Is this the final death of Army Aviation? You'd think t

>>31387489
>Not realising that the V-22 has become safer than normal helicopters

Also the V-280 design eliminates a bunch of issues that the V-22 faced; things like having the engines stay still help a lot, as well as not torching the ground / deck

>Osprey
>disaster

Here is your (you).

>>31387511

>Not realising that the V-22 has become safer than normal helicopters

Bullshit. The fact that they are no longer crashing and murdering 20 marines in one go does not mean they are suitable for combat. The osprey is very poorly armed for its size, and has a pitiful payload for its size. The fact that the Osprey takes so long to take-off and land compared to a traditional helicopter makes it completely unsuitable for landing in a combat zone and the engines produce too much wind for Marines to safely fast rope down.

The Osprey also presents a huge target for the enemy. All the enemy has to do is hit one of the engines with an RPG while the damn thing is trying to land or take-off.

>>31387596

Literally everything you said is wrong.

>>31387596
Its like listening to Sprey on the F-35.

>>31387596
The Osprey has a better payload than the C-2 Greyhound.

>>31387596
> He thinks the Osprey is the only aircraft the Marines have.

>>31387658

It's even worse. Osprey has a better record than any helicopter when it comes to safety. 6 fatalities over 10 years of service.

>>31387672

And minimally worse than a Chinook. While being 2x faster and having 3x the range.

That guy is a retard.

>>31387511
Still got the same super powerful prop wash, still can't auto rotate, still going to be far more expensive to operate, still going to have the same issues that prevent actual maneuvering during landing...

And still going to have trash vertical payload.

>>31387672
?
absolutely delusional & wrong.
The osprey has half the useful payload of a C-2 Greyhound

>>31387707
One Osprey is cheaper than the three Blackhawks it would take to carry the same payload.

>>31387714
Why lie when a cursory google search will say otherwise.

>>31387714
I think you're confusing loaded weight and payload on one of these aircraft. The C-2 is the one that can carry half the payload of the V-22.

>>31387762
A semi carries more than all of them combined would, for much less, whats your point?

>>31387800
>damage control

>>31387818
the blackhawk is not optimized for payload like the Osprey is.
The blackhawk has some actual survivability in it, and is capable of actually doing the things which helicopters are used for.

>>31387829
>moving goalposts
>still lying

>>31387791
Is this useful payload of 20,000 lbs for the C-2 Greyhound on Wikipedia a lie?

>>31387847

Just compare the amount of landing space you need for an Osprey vs a Blackhawk. You can land a Blackhawk anywhere.

File: marmot.jpg (49KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x500px

>>31387658
ITS A TURKEY

>>31387874
Useful load and payload are different. Useful load is simply the difference between empty weight and max take-off weight, and includes the weight of fuel, the crew, all the shit that stays with the aircraft. Payload does not include these things.

>>31387875
can you land it on the roof of a car? can you land it on a box? can you land it on a fox? can you land it on a mouse? can you land it in a house?

>>31387875
>move goalposts
>get called on it
>damage control by moving goalposts again

I don't understand. Why not just use a C-130 for everything?

>>31387949
because the pilots are not skilled enough to tilt the airplane on its tail and land it vertically.

Otherwise it would work fine. it's just poor training

>>31387949
Why not just use gliders for everything?

>>31387949
The problem is that the Army used to operate STOL cargo aircraft, but that ended in the vietnam era. And the airforce refuses to maintain any STOL cargo capability.

So they are stuck operating choppers where its extremely suboptimal to do so.

>>31387987
I didn't know the USAF stopped operating C-130's.

Using VTOLs to replace the H-60 platform is fucking awesome. Everything that helicopters do from SAR to CAS to ASW becomes a lot easier with speed, payload, and range improvements. I'm surprised the Marines aren't jumping up and down and screaming for this thing to accompany their Ospreys.

>>31388012

>STOL cargo aircraft
>C-130

Pick one.

Yes, there was a STOL variant of the C-130 developed. But it didn't make it to production, so that's not even an option. The reason it didn't make it to production is because it was shit and didn't work.

File: 1453369448388.gif (212KB, 1166x875px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1166x875px

>>31387975

>>31388061
>(DOD/NATO) The ability of an aircraft to clear a 50-foot (15 meters) obstacle within 1,500 feet (450 meters) of commencing takeoff or in landing, to stop within 1,500 feet (450 meters) after passing over a 50-foot (15 meters) obstacle. Also called STOL.

>>31387596
How are you even able to use a computer?

>>31387596
As someone who's flown in V-22, they take off just as fast. Their catastrophic failure rate is about half a percentage lower than a blackhawk/sea hawk. Any troop transport capable of that many personnel/vehicles is going to be a large target...
Are you an idiot?

>>31388319
I'm sure the defense reformers have some dial-up modems lying around.

>>31387636
>>31387658
>>31387688
>>31388319
>>31388657
Daily reminder that this person can vote, drive heavy machinery and reproduce. Makes me both sad and scared, and yet it explaines so much in the world.

>>31387636
>>31387658
>>31387672
>>31387677

I'm not that guy, but do you have an actual argument?

He seems to have brought up some plausible issues.

Can you fast rope out of an Osprey?

Can it land, disembark infantry on rugged terrain and fly off in the same time as a Hawk or Chinook?

>>31389537
https://youtu.be/nkeqsGM8vsE?t=15

>>31389537
Yes to all of those lol.