Does the USN need a new skyraider?

[Werner]

Well, Chuck and Dick Cheney agree on one thing: they both don't like the V-22. Cheney tried to cancel it not less than three times.

[chuck]

Actually, I had been a supporter of the Osprey project until very recently. I had believed that the project offered such potential for dramatic technical improvement over what can be achieved with classical helicopter design that it was worth its lengthy maturation time.

However, more recent evidence suggests whatever potential the fundamental concept might have has become irrelevant for the Osprey itself because the Osprey's basic design has been fixed prematurely in a state that is not susceptible to operational adaptation. I am not ready to lobby for killing it yet, but I am not writting to any congressmen in its support.

Essentially, as a hot landing troop carrier, Osprey's signal trait - Complete engine failure at below 1500 feet is unsurvivable - is not acceptable. If the aircraft were an emergency war program, intended to be used just a few times for critical operations, then perhaps that can be overlooked. But modern military is a peace time military, "war" on terror not withstanding, and the ability to serve through decades of routine training operation is essential. In this context the Osprey is not acceptable.


It is instructive that when Osprey pilots were asked point blank whether they could survive a landing if both engines were to fail under 1500 feet, they refuse to say yes, demurring with some official line about "we do train for that".

[Werner]

t is instructive that when Osprey pilots were asked point blank whether they could survive a landing if both engines were to fail under 1500 feet, they refuse to say yes, demurring with some official line about "we do train for that".

What happens? Doesn't the cross-shaft allow for a suitable amount of autorotation? How could the loss of all power in a V-22 at 1,500 ft. be significantly more hazardous than the loss of both engines in a CH-47?

The reason I found the whole project daffy is because they (re)discovered the instabilities in transition from horizontal to vertical flight that Project Pogo discovered in the late '40s. Don't they read their own design histories?

[chuck]

t is instructive that when Osprey pilots were asked point blank whether they could survive a landing if both engines were to fail under 1500 feet, they refuse to say yes, demurring with some official line about "we do train for that".

What happens? Doesn't the cross-shaft allow for a suitable amount of autorotation? How could the loss of all power in a V-22 at 1,500 ft. be significantly more hazardous than the loss of both engines in a CH-47?

For reasons not entirely clearly to me, V-22 can not auto-rotate.

[Werner]

For reasons not entirely clearly to me, V-22 can not auto-rotate.

So, anytime the V-22s wings are in the vertical plane the plane can turn into a stone if the cross shaft seizes or both engines die.

[chuck]

For reasons not entirely clearly to me, V-22 can not auto-rotate.

So, anytime the V-22s wings are in the vertical plane the plane can turn into a stone if the cross shaft seizes or both engines die.

I suppose if the V-22 is high enough, it might dive to gain speed and then use its stub wings for lift to glide to a survivable crash landing. There might be some feature to tilt the engine housing back to horizontal if gliding is necessary.

[Deckard]

A new version of the Skyraider is a good idea.

I'd always thought that with some foresight, if Iraq had've kept its fleet of Sea Furies in front line condition as a COIN unit - and managed to keep them concealed - they could have wreaked some serious havoc amongst allied forces during Desert Storm I.

Even only armed with 4x20mm cannon and 16x60lb WWII vintage unguided rockets, flown aggresively both soft and hard vehicles c1990 would have suffered severely. They wouldn't have been easy to shoot down by an F-15, and modifying the exhausts would have made ground fired heat seekers null and void. Their low-level power and manoeuvrability would have suited them as perfect Apache killers, or any other helicopter for that matter.

The type of pilot flying them would be important in this hypo.

It never happened but it's not improbable.

[Walt]

Let's think about this.. The USN already has the very versatile F/A 18.. Their retiring a very effective attack bomber the "A-6" and even the old and reliable A-7 is proof that the F18s are fine for ground attack. And the trashing of the dinosaur F-14 is further proof of the F-18's prowless. And let's face it the USN's " Attack" air arm has had very little roll in the WOT outside the early days in Afgan. What their main interest is and always was is fleet defence and rightfully so. The USAF has the "legs" to provide ground support almost anywhere today. And the USMC also has a capable ground support system .
With modern weapons delivery systems we no longer need slow and very costly dedicated attack airplane for the Navy. We have the AV8s performing this roll just fine for the USMC and the Army has several USAF ground support systems to rely on. I am from the mindset that believes all research $$ should be put into "Robot Planes"....
No risk to the good guys but with the same results.. The past few years operations with the Predator and like aircraft have gone a long way in proving that "Manned" combat Aircraft are in their later days as are expensive and resource draining targets like aircraft carriers.

[Walt]

It is instructive that when Osprey pilots were asked point blank whether they could survive a landing if both engines were to fail under 1500 feet, they refuse to say yes, demurring with some official line about "we do train for that".[/quote]



Yes it's called the ejection seat... just pray the props are not in hover

I thing the Osprey can't "auto Rotate' because the props are more for thrust than "lift'.
Unlike a helocopter's blades which are lift producing wings the osprey's props are more of a vectored thrust producer with the lift produced aided by jet thrust to give this craft VTOL ability. if they lose power they drop like a stone...ouch!

[Jack Ray]

A bomb truck like that would only have a role in counter insurgency war.

You know as well as I that military planning only looks back one or at most two wars. For the two wars with Iraq and the one in Afghanistan the "bomb truck" makes sense. Against India or China, forget it.

During the Algeran war for independence, the French Air Force used the AT-6 to great effect against the insurgents. Remember the Invader that was rebuilt for COIN in Vietnam? What about the Argentine Pucara? Since the USAF has given up training new pilots, perhaps their turbo prop trainers could be enlisted to fight the war.

