Re: Back to the V-22 turkey


"Vince" <firelaw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:UpCdndMtvI0XUt7eRVn-1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
>> Vince Brannigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The CSAR and Special operations requirements are simply not relevant
>>>to the Marine mission.
>>
>>
>> Except that these profiles are almost exactly the same profile that the
>> marines actually plan to execute in OMFTS. And they aren't exactly new,
>> similar profiles have been part of MEU(SOC) misison requirements for
>> years (for special ops read amphibious raid; for CSAR, read TRAP, but the
>> mission profiles are very similar)
>
>
> Im sorry, they are not. tehya re the reverse of the Marine mission.
>
> CSAR is always a "smash and grab" activity you are not taking cargo in,
> you are bringing it out.

As is the TRAP role, if you did not know.

>
> Similarly special operations are limited by recovery ability. You have to
> go in, pick up your human cargo and remove it.

Really? There is also this strange concept known as the "ingress" portion of
the equation, which is a bit different from your described "egress" phase.
Special operations per se are not limited by "recovery ability"; most
involve moving troops into the assault area, and then later recovering them.
See Son Tay, Operation Eagle Claw, the various SOF missions flown in
Grenada, Panama, ODS, etc.

>
> In both cases the Osprey's trivial lift capacity is less important. it
> shows up at the recovery site having burned several tons of fuel. this
> gives it the extra lift needed to do the recovery.

And yet the USAF expects to be using it to transport the assault elements
into the objective area...strange, huh?

>
>
>>
>>>I'm also still waiting for any proof that the Osprey has carried slung
>>>military cargo in horizontal flight at full speed
>>
>>
>> And you never will, because sling loads aren't carried at maximum speed.
>> This isn't unique to Osprey; in helos you're lucky to manage 60 knots
>> with a sling load.
>
> I agree, but it points out that all the claims for high speed for the
> osprey do not apply if you need anthing that cant go in the tiny cabin

In the SOF role, the operators apparently generally prefer small pieces of
equipment of the sort that should readily fit inside the cabin. And the USMC
is apparently thinking along the same lines for many of the roles that it
forsees for the Osprey. Sorry you can't see yur way to admitting that fact.

Brooks

>
>
> Vince


.