What are some equipment acquisition fuck ups the US Military have made?
Picture not related.
>>28279761
>Pic very related.
>>28279761
The millions upon millions for the mi-24 that iraq got, most of them didnt work or were not airworthy.
>>28279783
I know, right.
>>28279761
the M14.
>>28279783
You made a typo anon.
>Pic not related.
There you go.
The v-22 is an utter disaster for the marines, completely incapable of actually doing the mission it was purchased for, nor can it do any other missions the CH-46 did.
No weapons, super fragile, tendency to kill everyone in it, or to chop heads off with the prop.
How are marine generals allowed to retire and go work for V-22 contractors?
>>28280340
Look at all of those memes, if only they were reflective of reality.
>>28280477
It's super expensive, payload is negligible, can't land anywhere near as high as a helicopter
It's greater speed is negligible, it's greater range comes from larger fuel fraction.
There's really nothing good about the V-22
>>28280589
Thanks for further exemplifying what I wrote, the only thing you listed that is accurate is the price.
>>28280643
I think it speaks for itself that noone else wants to buy the damn thing
Tried to give them to israel, israel didn't want them.
>>28279761
Adopting the M14 instead of the FAL comes to mind. Adopting the .223 instead of the .280 British also comes to mind. But the worst, forever, for all time, will always be: >>28280558
What in God's name were they thinking?
>>28280558
UCP, IT ONLY WORKS AT NIGHT! YEAH!
This immediately comes to mind.
>>28280705
had to get it all under 10,000 lbs too, because the V-22 can't lift more than that.
I'm sure the marines will have a lot of success with their assault jeeps.
>>28280558
out of all the images of that shit camo you went and posted one where it would actually be pretty effective
>>28279783
Slavaruskie detected.
>>28280677
Israeli forces don't have to fly anywhere near as far as the USMC to find Muslims to kill though. They don't want aircraft carriers either.
>>28280705
>including the price of the mortar
>UCP
>DCGS-A
>M320 GL -- heavy, awkward, costs more than M203
>AT4 -- costs $4000, does the same thing as a $400 PGM-7 rocket except not reusable and can't be fired from a confined space.
>OH-58 -- Lacks engine power, should've been a trivial fix, instead cut without a replacement. Didn't actually perform poorly but everything having to do with the Army's scout helicopter program was/is a total shitshow.
>F-35: Should've just dumped the B version or made a separate STOVL airframe.
>Speaking of the Marines, the IAR looks like a piece of shit but maybe I'm wrong.
>>28280677
>I think it speaks for itself that noone else wants to buy the damn thing
>Israel is still negotiating its purchase
>Japan approve funding to buy 5 this year
Thank you for further exemplifying my statement.
>>28281125
Had me going until the Kiowa part.
>>28279761
>>28279783
>OP and second reply already off topic
>>28280686
The M14 was actually the US forcing 7.62x51 on NATO, which brought the FAL and other euro 7.62s into existence.
>>28279761
Not replacing the M2.
>>28281161
The fact you can't say anything positive about it, proves my point
desu
>>28280952
But thats the thing, the V-22 doesn't actually fly further or faster than a helicopter
Also it's completely unsuitable for desert operations, and you could buy/maintain several choppers for the price of a V-22
>>28281288
V-22:
Combat radius: 390nmi
Cruise speed: 241kn
UH-60:
320nmi
150kn
CH-47:
200nmi
130kn
>>28281343
Those are old fucking helicopter designs
That cost less than half of what the V-22 costs
And were never intended for high speed long distance travel.
So directly comparing them on those things is idiocy, since the V-22 pays a premium in capabilities & cost to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift
Army is going to be purchasing a proper compound helicopter design, that will likely be superior in every respect.
>>28281275
So you got caught in a lie and are now attempting damage control.
>>28281478
>the V-22 doesn't even fly further or faster than other helicopters
>ok yeah it flies further and faster than all those helicopters you listed but those don't count because they're old
>look at this program for an aircraft that hasn't been developed yet and compare it's fake numbers to the real ones of the Osprey.
