China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

A few comments:

The Navy doesn't "always look" for submarines- this costs money. Fuel for ASW aircraft, sonobouys, etc. In peacetime, it just isn't done. That being said, the Navy did get rid of the S-3 Viking (mistake, IMO) from the carrier air wings. The air wings are a shadow of their old selves.

The Osprey doesn't damage the non skid on the decks of ships any more than the Harrier does- and they take off and land vertically on the deck with little to no damage.
 
Crosshair:
The V-22 has not been submitted for FAA approval because it won't pass FAA certification.
Click to expand...
Bold mine - Bud Helms.

So it wasn't submitted for type cert because the DoD knew it would fail?
 
Last edited:
Why else has Bell Helicopter and Boeing NOT submitted the V-22 to be certified. If the V-22 is such a great thing then you would think that they would be tripping over themselves trying to get this to the private market.

As for the Harrier, their exhaust nozzles are not always pointing straight down and split across 4 nozzles instead of 2. The Harrier is also less than half the weight of the bloated V-22 (9,342 kg *Vertical takeoff* vs 21,500 kg)

The V-22 also has the flight characteristics of a brick if both engines fail, it cannot autorotate. (Or the drive shaft and one engine fails) Show me one aircraft where a complete loss of power results in the aircraft becoming uncontrollable and falling out of the sky. Aircraft where the ENTIRE crew can escape via ejection seats don't count. Even a 747 can glide for quite a distance, giving the crew a chance to restart the engines or choose someplace to land/crash. The infamous Gimli Glider, a 767 passenger jet, was able to land safely even after suffering a total power loss. What if a V-22 gets some contaminated fuel?

The V-22 has VERY high disk loading. How well will it perform in dusty/desert landing zones. It mounts no defencive armament. I could go on and on on the defects in the V-22. There are better aircraft available. Why not build some CH-46s using modern materials. The old ones we have are safety restricted on their cargo capacity due to airframe age.
 
It's possible that the Osprey hasn't been submitted for certification because the government has pre-emptive rights. How many F-22s have been submitted for certification?

If you look at the exhaust locations on the Osprey, they are further from the deck than on a Harrier. This will attenuate temperature and blast effects. There is also the fact that the Harrier DOES use the ENTIRE force vector aimed directly at the deck while lifting. BOTH of them vector the forces after take-off in direction opposite of flight.

As for the transmission failure scenario, so what? They are envisioned as a high-speed helicopter as opposed to a low-speed aircraft. In that role, a transmission failure in a Chopper at full speed will have the same effect on the crews. Auto-rotating a fully loaded military chopper at speed is a great concept, but one that rarely results in a survivable landing.

What makes the Osprey "bloated"? It's a heavy-lift aircraft for it's class. The Harrier is a fighter/bomber. The Harrier should be a more sprightly performing aircraft.

Might I remind everyone that most heavy-lift choppers are also defenseless? Heck the F-22 prototypes were all unarmed, as well. The difference between armed and un-armed is about three hours. The configuration of the V-22, at this point, doesn't lend itself to being an attack aircraft. Then again, neither does a Chinook.

This entire diatribe smells of the attacks against the Bradley IFVs from a couple of decades ago. They appear to be working in multiple war zones, with multiple militaries. Give the V-22 it's run. There are ZERO alternative craft that combine the speed, lift capability, and landing abilities today. That includes the modernized CH-46 platforms. Again, sounds like the "rebuild the M113 with modern materials" arguement of the 1980s. :)
 
I am going to stop the V-22 debate. I feel that neither of us is going to convince the other to change their position.

I believe it is a flawed aircraft from what I have read from both camps. Its mission could be done by regular helicopters or STOL aircraft (Like the CH-53X). Others disagree. Time will prove which camp is right. We will have to agree to disagree. Speed is not everything. I am going to leave it at that. I thank you for remaining civil.
 
I agree, sir. I thank you as well. It's going to be an interesting several years in front of us.

If anyone wishes to do a google, the trials and tribulations of the Russian super-torpedo, which has an actual "kill" under it's belt, it would appear, the Soviet submarine the Kursk. It seems that it has no current sensor package, but runs on a timer. Making it a lot like an aimed, not directed, weapon. They are working on a "rush to the general area, then slow to normal speeds and search" model.

The same goes for the 1/3 price Russian Super-fighter. It's not exactly as invincible as was predicted in the advertising.

Now, the latest iteration Russian service rifle, using WWII technology from a gentleman named Robison, uses recoiless technology to shoot two rounds per trigger pull, and reduces felt recoil by a large amount. In WWII, this man developed a .50 cal, fully-automatic and belt-fed, rifle that could be fired from the shoulder comfortably. The existing Ordnance Boards felt that, by this time in 1945, we were winning, and rearming the entire Allied force with these weapons wasn't worth it. There were vehicle and aircraft mounted MGs, shoulder-fired 7.62x63 auto-weapons, and even auto-pistols in .45 ACP.

I can provide references for all of this. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top