Kevin Brooks wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote:
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. they a 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?
You have made the error of confusing the "Mission" with the
operational specifications for the aircraft.
the operational specification for the aircraft were simply back
calculated from he aircraft's capabilities.
that's not the "mission".
I see Vkince still has not figured
out how to post in plain text.... Care to back that up with some
evidence? Guy already called you on this strange claim, and you
continue to refuse to support your assertion.
Let me make it very simple.
In an "assault " mission a truck like the V-22 delivers things. That
is the mission"
In a recovery mission you "pick up things" that is the mission
Delivery and picking up, are the reverse of one another
In the case of weight limited vehicles with a large fuel weight, you
can normally "pick up" more than you can deliver to the same distance.
That's because you consume fuel going to the pick up point .
This is true whether you are using dogsleds , horses, camels or V-22s
Pick up missions are the reverse of delivery missions.
The Marine corps mission is heavy assault.
Really? Can you show us where that
is the sole and exclusive Marine "mission"? I guess you figure they
tote their M1A1's into every operation...h'mmm, where were they when
the USMC went into Rhino in Afghanistan?
OFCS a heavy airborne assault has nothing to do with tanks.
Its a mass mission rather than precision or selective mission like SOF
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?
It can't lift anything over 15000 pounds. It cant carry
anything over 15000 pounds further than 50 NM
Neither can the H-92, which you
offered up as a substitute. And which is it--it can't lift it, or it
can't carry it over 50 NM? You stated *both*.
It cant lift anything over 15000 pounds and it cant carry anything of
that weight over 50 NM
I did not suggest the H-92 in this role. however a tilltrotor that
cannot lift half its weight is clearly a bad investment.
an empty V-22 weighs 32000 pounds. It not question of
dismantling, it takes more than two to bring out one.
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.
Tiny aircraft that are not far away
How much do you reckon the CH-46, or for that matter the H-92,
can handle?
right compare a huge aircraft to a little one. Wy not compare it to
the DC -3 or the wright Flyer Im sure the numbers will look even better
The V-22 is 32,000 pounds and over 12000 hp Its a piece of junk
compared to a 32,000 pound 12000 hp helicopter.
plus its much more expensive.
However, it's far more
likely to beused for personnel recovery in combat conditions
I agree, but recover of people is a different mission
No, it also falls under the TRAP mantle.
Dont be silly. if you cant recover aircraft it doesn't matter what you
call it
its CSAR
However, it
is clear from the first two definitions that CSAR is the rescue of
only
personnel while TRAP is the recovery of personnel and equipment.
The JFC's
Dilemma: The USMC TRAP mission verses the Combat SAR mission.
Author:
Major Matthew D. Redfern, United States Marine Corps
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.
Actually I agree. its better for recovery than assault . If
it does assault you've to replace people with fuel
It can recover more people than it can carry to the assault.
Duh. But the key point is that it can carry enough folks to
satisfy the specs (you know, those things you keep making unsupported
claims in regards to?).
Specs that were back calculated from it's limited capabilities
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"
No I did not. The assault mission requires taking cargo in, the
recovery mission requires taking cargo out.
Idiot. The AFSOC requirement includes the assault role. Either
you can't read, or you are lying--which is it?
I can see that you are simply not understanding the concept.
I'm not sure why you fasten on very limited and doctrinaire meanings of
words like 'assault" and then scream that anyone who doenst share your
definiton is "lying" but to do proper analysis you have to explain
what you mean by a word and how it fits the overall discussion. You
constantly engage in "reification" the assertion that an abstraction is
real. Assault is simply an abstraction. In the context of the
discusion the key is whheter you are assualting FOR THE PUROSE OF
STAYING
or Assaulting for FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCING A MISSION AND THEN
LEAVING.
you cna call them both assaults but they are simply not the same thing
When you assault with the intentionof leavin , it's a raid
Raids are raids. In all raids the "limiting factor" is recovery. you
can have an airborne assault and a ship or helicopter recovery etc.
