V-22 Memes aside, is this actually a useful aircraft that s

Conventional helos can recover from vortex wind distortions fairly easily because their displacement is centered around the main body. Osprey's on the other hand are spread out, meaning it's extremely difficult to move the displacement out of it.

tl;dr Ospreys are always going to crash more as a result of an inherent flaw all tiltrotors have. Not something we need in modern ASPEC

VTOL + the range and speed of a fixed wing aircraft = pretty fucking useful.

>>34281960

The meme was that the osprey was a piece of crap.

Then it got battle tested and worked pretty damn well. It's very effective for power projection. Ie America and Britain.

Russia and China are trying to develop their power projection capabilities but they still don't have the force structure or doctrine where an osprey is a good fit.

Overall, it has capabilities that a straight helicopter won't give you. It's earned its place.

It has its place. It has like double the range and cruising speed of a normal helicopter.
On the other hand, its not capable of auto rotation and they still haven't figured out how to mount a weapons system on it as well as a load of cargo and still have it take off, so its limited in that regard. Were it not for the giant engines right in a prospective gunners field of fire, they could just have rotary gun positions on the sides like a Blackhawk or Super Stallion, but as it is they're stuck with a nose or floor system, current attempts at which to implement have failed so far.
Given time to mature, I think that VTOLs will be their own class of vehicle rather than just considered a more limited and less survivable helicopter, but we aren't at that point yet.

The VTOL is a nice addition but it's cannon fodder for jets and SPAA and normal, especially computer operated, fixed, AA. It's good for evac to a nearby base but not for hot LZs

It has earned its niche, but a helicopter will always be preferable for situations where range and speed isn't as critical. What would be a gamechanger would be a tiltrotor air-to-air tanker variant with a decent fuel payload for F-35B range extension, there are plans for a MV-22 refuelling, but I believe that as yet that only carries enough fuel to be useful as a backup for recovery.

>>34282095
>it's cannon fodder for jets and SPAA and normal, especially computer operated, fixed, AA
Isn't this true of all helicopters?

payload is light for such a large bird.

she was built for mission of going hundreds of miles into a country, to rescue embassy workers, and back out on a single tank of fuel.

File: 10-giffords-ship2-full.jpg (148KB, 1495x712px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1495x712px

Why note talk about WINNING not the little accident that was bound to happen near chinkland. Let's discuss the new Fully armed Gabrielle's capabilities. This beast + some f35 can take on almost any nations military single handedly. 中国太不好 他们不可以个

While all the chicoms (wu maos) and ruskies flood our board with bullshit about just one of our hundreds of ships colliding with some piece of shit in Asia why don't we talk about the HUGE new ship launched today. The world's biggest military is bound to have some accidents now and again. Due to the shear number of boats on the sea. I mean the south China sea is just flooded with American destroyers and carriers now.

Let's discuss the new Fully armed Gabrielle with SeaRAM missile defense systems and sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system with an 11-missile launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, creating a completely autonomous system.

This beast has integrated 3D Radar and SeaStar Safire FLIR. Northrop Grumman has demonstrated sensor fusion of on and off-board systems in the Integrated Combat Management System (ICMS) used on the LCS. The vessels have an Interior Communications Center that can be curtained off from the rest of bridge instead of the heavily protected Combat Information Center found on other Navy warships.

Ya'll livin in the past. One rust bucket collides another gets her cherry popped by Clinton and is off to harass China and the Ruskies.

What else can this bitch due other than launch two sea hawks and UAVs, missles, and ward off anti ship missiles?

>>34281960
It would be pretty useful for use as a tanker aircraft / AWAC role for the royal navy.

One of the bigger issues with the Osprey is that it's attack helo escorts can't keep up with it, both in terms of range & speed. That makes hot LZs tricky as shit.

>>34281960
An overpriced piece of shit that doesn't offer the payload capacity to make it worth the investment.

>>34281960
Its neat, because its fast and has good range. However those Nacelles seem to make landing tricky so none of that highspeed blackhawk landing. Does seem to crash alot though and needs huge lzs
T.Memerine who was in one that crashed

It's a disaster but the US has more money than it knows what to do with, so they just pay the premium for some non-combat only transport chopper

Decades if fighting non-peer parties has gone to their heads

File: Ling-Temco-Vought_XC-142A.jpg (3MB, 3037x2427px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3037x2427px

This thing was just to early.
Want! a modern version.