Genius
>>28281478
>it doesn't fly further or faster than other Helo's
>anon lists active helicopters that it does
>THOSE DON'T COUNT, THEY ARE OLD, THIS HELICOPTER THAT DOES NOT EXIST YET WILL BE BETTER!!!!
keks were had
>>28281541
>>28281534
as I said, the V-22 achieves its higher range through holding more fuel
If you put 15,000 lbs of fuel into a UH-60, it would be much further than a V-22
>>28281595
That's exactly it, can't put that much fuel on a UH-60.
By your own acknowledgement it will never come close to a V-22's range.
>>28281614
Except that 390nm number is a fantasy
And in reality, it has less range than the UH-60, comparable range to the CH-47.
>>28281708
>I'll just call any numbers I don't agree with and prove me wrong a fantasy!
>>28281595
>>28281595
>as I said, the V-22 achieves its higher range through holding more fuel
>>28281733
? Thats how aircraft work
You sacrifice payload for fuel, so the V-22 manages about 5,000 lb lift vertically, fully fueled.
>>28281728
There has been so many proven lies about the V-22's capability
The actual range, with a load, flown at low altitude, is under 300nm
>>28281745
What are you talking about.
Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg) (self-deploy/long runway)
Maximum rolling takeoff weight: 57,000 lb (STOL)
Maximum vertical takeoff weight: 52,600 lb
The V-22 can carry up to 30,000 pounds on a runway and up to 20,000 from vertical lift. For reference, a CH-46 can only do 13,000 pounds max.
Also, the V-22 achieves its range because planes are infinitely more fuel efficient than helicopters.
>>28281768
And you're saying a Blackhawk's range won't vary given the circumstances?
>>28281768
Funny how you seem to be unable to cite any actual lie.
>>28281745
>Thats how aircraft work
I've just never seen any one feel the need to state something so blindingly obvious. Hence my confusion.
>>28281768
source?
>>28281125
>F-35: Should've just dumped the B version or made a separate STOVL airframe.
oh boy this meme again. Care to explain what design sacrifices were made to accommodate STOVL?
>>28281779
The v-22 is not a plane
the loaded weight is the V-22 fully fueled. With no weapons, armor addons, etc
Since the marines are an amphibious force first, the maximum vertical takeoff is what they will be using.
>>28281791
>>28281801
http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/?fuseaction=aircraft.main
>>28281830
>Since the marines are an amphibious force first, the maximum vertical takeoff is what they will be using.
And any combination of range/fuel to payload, the V-22 will drastically outperform a traditional helicopter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9gWlM0QY8
look at those trees get ripped apart
Look at the people being blown over in the background
Disasters just waiting to happen, which is probably why the V-22 doesn't do combat operations.
>>28281873
Not in price it won't
At the end of the day, price & cost efficiency is all that matters.
>>28281900
>which is probably why the V-22 doesn't do combat operations
whew lad you just keep digging that hole deeper
>>28281830
>marines
The Osprey is in service with the USAF as well.
>>28281830
>>28281900
So from your source:
V-22 mission radius
>Land-Assault Troop Mission (24 Troops) 448 Km
From here:
https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/B94ABC6E-1B69-47DD-B139-42F6CA1842A0-1274568168691/3-04.113/appc.htm
UH-60 Mission radius
>Combat radius 14 troops 225 km *
So the V-22 can carry more troops further and faster than a UH-60.
Can you find another helo to compare it to? I'm finding it hard to find one that can beat it.
>>28281900
>At the end of the day, price & cost efficiency is all that matters.
Given up on trying to claim it is not faster or longer ranged?
>>28281929
Yeah. Now hes going with
>B-BUT MUH COST
>>28281925
>Can you find another helo to compare it to?
Mi-6?
>>28281929
I had intended to type "much faster/further" in that post, but the word disappeared.
>>28281924
And thats where its somewhat suitable for, with long runways to take off of, where 30%~ greater range & speed is relevant.
>>28281942
V-22 is faster. Mi-6 has a longer range
>>28281956
That does not change how in any range/speed/payload combination it is superior to existing shipborne helicopters.
>>28281969
>Mi-6 has a longer range
You sure about that?
