Re: Back to the V-22 turkey

Vince Brannigan wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"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.
> >
> >
> > In an attempt to educate Vince so that he doesn't continue to make inane
> > statements that demonstrate his ignorance of the subject matter, TRAP stands for
> > Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel. When the marines went into Bosnia
> > in a pair of CH-53Es to grab O'Grady, they had the mortar platoon (they'd
> > trained for the TRAP mission), corpsmen plus most of the MEU(SOC)'s senior
> > commanders on board (hey, how else are they going to get medals), to provide
> > ground security while they looked for/treated/transported O'Grady to the helo.
> > Turns out they didn't need it, because as soon as they landed, lowered the ramps
> > and started to unload, O'Grady passed them at the run going the other way.
> >
> > For the notional differences between the CSAR and TRAP missions, see
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/rmd.htm
> >
> >
>
> actaully Im aware of it

If you were aware of the definition of TRAP, then your claim that "The CSAR and
Special operations requirements are simply not relevant to the Marine mission" and (in
reply to Kevin's statement that)

>>>>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)

your claim that

">>>Im sorry, they are not. tehya re the reverse of the Marine mission."

was based not on ignorance of what Specops/Amphibious raid and CSAR/TRAP missions are,
but was instead deliberately false. It's either one or the other, so which is it?

> are you suggesting a V-22 can lift another V=22

Not without almost fully dismantling it first. Are you suggesting it can't lift a
UH-1, AH-1, UAV, or a (partly dismantled) Harrier? Normally aircraft recovery would
be tasked to the CH-53E, as that's what the marines bought the 'E' for in the first
place (when the CH-53D proved incapable of recovering itself or many other a/c without
major dismantling), but the MV-22 can recover a/c ifit hasto. However, it's far more
likely to be used for personnel recovery in combat conditions than the CH-53E is
(which has had to pick up that role by default, because the CH-46 is often incapable
of it in many situations). The MV-22 is far better suited for combat personnel
recovery than the CH-53E, being faster, smaller, more maneuverable, longer-ranged and
has the armor protection that the CH-53E lacks.

> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > Having demonstrated the essential sameness of CSAR/TRAP, we can now move on to
> > determine whether amphibious raids and specops missions profiles are 'very
> > similar' (Kevin) or 'the reverse of the Marine mission' (Vince). Here they are,
> > for the MV-22 amphibious raid and the CV-22 specops missions, taken directly
> > from the MV/CV-22 ORD:
> >
> > MV-22: Amphibious Pre-Assault/Raid Operations -- Execute a vertical takeoff with
> > a minimum of 18 (T)/24 (O) combat equipped Marines
>
> notice only 18 , not 24 18
> not to mentions that these are specs designed to "back qualify the v-22
>
> Why 18? casue thats allthe turkey can lift

I'll come back to this point in a moment, but first, let's agree that you ducked an
admission that your claim that "specops missions . . . are the reverse of the marine
mission" and further that "Similarly special operations are limited by recovery
ability. You have to go in, pick up your human cargo and remove it" are claims
wholly without foundation in fact, as shown by the specific MV and CV-22 mission
requirements I gave, both of which require the transport of troops in, not their
removal. Naturally, if you can take any given number/weight of troops and/or equipment
in, you can bring them back under the same conditions from the same place, because
you've burned off about the same amount of fuel (slightly less, actually) to get
there.

Now, as to your acting as if the threshold requirement for 18 troops instead of 24 for
_these particular missions_ is a big deal, it is a fact that the V-22 may be limited
in payload and/or hover capability at longer ranges by the need to carry fuel instead.
This is a characteristic which it shares with every conventional helicopter ever made,
and except for the hover capability the same comment applies to every fixed-wing a/c,
there not being special laws of physics that apply only to a tiltrotor like the V-22.
Or do you think that helos like the CH-46 or CH-53 don't have to download payload for
fuel at longer ranges? The CH-53E payload/range charts that you mentioned
(erroneously) in an earlier post on a related thread, indicate otherwise.

While we're at it, just how many troops do you think the CH-46 normally carries in its
25 seat cabin? In Vietnam, it was typically 17 US or 20 SVN troops, in the prevailing
tropical day conditions. You see, the US troops were heavier, so they couldn't carry
as many of them to the same distance. And of course, that was over far shorter ranges
(the original CH-46 mission spec requirement was a 50 mile radius) than the 200 nm the
CV/MV-22 is required to carry 18 (or more). Nowadays, the CH-46E is typically capable
of carrying just 12-15 troops over a 100 mile radius (1/2 the CV/MV-22 spec
requirement above), because even though it has more power and can carry more fuel than
the 'A' and 'D' models used in Vietnam, it still has to trade payload for fuel just
like any other a/c (and has added a lot of equipment, i.e. it has a higher operating
weight empty, than Vietnam-era CH-46A/Ds). And sometimes it can't even carry that
many; the CH-46E that crashed during the British assault on the Al Faw peninsula
during the early part of OIF was only carrying 8 Royal Marine Commandos plus the crew.