>>34283951
It's just a little bit faster than existing choppers
There are other ways of speeding up choppers too

>>34282002
Britain does not currently use the V22,

>>34284293
>just a little bit faster
>meet the man who doesn't understand helicopter physics

>>34283577
Helicopters are fodder for jets, something like the Osprey is still fodder but has better chances because it is significantly faster than a helicopter.

>>34286826
Choppers fly at maybe 160 knots cruising, while the V-22 does 220

>>34287176
Apaches loaded down with 16 hellfires, and a full cannon mag and fuel, can barely make 90mph

>>34281978
>tl;dr Ospreys are always going to crash more as a result of an inherent flaw all tiltrotors have.
Funny you would say that when the Osprey has had fewer crashes in its current service length than any military helo in history for their equivalent service length.

>>34287233
easy milk run missions where it isn't asked to take off and land vertically.

>>34281978

Except Ospreys have a better safety record than any other rotorcraft in the US military.

>>34287252
That is literally what its mission is, Fuck off.

>>34287252
>it isn't asked to take off and land vertically.
You do know that the Osprey has to take off and land vertically right?
Even then that's not the point. The Osprey has suffered fewer crashes in development than any helicopter in history. Even discounting losses to hostile action no military helicopter in history has had fewer crashes.

>>34287252

Thats bullshit. V-22s have been used in high risk missions. One was all sorts of shot up in north africa but still made it home to the disbelief of helo guys.

'On 21 December 2013, three CV-22s came under small arms fire while on a mission to evacuate American civilians in Bor, South Sudan during the 2013 South Sudanese political crisis. The three aircraft were damaged and four crew wounded; the mission was aborted and the aircraft flew 500 mi (800 km) to Entebbe, Uganda. South Sudanese officials stated that the attackers were rebels.[194][195] The CV-22s, of the 8th Special Operations Squadron, had flown to Bor over three countries across 790 nmi (910 mi; 1,460 km). The formation was hit 119 times, causing flight control failures and hydraulic and fuel leaks on all three aircraft. Due to fuel leaks, multiple air-to-air refuelings were performed en route.[196] Following the South Sudan incident, AFSOC developed optional armor floor panels for the V-22.[97]

On 3 July 2014, V-22 aircraft carried Delta Force commandos to a campsite in eastern Syria where Islamic State militants had held American and other hostages. The commandos eliminated the militants at the site, but found that the hostages had been moved elsewhere and returned home empty handed.[197]'

File: landing[1].jpg (91KB, 864x576px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 864x576px

>>34287316
let me know when your overly complicated vertibird is asked to go into high altitudes and do shit like this, every fucking day.

>>34287307
Thats because there's only 200 of them in total. It would be pretty fucking hard for it to meet the number of crashes of the Huey or UH60 when there are less than 70 airworthy frames at any given time.

>>34287328

CV-22B
U.S. Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It conducts long-range special operations missions, and is equipped with extra wing fuel tanks, an AN/APQ-186 terrain-following radar, and other equipment such as the AN/ALQ-211,[245][246] and AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis Directional Infrared Counter Measures.[247] The fuel capacity is increased by 588 gallons (2,230 L) with two inboard wing tanks; three auxiliary tanks (200 or 430 gal) can also be added in the cabin.[248] The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 Pave Low.[26]

File: goalposts.jpg (89KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 594x395px

>>34287328
>>34287336
>>34287252

There are times and places that it bridges a gap in capabilities. Other wise there are better options. Keeping a limited number around is a great idea. Ditching them all is kind of stupid and trying to replace anything else with them is also stupid. I get to see one once or twice a month when they fly right by my work.

>>34287336

Its had 9 hull loss crashes since 1990.

look at accidents per flight hour, which is what matters.

"On 18 February 2011, Marine Commandant General James Amos indicated MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan had surpassed 100,000 flight hours and were noted as "the safest airplane, or close to the safest airplane” in the Marine Corps inventory"

File: AIR_C-23_Runway_lg[1].jpg (126KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 640x480px

>>34287346
helicopters crash more because they do harder shit.

the osprey is a stovl replacement for this.