>>28282008
Source I found gave 620 km range with 8000 kg payload
JUST FUCK MY NAVY UP
>>28281990
When your V-22's can't even fly because of the maintenance requirements, then its payload is nil
You know the president is not allowed to fly in his V-22 right?
>>28282058
SOCOM loves the V-22, you faggot.
>>28282058
and the goalposts move once again
this pos
>>28280340
>>28280589
>>28280677
This kid is a fucking cacophony of misinformation.
>>28282081
You think paying maybe 10 times the price to maintain it isn't relevant?
What sort of availibility will it have in actual combat situations where existing helicopters are operating at 90% readiness?
Below 50%?
When the V-22 is coming into land, a loss of an engine will kill everyone in the aircraft, that alone makes the aircraft completely unusable in any combat role.
>>28280686
This is a dumb post, it's practically revisionist.
>>28282020
The V-22's combat range is 1,627 km
>>28282114
As much as I'm sure Boeing can't possibly fuck up something as simple as a tanker, I'm pretty mad at them for being seemingly hellbent on fucking up any and all procurement processes if they don't get their way.
>Lose JSF
>Proceed to do everything in their power to undercut sales
>Lose KC-X
>Throw a shitfit until USAF hands Boeing the contract
>Lose LRS-B
>Immediately protest the decision and try to kill the program
>>28281919
>v-22
I know a v22 driver; career Marine.
With the systems out it is unflyable; doesn't auto-rotate, doesn't glide.
Looks mighty prone to battle damage imo.
>>28282131
>a loss of an engine will kill everyone in the aircraft
The engines share a common gearbox so the thing is still stable even after the loss of an engine.
Now are you going to offer any legitimate criticisms, or are you going to continue pulling things out of your ass and shifting the goalposts when you get called on it?
>>28282131
>What sort of availibility will it have in actual combat situations where existing helicopters are operating at 90% readiness?
>Below 50%?
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/v-22-update-readiness-up-25-flight-hour-costs-down-20-since-2009/
As the V-22 matures, costs go down and readiness goes up. Other US helos have been in service twice as long as the V-22.
>When the V-22 is coming into land, a loss of an engine will kill everyone in the aircraft, that alone makes the aircraft completely unusable in any combat role.
Autorotation is not a magic lifesaving solution. People still die in droves from engine failures in helos. Also, Ospreys, since they actually have fixed wings, can actually glide.
>>28281969
>>28282020
Citing one-way numbers for Mi-6 and combat radius for V-22.
Great comparison lad.
>>28282198
>believing the marines own reports on readiness/costs
>>28282280
>Believing biased reporters who only want to grab clicks without actually understanding what they're writing about.
F-35 and all of the camo the Army has come up with. Ditto with the Navy's aqau-flage. They should use the Marine patterns. They are considered the best out of any that the branches issue.
Note, I'm talking general issue. As I understand it the Army does issue multicam to specific units and the multicam is considered better than what the Marines use.
>>28279783
>Pic very related
>>28282392
>Doesn't know a functional pattern is entering service
>>28282392
>>28282429
>Hurr lookat me I'm calling the F-35 bad am I popular now?
>>28282449
>Poorfag predecessor to multicam
lmao
>>28282449
Yeah I heard a new one was coming in. I'll assume your pic is it. How does it compare to Marpat?
F-35 has overrun is budget by the millions. This is disgusting. I don't care if that's how contracts usually work. It is still disgusting. It lost to the F-16 in a 1v1 fight.
>inb4 don't need to dogfight!
That's what they thought prior to vietnam. Look where that got us.
Oh, and the bit about the DoD saying it didn't have muh special stealth coating reeks of bullshit. Ditto for not having proper software. At best that is a gross oversight if you are trying to test it. At worst they wanted to show their special "it does everything!" plane was better than a 40 year old fight and got BTFO.
>>28282180
>The engines share a common gearbox so the thing is still stable even after the loss of an engine.
Do you have a citation actually demonstrating the v-22's capability to hover on one engine? Or at least maintain stability while it crashes?
The crash in April, 2010 demonstrated the V-22 cannot hover at 45,000 lbs and 5,000 feet altitude.
