U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Trip_Wire, Dec 5, 2007.

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. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    GULF OF AQABA (Oct. 4, 2007) - U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Ospreys, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 263, Marine Aircraft Group 29, prepare for flight on the deck of the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1). Wasp is on surge deployment to the Middle East carrying the Osprey to its first combat deployment. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary L. Borden.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Nice phot but I'd rather walk or swim than fly in an MV-22 thank you very much.
     
  3. looks nice but can it fight????
     
  4. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    More:
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Serious question - why's that? Their design has always intrigued me and I've wondered about the pros and cons.
     
  6. I have heard, its not the most reliable, and a chinnok(sp?) is a better option?

    But what do I know?
     
  7. Is it so that it can fly like a plane when the propellers are rotated?
     
  8. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Fight? Only time will tell; however, it's designed really to transport troops not fight. I suspect it will be used mostly for special operations long range clandestine insertions, mostly at night.

    I'm very interested in how it does in these routine operations for the USMC, especially in it's accident rate. I'd like to see it succed, as I think it has many useful applications of Special Operations forces in all of the branches. SEALS, RECON, DELTA and Special Forces.
     

  9. Sort of contradicts your second para regarding its use as an SF platform. The two are extricably intertwinned are to fight the aircraft is a must for the user. The only advantage the MV22 has over, say an MH53 or MH47 is its cruise speed. As an SF delivery plaform, its an answer to a question no one really asked and has been politically 'fitted in' to the requirement.
     
  10. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    I don't agree with you. This aircraft isn't really designed to replace the currant role of helicopters, nor will it do that.

    I think that longer range, better performance at high altitude, as well as the speed, out performs the helicopters you mention, especially in such operations that I mentioned.

    As for the definition of a 'fight' a fighting aircraft, we're talking about Apples & Oranges. The aircraft is designed to transport troops, not as a fighter to shoot down other aircraft, destroy tanks, etc. It's a transport aircraft.
     
  11. Hello Trip_Wire,

    that is a very nice picture,thankyou for posting it.

    The Osprey's additional speed will give only a limited improvement to survivability and then only if it is safe to fly high enough to go wingbourne.
    Rate of delivery is then the main advantage but given that a larger number of similar sized helicopters or a similar number of larger helicopters could be purchased for the same price,there seems little point to the MV22.
    Particularly as the marines are now short of funds to develop a replacement for their hard worked CH53s.
    As the Osprey cannot move their vehicles and equipment,that is a major problem.
    They could have developed a single aircraft to replace both types.
    If you are going to spent so much money on quickly delivering troops hundreds of miles inland,it would be nice if they did not then have to walk.

    I would go so far as to say the Osprey is as nonsensical as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
    British defence procurement is often quite rightly castigated.
    Here we have a fine example of why we should not rely on others doing things right.

    Perhaps The-Lord-Flasheart could comment on the safety aspects of tilt rotors,I assume they cannot autorotate and wonder about their gliding ability,but I am sure he is much better informed on that subject.

    tangosix.
     
  12. Why do we have all those SF C130Ks then Flashy? Not exactly 'combat' aircraft.............
     
  13. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    I did read somewhere that those things can't auto rotate - but someone more qualified on big whirly things could perhaps elucidate.

    The article basically classed them as flying frigging death traps and even Dick Cheney tried to get them killed off......
     
  14. there are moves to fit the Osprey with a "common defensive weapon" (or similar) - IIRC its a retractable mini/chaingun affair that lives under the nose.

    I've heard the bloke from boing has been spending a lot of time in MB recently ....... hoping for an export????

    I hope not!
     
  15. Hello Schaden,

    there was at least one major crash during development,this may not be correct as it is from memory but I think there were twenty two Marines killed.
    The phrase "ring vortices" springs to mind in connection with it but I know very little about that.
    The question is,have they fixed the problem and even if they have,will it ever be as safe as a helicopter?
    Time will tell.

    tangosix.