Jack

[scratchshipnut]

Not to mention F18s are fuel hogs and ungodly expensive and so are the fancy bombs. "When' we deprive the enemy of anything more high tech than an rpg, a cheaper plane and cheaper dumb bomb will do the job. I wonder how many sorties a spad will fly for the cost of an F18 sortie

And fleet defence is irrelevent. Any enemy will just wait us out until the reagan is a rusting buoy like the oriskany from lack of funds.

[Walt]

Not to mention F18s are fuel hogs and ungodly expensive and so are the fancy bombs. "When' we deprive the enemy of anything more high tech than an rpg, a cheaper plane and cheaper dumb bomb will do the job. I wonder how many sorties a spad will fly for the cost of an F18 sortie

And fleet defence is irrelevent. Any enemy will just wait us out until the reagan is a rusting buoy like the oriskany from lack of funds.

But... One USN Life spared by the use of these "fuel hogs and exspensive weapons" is worth any price in $$$$.
Unless of course you want to put yourself or loved one into the seat of a relic sure to be a death trap in this modern world of hi tech weapons.. As a veteran myself and the parent of 2 now serving I say shame on any Country that will spare the $$ expense of a defence system with the exchange of the lives of it's servicemen and woman. How many Spad jocks will get killed at the expense of 1 F/18 or predator doing the same job??? I guess it depends on what we value more eh? Our military should be in the business of making the bad guys die for their Country at any cost especially when it insures our people aren't getting killed because their safety " cost too much"...
Using this logic we should bring back the Bayonet Attack...

[scratchshipnut]

Your missing the point. Sustained operations require economic solutions. Wars cost a lot of money and future weapon purchases get canceled by those costs. Lack of good weapons cost lives. Ask the old Iraq military. Oh and our enemy is fresh out of high tech weapons.

Darn things fly low enough that theyre on you too, plus they sustain small arm fire better than a helo. If Im pinned by a guy in an alley with an rpg , Im not going to care. Just somebody drop a bomb on the guy. It does not require a zillion dollor laser guided bomb.

And last I heard planes like that are a blast to fly. And blast to fly is popular with us pilots. And usn pilots have a history of making good use of agile aircraft.

[Sean Hert]

Ok, the Pentagon's New Killer Flying Giant Attack Robot, AKA the MQ-9 Reaper, works out at something like $69mil per set of 4, is about the same size as an A-10, and carries 4 Hellfires and a couple of bombs or something like 14 Hellfires.

How many Reapers equal one bomb truck and pilot?

[Walt]

Ok, the Pentagon's New Killer Flying Giant Attack Robot, AKA the MQ-9 Reaper, works out at something like $69mil per set of 4, is about the same size as an A-10, and carries 4 Hellfires and a couple of bombs or something like 14 Hellfires.

How many Reapers equal one bomb truck and pilot?

My quess to this question is One pilot is worth as many MQ-9s that we can afford.... always was and always will.

[Werner]

There is not enough combat experience yet on UCAVs. they're already working on autonomous combat vehicles, though, so they seem pretty confident in the technology.

The battle of the future may not involve people at all.

[Jack Ray]

There is not enough combat experience yet on UCAVs. they're already working on autonomous combat vehicles, though, so they seem pretty confident in the technology.

The battle of the future may not involve people at all.

The technology for autonomous fighting vehicles is still in the single cell organism stage. There are simply too many variables. Air and ground unmanned fighting systems will be remotely piloted for a long time to come.

Jack

[Werner]

There is not enough combat experience yet on UCAVs. they're already working on autonomous combat vehicles, though, so they seem pretty confident in the technology.

The battle of the future may not involve people at all.

The technology for autonomous fighting vehicles is still in the single cell organism stage. There are simply too many variables. Air and ground unmanned fighting systems will be remotely piloted for a long time to come.

Jack

I saw a Powerpoint slide of an E/A-18 Growler "mothership" supplying the combat direction for a cluster of about 8 ACV aircraft which it carried into battle on hardpoints and served to completely confuse the enemy's "vision" of the battlespace.

The little planes had the radar return of a combat aircraft, and they sought out various forms of emitters and then performed standard attack approach maneuvers.

I have a feeling these sorts of things are here already in the familiar forms of our precision guided and intelligent homing weapons.

[Jack Ray]

The technology for autonomous fighting vehicles is still in the single cell organism stage. There are simply too many variables. Air and ground unmanned fighting systems will be remotely piloted for a long time to come.

Jack

I saw a Powerpoint slide of an E/A-18 Growler "mothership" supplying the combat direction for a cluster of about 8 ACV aircraft which it carried into battle on hardpoints and served to completely confuse the enemy's "vision" of the battlespace.

The little planes had the radar return of a combat aircraft, and they sought out various forms of emitters and then performed standard attack approach maneuvers.

I have a feeling these sorts of things are here already in the familiar forms of our precision guided and intelligent homing weapons.

That sort of thing has been in existence for many years--remember the "Quail"?

Decoys and spoofing enemy sensors are not the same as autonomous UCAV's. From what I have seen professionally and heard anecdotaly, these sorts of things won't be a reality for a long time. As you probably have read, the FCS program is also talking about autonomous unmanned ground combat vehicles to patrol cities like cops. Despite the hype about robotics, etc..., there are simply too many variables (streets, buildings, other vehicles and people of every denomination) for there to be any effective IFF. One day, maybe.

Jack

[Werner]

Jack, I think the speed of processors, amount of memory, and sensors make a huge difference.

Ever play "Rainbow Six: Las Vegas" on your PC? These guys could make an autonomous UCAV.