Which means its really just a STOL cargo plane
>>28282503
>Yeah I heard a new one was coming in. I'll assume your pic is it. How does it compare to Marpat?
It's basically Multicam but slightly different, which is a solid pattern for most environments.
>It lost to the F-16 in a 1v1 fight.
Still memeing this lie so hard.
>That's what they thought prior to vietnam.
memememememememememe
You have yet to state anything actually true.
>>28281231
7.62 in the garand. The FAL predates the M14 by a number of years.
This complicated pile of shit.
>>28282595
The Garand fires .30-06.
cumbersome as fuck IOTV's
>>28282586
Meanwhile, the programme is millions over budget and he's right
It took this long to get results, that is fucking embarrassing. F35 shills need to recognize that the plane is cool, but the massive fuckups involved in it's development and all the mistakes made are unforgivable
Are you paid by lockheed to defend the F35/F22, or is it simply because you don't want to admit you're wrong? Also posting that image is the weakest response you could have possibly given
3/10
>>28282602
Eh, they were a massive improvement over the Interceptor vest.
>>28282586
>Basically multicam
Stop this fucking meme. The pattern is much less dense compared to multicam and has a more unnatural green hue. Multicam has another 5 years worth of R&D put into it.
>>28282615
>Same 15 year x/y model first flight to IOC as F-22
>Still 7 billion under F-22 dev
>Three variants that used to require separate airframes
>>28282597
Like, the fucking coolest jet ever though
>>28282579
>Do you have a citation actually demonstrating the v-22's capability to hover on one engine? Or at least maintain stability while it crashes?
Not that guy, and I don't have a citation, but I have experience with rotorcraft and feel like speculating right now :^)
Anyways, normal helicopters are capable of autorotating without engine power. I suspect the V-22 is not, but I'd be willing to speculate that as long as it has one engine going, it's at least capable of maintaining enough rotor-speed to flare and touch down softly akin to an autorotation, expending kinetic energy of the rotor system to arrest descent rate (in addition to whatever the remaining engine is able to add to the equation).
So you see... if it's ANYTHING like a conventional helicopter, it doesn't necessarily NEED the power to hover in order to make a vertical landing.
>>28282586
A lie? I'd give you the report itself but I can't find it. Here's the first five from google. I searched F-35 loses to F-16.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-response-to-a-dismal-f-35-test-reveals-the-programs-1715618793
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.lse38g7av
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/what-the-f-35-v-f-16-dogfight-really-means-think-pilots/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/disastrous-f-35-vs-f-16-face-off-was-also-a-battle-of-philosophies/
Now if you look, you see they said "but this plane wasn't ready for it!" which I said was at least a gross oversight and at best they wanted to prove something and got BTFO. Which is exactly what happened. If you want to test your new fancy shit, it should be the latest model.
Thinking that we didn't need to dogfight prior to getting trashed in Vietnam isn't a meme. It's a fact. The Air force thought we just needed to use missiles. This was proven to be false.
>>28282636
>Coolest mistake ever
I fucking despise the thing and it's fanbase, but I gotta admit it's a sexy fucking jet.
>>28281125
>AT4
You have no idea what you're talking about and your figures are wrong.
>>28282662
I like the F111 and F14 for obvious reasons
>>28282662
It was kind of the pioneer for the US's teen-series jet designs. Being the first of its' kind and subsequently improved upon by its successors does not make it a blunder.
>>28282601
The M14 was developed from the T44, which was a essentially a garand with a magazine that fired 7.62.
The decision to make 7.62 the standard NATO round occurred a few years before the M14 entered service.
>>28282656
>Foxtrotalpha
Uneven quality site, parroting David Axe's intentional misinterpretation.
>dailymail
u wot m8
>The David Axe hatchet piece
It's like you're intentionally stupid.
>more parroting of the Axe interpretation
It's as if you're completely retarded. What does a real pilot say?
http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/
>>28282653
Sure, it can land with one engine if it's flying at 5000 feet forward.
But when losing power in one engine while in hover or slow descent to an LZ
Then the fucker flips over, kills a buncha people, and the whole aircraft burns up.