>>34287360
See >>34287341 and >>34287316

>>34287360
See >>34287346

>>34287360

Look at these V-22s operating near ISIS's capital. Where do you get off claiming they don't do difficult shit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkv__YOl68

also when the F-15 went down in Libya, guess which aircraft were tasked with picking them up? In Iraq and Syria right now V-22s are tasked with rescuing downed pilots. They replaced the pave-low.

>>34287397
I've been to Afghanistan with Army Aviation.

That video looks like student pilots starting flight training at Rucker.

File: V-22_M240_machine_gun.jpg (652KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 3000x2000px

>>34282067

File: a-us-army-special-operations-door-gunner-wearing-a-mask-to-preserve-CP31ER[1].jpg (134KB, 1300x951px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1300x951px

>>34287480
oh, the one weapon it has.

there is a retracting auto cannon turret, but it eats up too much of the tiny payload and eliminates sling load operations.

It does its job as intended. The problem with the osprey is really all of the moving parts. Tilt-rotor air craft will always have a higher chance of failure compared to planes and standard helos. All those hydrolics and gears really take a beating, especially how the rotors hold the aircraft and the way the military uses them. Even with the best maintnaince things will always go wrong. I personally would never want to have to take a ride into a war zone in one of these.

>>34283596
Its payload is greater than the C-2 Greyhound the vehicle its replacing.

Your opinion is wrong.

>>34288980
For helicopter work, it is light.

>>34288980
C-2 was designed in the 60's and cost half as much as an Osprey
The Osprey gains a ton of payload from low altitude & having a full sized runway to take off from.

When its doing VTOL the payload gets to be tiny

A V-22 crashed on that Yemen raid for the same reason, it's very easy for the V-22 to fly itself to a location where it can't land.

>>34287354
Something like a high speed co-axial helicopter is better
Or just building some STOL plane because thats 90%+ of what the Osprey does.

>>34289137
A C-2 has no VTOL payload at all, so that is an irrelevant comparison.

>>34289033
>For helicopter work, it is light.
>payload of comparable weight to a CH-47

>>34289270
If you don't go far, stay low, and roll your take offs and landing.

Hovering up high and using all the range drops you to 5000 pounds

File: osprey_performancechart.jpg (385KB, 1440x1006px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1440x1006px

>>34289415

>>34289424
A lot of this is fake too
Charts made using theoretical performance of a vehicle, never actually tested

>>34289494
I am sure you have the numbers to refute it.

File: is that a steel frame from 1988.jpg (193KB, 950x950px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 950x950px

>>34289494
>never actually tested

File: v-280.jpg (185KB, 1600x802px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1600x802px

How fucking mad are these people going to be when the V-280 replaces both the Blackhawk and the Apache?

>>34289600
>replaces the Apache
Not as mad as burger infantry will be when they call for CAS expecting a gunship and this thing shows up with 2 internal Hellfires and a couple of 240Ds

File: s97raider.jpg (171KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x683px

>>34289600
>implying it has a chance against the SB-1 and S-97

>>34289624
Are you retarded? It would be able to hold vastly more munitions than an Apache.

>>34289643
Defiant is gonna lose for utility/medium and (a version of it will) win for scout/light is my bet.

>>34281978
>ospreys
>crash more
t. "John" pin-chang buk

>>34287568
>see everything posted above
SAFEST
ROTOR
CRAFT

>>34289530
We have the "hard landing" crashes to prove it

>>34289658
tilt rotors have way too many weaknesses for the Army to pick them
They see what a disaster it is with SOCOM and the Marines

I don't think they will fall for that meme

Hopefully they have also learned that "just buy both" is also not an option

>UH1 adopted just in time for the meatgrinder that was Vietnam
>UH60 adopted just in time for Grenada, where most were lost to SAMs and AA guns and 3 were lost when inexperienced pilots caused 3 to collide midair
>Osprey adopted in a cruisey counter insurgency with effectively zero AAA threat
>Still manages to crash a shitload
>Ospreyfags unironically think comparing the it to the crash rate of its predecessors is a favorable comparison for the Osprey
Uhh, no.

Mite be cool if it could be used as EAW for STOVL carriers or even any non-carrier ship with enough hangar space.

>>34290045
Things like computer aided design and 3d modeling do worlds to improving aircraft safety too
Also being in development for 25 years helps

And then they stopped publicly releasing accident data so the only time we hear about crashes is if its filmed