Nor, AFAIK, was the 18 troop threshold _for these particular missions_
"back-qualified"; it was always realized that the combination of range, hover and/or
loiter requirements would likely limit the load to less than 24. The ORD status
summary I'm quoting from dates from Feb. 2001; if you have evidence that this
particular requirement was modified from an earlier one to represent what could
actually be achieved (and it does happen), here's your chance to present it.

While we're waiting for you to back up your claim with documentation, since you're
apparently implying that the MV-22 is incapable of transporting 24 troops over a 200
nm radius, I'm going to list another 200nm radius troop lift mission spec, which the
MV-22 has also met (it actually achieved a 243nm radius under the stated conditions):

Land Assault Troop Lift. Execute a vertical takeoff, with 24 combat equipped troops
or an internally carried vehicle with a crew of three combat equipped marines, from a
confined area landing zone and HOGEat3000 feet MSL/91.05deg.F/33.05 deg. C, in no wind
conditions, at 95% TRP. Transition to forward flight, clearing a 50 foot vertical
obstacle within 100 feet horizontally. Climb to and transit at or below 500 feet AGL
at best cruise airspeed for 200nm to another confined area landing zone at 3000 feet
MSL/91.5deg.F/33.05 deg. C. Transition to and HOGE at 95% TRP, in no wind conditions,
and execute a vertical landing and discharge payload. Then execute a vertical
takeoff, transition to forward flight, clearing a 50 foot obstacle within 100 feet
horizontally, climb to and transit at or below 500 feet AGL at best cruise airspeed
for 200nm to the point of origin. Transition to a HOGE and execute a vertical
landing. This mission profile must be done without refueling.

> or an internally carried
> > vehicle with a crew of three combat equipped marines,
>
> Weighing how much? and including the necessary ramps?

No idea what the weight is, but presumably the same as the equivalent number of
troops. The USMC bought 60-odd Mercedes-Benz G-class SUVs as their Interim Fast Attack
Vehicle (while they design the ultimate replacement), and it can fit inside theV-22.
And what ramps are you referring to? The a/c has a rear ramp which any vehicle will
use for entry or exit. Perhaps you mean shoring.

> from an air capable ship
> > and Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) at sea level/103 deg. F/39.44 deg. C in no
> > wind conditions at 95% Takeoff Rated Power (TRP). Transition to forward flight
> > and transit at best cruise airspeed at or below 500 feet AGL for 200 nautical
> > miles (nm) to a confined area landing zone (CAL) at 3000 feet Mean Sea Level
> > (MSL) 91.5 deg. F/33.05 deg. C. Transition to and HOGE at 95% TRP, in no wind
> > conditions, execute a vertical landing and discharge the payload. Then execute
> > a vertical takeoff, transition to forward flight, clearing a 50 foot obstacle
> > within 100 feet horizontally, and transit at best cruise airspeed at or below
> > 500 feet AGL to return to the ship and land. The flight profile must be
> > completed without refueling, and must include sufficient fuel to loiter in the
> > vicinity of the CAL for 30 minutes after delivery of the payload. The loiter
> > fuel requirement is in addition to the OPNAVINST 3710.7 reserve fuel
> > requirement.
> >
>
> remember the 18 keep that in mind when they claim 24

By all means keep that 18 in mind when they claim (and demonstrate) 24, _for a
different mission_. Also be sure to keep in mind that the USMC average weight
allowance for typical troop lift missions is 240lb./man, while that for the CV-22
specop mission is 265 lb./man.

