even with a grown up carrier they provide a good lift and other capabilities.

    If the pic doesn't come up

    CH-46 is the mini chinnook that the USMC operate.
  13. That pic comparing the v22 to the ch46E is a little misleading really, your comparing a 1960's aircraft to a modern one. comparing it to a merlin or black hawk would be more sensible, and there is a much smaller difference. certainly not a difference that would justify the massive cost.