Posted on 12/23/2005 7:32:41 PM PST by topher
Helicopter technology is coming to a point of near perfection. But the current generation of Helicopters do not have the speed (300 mph vs 200 mph) and cargo capability of the V-22 Osprey.
SAR is Search and Rescue. Speed and cargo capacity can mean the difference between life and death. The V-22 could contain an emergency medical facility plus arrive at the scene 50% faster than a heliocopter.
Let us assume there is an emergency 120 miles from the position of a helicopter and V-22 -- taking off at the same time. The V-22 will get there in 24 minutes. The heliocopter will get there in 36 minutes. That makes for a 12 minute difference. Additionally, the V-22 could potentially house a small medical team and facility on-board and could make the round trip in 48 minutes (plus hovering time and some additional time to go from 300 mph cruising to going to a hovering position). Then there is the time to get the victims on board, and round the time to 1 hour to a ship board or land medical facility.
The helicopter, on the same trip, would take the better part of an hour and half -- if not more. Time is an asset that is impossible to measure in S.A.R. -- the difference between life and death.
Then there are other potential capabilities of the V22. One application might be ASW -- both as a means of detecting and destroying an enemy threat. The other ASW capability might be defensive -- an enemy submarine has locked onto a US submarine and guesses the distance but knows the direction of the US sub. When the enemy fires a torpedo that goes active within 10,000 yards, the US sub might be forced to reveal its position.
But then a V-22 osprey drops a fair sized ball or sphere in the water between the US sub and the enemy torpedo. The ball itself "goes active" with very powerful "pings" of its own, and starts taking the enemy torpedo away from the US Sub. Then the V-22 fires a weapon to destroy the enemy torpedo, but also another weapon that forces the enemy sub to reveal its position to evade. In the meantime, the US sub slyly takes evasive postering but also prepares to deliver the kill on the enemy sub.
The powerful active sonar that the V-22 has dropped into the water has blinded the senses of the enemy sub and torpedo. The US sub might chose to make a high speed manuver to put some distance from it and the potential threat -- to find a stand-off position where it might deliver a knockout blow to opposing force with the help of the V-22...
The question is: Is is potential scientific fact or pure science fiction? Is it possible to build a powerful dipping sonar that could wreak havoc on the underwater battlefield? How important is speed in the S.A.R. mission -- whether it be a civilian or military application? Would this be folly for the US to invest research dollars in such a ASW platform that would double as a S.A.R. platform?
My only point is a discussion of possible applications of the V22 Osprey. The US Marines like this platform as a way to land US Marines onto the battlefield.
I only suggest the SAR and ASW as ways that might be a fruitful way to apply the V22 Osprey. And it is offered in the hope that it might the lives of the US Military and for civilians that the V22 might rescue in a potential future SAR role.
Do I propose fact or fiction?
The only thing your post is likely to invoke is the clouds of anti-Osprey people out there. If this is the first time you have posted anything about it, it is difficult to keep people on track.
I gave up even trying to discuss it a long time ago in this forum.
Wrong. Way too many helo's have been falling out of the sky in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The V22 will be a great lift asset but if it is sent into hard targets like a MH53 is now it will be splashed too easily. It is a bear to hover, the downdraft is very difficult for operators to deal with while exiting or trying to get back on. It doesn't flare into a hover quickly and will need to transiton awy from the target and then move over the target allowing SAF to destroy it. I wish we would buy alot more MH53s and rather than a few V22s.
The search and rescue missions you suggest for the V-22 are already being eyed by the Coast Guard. The ASW missions are another matter. My guess is that helicopters would be preferred due to space limitations on most surface combatants, with unmanned aerial vehicles likely to emerge as important ASW adjuncts instead of the V-22.
You mean shot down. I have not heard of many that have "fallen out of the sky". Yes, there have been some Helicopter accidents there, but considering the number of flights and some of the areas they have to cover, it is to be expected.
The only safe assumption, is that it is a fifty chance that one are the other will crash.
Yes, I mean falling out of the sky afer being hit by enemy fire. It just seems like one hit shouldn't be able to kill a chopper. And when you hear of 9 or 10 guys that go down in one bird, it just makes you wanna puke.
I am curious as to how their operational reliability would compare to that of the V-22, which seems to have its fair share of shall we say "difficulties" during development?
And how do costs compare?
If for example a military budget would permit 1000 V-22s, or 2,000 helos, which would it be better to have?
CV-22 works. It will be implemented.
A series of mishaps involving the Osprey in April and December of 2000 killed 23 Marines. That year,, the Pentagon suspended the flight testing of the aircraft from December 2000 until May 2002 until testing and safety improvements were made.
The one at Avra Valley Airport didn't. I'm supprised no libs are protesting the christmas lights in the bushes surrounding the memorial.
It could be the perfect weapon but I forsee lots of operational accidents (like the Harriers).
I think the osprey will be very effective, as the designs indicate, once all the "bugs" have been worked out.
http://www.cosmos.ne.jp/~miyagawa/nago/ospreye.html
Is this the crash? Note the date.
I agree, then again the physical limitations that involve how a helicopter flies is one of the reasons it is so easily shot down. It is an extremely low tolerance vehicle; meaning one little thing goes wrong and it's bye bye birdie. The good thing about them though is their maneuverability, stealth, ability to hover, and of course their capability to efficiently move troops into battlezones.
I apologize for seeming so negative-I didn't even answer your question...I don't know enough about ASW tactics to give more than just an opinion versus an actual useful estimate...
Could you fix the date of this article from 1995 to 2005?
Nevermind. Topher, could you link to good source?
Thanks for the link. I checked it out...the material out there looks pretty old. Do you know of any newer material on this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.