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.
These are aircraft specs , back calculated from the V-22's limited
capabilities.
Bullcrap. You continue to refuse to offer supporting evidence
that contadicts the actual specs that Guy has presented. Come on--go
back far enough to show us that the specs have changed in the manner in
which you keep lying about.
perhaps youmissed when it says
"MV-22: Amphibious Pre-Assault/Raid Operations -- Execute a vertical takeoff with
a minimum of 18 (T)/24 (O) combat equipped Marines"
its a spec for the vehicle. not the mission, the vehicle
thats why it has the name of the vehicle in it.
And it is interesting to see how you chose to ignore Guy's
point about the CV-22 also having the mission of conducting assault
operations...
more "assault bull***" see above.
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.
Actually with the V-22 you can recover more than you can carry
out. (as Ive shown several times) Its more efficient in exfiltraion
than assault.
As is every helo, as Guy pointed out--so your point would be?
Sure, but as an inefficent helicopter its disadvantages are magnified.
Is simply among the worst helicopter s in the world
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.
right
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.
It is however far more inefficient than any decent helicopter
at this key limiting parameter.
its a fat inefficient turkey
Ah, yes...when confronted with a superior argument, merely
resort to schoolyard name calling--how interesting...
So you resent my description of it, how about provign its mroe
efficent than a helicopter of the same weight and HP
no camesl or antiques allowed.
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.
of course they do,, but as you yourself have pointed out, as
helicopters they' re far more efficient, and they are also cheaper.
That would be the thread that you ran away from, remember? I
am betting you are approaching that same threshold here...when
confronted with facts, Vkince tucks tail, ignores the points made
against his ridiculous unsupported claims, tosses off an
over-the-shoulder "turkey" claim, and hies for parts unknown. Typical.
What happened, Vkince, getting tired of being spanked and demonstrating
your ignorance?
A helicopter of 32000 pounds and 12000 hp is
more efficent and cheaper
got any facts that say otherwise
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.
the objects are described as
Two 82-inch-long, "C" channels with a 12-inch inside opening, weighing
157 pounds, were placed on the ramp to create a treadway for tactical
vehicles and hydraulic carts. Four men were needed to lift each "C"
channel. Storage and logistical problems existed for all types of
shoring required for the ramp and the cabin area.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-payload.htm
if its the tredway and providing strength, its a ramp, and the V-22 is
the support .
If you want to callit shoring I have no problem
What SOTECH sees as perhaps the most limiting factor is
floor-loading specification of no more than 17 psi (based on highway
running
footprints and highway internal tire pressures). This parameter has to
be met
at all times, including during the ramp loading process where because
of the
ramp there may be surge weights on tires as they move on or off the
ramp to the
aircraft floor. There is also a chance that the program will allow the
rear
ramp of the V-22 to be shored during loading and unloading of the
vehicle. The
ramp is currently rated at 1,800 pounds per axle on the ramp. The V-22
honeycomb floor and ramp tunnel (the angled section where the floor and
ramp
meet) is rated at 2,450 pounds per axle. If shoring is allowed, it
would bring
the ramp minimum up to that of floor. An important consideration for
industry
is that if shoring is approved, it must be an integral part of the
vehicle
equipment and will not be transported on or be a part of the aircraft
load. The
program office reiterated that the decision to allow shoring had not
positively
been made yet.
http://www.special-operations-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=162
http://www.specialoperations.com/Literature/AFJI/CV22.htm
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.
24x240 = 5760 pounds payload
18x265= 4770 pounds paylod
you just lost 17 percent of your combat capability
thats because you have to lift the turkey and all it's fat.
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?
"CV-22: Long Range Special Operations" its a spec for the vehicle
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.
As noted above there si only so much weight carrying capability
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.
it cant lift the fuel and 24 men and carry them the same distance.
Vince
|