> > CV-22: Long Range Special Operations -- The JMVX must be capable of transporting
> > 18 mission equipped troops (4770 lb/2,272kg) (Threshhold)/24troops (6,360
> > lb/2,885 kg) (Objective) 500nm (Threshold)/750 nm (Objective), off-load the
> > troops from a 70 foot HOGE in 1 minute, and return 500 nm (T)/750 nm (O). The
> > transition from HOGE to forward flight must clear a 50 foot obstacle within 100
> > feet horizontally. The aircraft must be capable of flying this mission under
> > Tropical Day conditions, except for the takeoff and landing which shall be
> > performed at sea level, 88 deg.F/28 deg. C,and the mid-point hover which shall
> > beat3,900feet, 82 deg. F/28 deg. C. Outbound cruise shall be restricted to no
> > greater than 10,000 feet pressure altitude (PA).the final250 nautical miles
> > prior to the mid-point shall beflown in the terrain following/terrain avoidance
> > mode starting at 300 feet PA and increasing 144 feet per 10 nautical miles
> > flown. The first 250 nm of the return flight shall also be flown in the terrain
> > following/terrain avoidance mode starting at 3,900 feet and decreasing 144 feet
> > per10 nm flown. Cruise portions of the mission shall be flown at constant
> > airspeeds. Fuel capacity must permit arrival over destination with enough
> > usable fuel to increase the total planned time between refueling points by 10%
> > or 20 minutes at Best Endurance Velocity (VBE) at 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is
> > greater.
> >
> >
>
> Again, back qualified.

Again, documentary proof of this claim?


> 18 was the SOP number when did the marines go to
> 18? When they realized the golden tureky couldn'carry 24

As shown above, this claim has absolutely no basis in fact. I could also list the
other troop lift mission specs for the MV-22 which require 24 troops to be carried
(and which the MV-22 handily exceeded), but Vince's claim already resembles a deceased
equine, so I'll save myself the typing.

>
> >>>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?
> >
> >
> > And the Marines likewise. It seems the Osprey's trivial lift capability is
> > considered adequate for their needs,
>
> why 18 why not the cabin capcity of 24, oh yes, it cant lift the fuel.

Once again, no more horse abuse from me.

> while the CH-46E's far more trivial lift
> > capability no longer is. For missions where it isn't adequate they have the
> > CH-53E (later X) and its eventual replacement, which may well be a quad
> > tiltrotor.
> >
> >
> >>>>>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.
> >
> >
> > Oh, and the 'tiny cabin' is essentially the same size as the CH-46's which it's
> > replacing.
> >
>
> OFCS compare it to camels and llama youlll get better numbers
> How many HP on a CH=46 the fat tureky takes whole lot more power

Certainly, and provides far more capability. However, since you can't seem to get over
this point and think there's a dispute, let me stipulate for the record (for the
umpteenth time) that:

1. Barring a fundamental scientific breakthrough, a conventional helicopter of the
same horsepower and technology level will always have a better vertical lift/hover
capability than a tiltrotor, tiltwing or composite helo.

2. Barring a fundamental scientific breakthrough, a tiltrotor/tiltwing/etc. will
always be faster and more fuel efficient in forward flight than a conventional helo.

3. If you only require the same capability as a conventional helo can provide, you'd
be an idiot to use a tiltrotor or other hybrid.

4. If you want the vertical lift capability of a conventional helicopter along with a
hybrid's speed etc., you will require far more power (and pay far more) to get them.


> > Really, Vince, you're an intelligent person, and yet you are willing to make the
> > most ridiculous 'factual' claims in public, claims which can be easily shown to
> > be false by very cursory research. What kind of grade would you give a student
> > who handed in such shoddy work? Or would you give him/her a good grade because
> > even though they have all the facts wrong, they're on the side of the righteous
> > ('righteous' being defined as those who believe as you do)? If this were a
> > peer-review committee, your articles would never be published. Please try and
> > exercise some academic rigor in future, because it's getting tiresome pointing
> > out all the erroneous claims you make on the most basic details, claims
> > apparently based on nothing more solid than emotion (clearly, for most of them
> > little or no thought was involved).
> >
> > Guy
> >
> Becsue I owe it to the late Al Gessow to keep pointing out that thsi
> piece of junk is a fat tureky

Let me get this straight: you 'owe' it to a deceased, well-respected aeronautics
professor to make laughably inaccurate (or else deliberately false; see above) claims
that can be disproved by anyone with a limited knowledge of the subject matter, who
has access to the internet and a few minutes of time? And you choose to honor his
memory?, by waging this 'battle' in an internet forum populated by people who are
almost entirely interested in this stuff as a hobby rather than a profession and who,
I think it's fair to conclude, have absolutely no say whatsoever over military
procurement decisions (other than that of an average citizen), rather than by, oh, I
don't know, writing to/testifying at Congressional hearings, talking to members of
DoD, or testifying to the various panels set up by NASA among others? I'm sure Dr.
Gessow's reputation can stand the strain, but I don't think you're doing it (or him)
any favors by such an inept (to put it as mildly as I can) attempt.

Guy

.