| |
| | Post 31 | |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
The Osprey will just become another asset like the 47s/53s etc that are already used to help out with getting supplies in and out of small areas. The only thing is, it won't be able to do the other missions the 47s and 53s can do.
__________________ Ugh. | |
| |
| | Post 32 |
| Immunes | I see a large future for them in the coast guard as well. It is a matter of range and speend. You can get the range out of a chopper but you need a refueler. Some thing no one has thought of. By comming in to land with the wing at an angle, you can really shorten the landing run. Once the bugs are finally out, I see a market for commercial vaiiants. |
| |
| | Post 33 | ||
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
I know it isn't for rescue since the Coast Guard doesn't go out to sea over 200 miles, after that, it goes to Air Force RQS. They don't have any method of refueling their Jayhawks and they don't want/can't afford the cost of having to run tankers, plus training. They also don't wanted the added risk of having to refuel in flight, as someone that's had to do so many times, often in sucky weather, I don't blame them. There's also the fact that the Osprey has killer downwash, it's bad enough trying to fight it in calm waters, add bad weather, rising seas and tired victims, you'll kill them before you can even deploy from the helo. Same for any mountain/forest/urban rescues. Then there's this thing about the fields of view, you get the front and the rear, that's it. Not great when you're looking for a tiny spec in a really big area. You're better of trying to use an F-16 as a rescue platform than a Osprey. I'm at a loss as to what you see the Coast Guard using the V-22 for. Quote:
It will be years and years and years before you see the Osprey on the civilian market. | ||
| |
| | Post 34 |
| Milforum Gnat | I think the police can use it!
__________________ - Ready To Strike - |
| |
| | Post 35 | |
| No Chance Outside | Quote:
__________________ I don't exist. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSTITUTED ![]() Next time you travel http://www.epictrip.com | |
| |
| | Post 36 | |
| Primus Pilus | Quote:
| |
| |
| | Post 37 | |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
| |
| |
| | Post 38 |
| Optio | If they still plan on employing the osprey in combat within the year then I would love to know who is going to be doing the external lifts, because those of us over In 2nd TSB have ceased training missions with the Osprey as of late, the rumor is they crashed another one, that's jsut speculation but the fact is we aren't practising wiht it anymore and it's definately a bird that we need practise with. And now that I think about it if we aren't running training lifts then that means the pilots aren't doing them either, because we usually end up doing them with the new pilots over in 302.
__________________ First in, Last out! Last edited by LeatherNeckRVA; April 17th, 2006 at 11:45. |
| |
| | Post 39 |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Now using the Osprey in the desert conditions with those two great propellers going at it like mad it is going to create one hell of a dust storm. Either that or it will only land on a concrete pad.
__________________ LeEnfield Rides again |
| |
| | Post 40 |
| Primus Pilus | Do you think it would really raise more of a dust storm than something like the Chinook? From my oh so well informed civilian perspective (yeah, sarcasm), the Osprey seems to be a solution without a problem. While it does have an advantage or two, it also seems that fixed and rotary wing aircraft already do a better job in their respective niches than the Osprey can do trying to cover both. If you need greater speed and transport capacity, the C-130 can do the job. If you need vertical take off and insertion capability, the beloved UH-60 awaits your command. |
| |