>>28282719
The low altitude crashes were caused by physics effects never seen before because it's a completely new flight concept, and that issue has been fixed by software changes to the FBW controls.
>>28282690
>here is the top five in google
Did you even read my post?
Nice article though. Still haven't proven anything. As I said, putting that older model in the sky when they had newer F-35s they could have used was at best a gross oversight. At worst they wanted to prove something and got BTFO. With all of these costs overruns (my main issue with this thing), it's currently a blunder in my book.
>>28282760
Just because the results are high doesn't mean they're right.
>>28282740
no software can compensate for losing lift in one rotor causing instant flip over
You "solve" it by imposing more and more restrictions on how the aircraft can fly
Any aircraft that prone to "pilot error" crashes killing everyone is obviously not suited for a combat helicopter.
>>28282760
You keep missing the point. It wasn't a competition. They were testing where the software control laws could be tweaked.
>>28282766
>Random dipshit on the internet knows better than aerospace engineers
>>28282763
Your article was better but it said the same basic thing while being less doom and gloom. F-35 lost, we need more testing.
>>28282776
Software that they already had an improved version of. They (DoD) also noted that it didn't have its special stealth coating. Seems ridiculous to me that they would do any sort of testing looking for improvement with something that was an older, unimproved, version.
>>28282719
>Sure, it can land with one engine if it's flying at 5000 feet forward.
>But when losing power in one engine while in hover or slow descent to an LZ
Standard procedure with helicopters is to remain within the autorotation envelope of the height-velocity diagram. If you're low enough or high enough, you can perform a successful autorotation from a hover, and in-between (typically between ~10 feet and anywhere from 400-1000 ft depending on the helicopter) you generally try to make a point of having enough forward airspeed to successfully autorotate from there too. I don't know if the same operational doctrine applies for the V-22 but I see no reason to assume it doesn't.
>Then the fucker flips over
Someone already mentioned that the two rotors are linked to a common driveline. There is no reason for the V-22 to roll over upon engine failure.
>>28282789
>Not a competition
>Still claiming a loss
>>28282805
Fine, it performed poorly. Happy?
>>28282790
>There is no reason for the V-22 to roll over upon engine failure.
The rollover was the result of a vortex forming, which happens too fast for human reaction times.
>>28282790
Well maybe it doesn't flip over on single power loss.
But it doesn't autorotate either, at 2000 ft it can transition to forward flight, below that I guess it just crashes
>>28282811
It performed like a Hornet flown by a pilot with mismatched experience. In a real-world fight the F-16 would be dead long before it even knew the -35 was in the sky.
>>28282833
That's what I'm getting at. The F-35 they used was older and didn't have all the upgrades THEY HAD ALREADY MADE. So this was a shit test. Since it was such a shitty test it was either A) Someone made a gross oversight or B) they were trying to prove something and got BTFO.
This makes me concerned as to how good it will be as an end product. However I am willing to wait and see if it will be good. I do not, however, have any issue saying the costs overruns are fucking disgusting. It had better be damned good to justify the price we're paying.
>>28282882
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A CONTEST YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT.
>>28282719
>>28282766
>>28282790
>flip over
You don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe post a source or footage and prove me wrong.
>>28281595
If you put 15,000 pounds of fuel into a UH-60 it would sit there on the tarmac for a half hour until it had burned 5,500 pounds of it and could manage a barely-survivable rolling takeoff.
>>28281708
>>28281733
>>28281768
And he's wrong. The V-22 has, in case people haven't noticed, has big fucking fixed wings.
>>28281478
Pro-tip: tilt-rotor is competing with advancing blade concept for FVL.
I strongly suspect that the result will be a split buy, with Sik^H^H^H Lockheed winning the small-medium categories, and Bell taking the heavy and potential Hercules-class categories, with both manufacturers forced to use common avionics and human interfaces.
>>28282893
Listen you chuckle fuck. It was a test flight. Perfectly understood. If you are testing then WHY IN THE EVER LIVING FUCK WILL YOU NOT USE THE LATEST MODEL? That is like testing a garand to find improvements for a M14. It's fucking stupid.
As for performance, F-35 didn't do the job. Since it was a fucking shitty test, as I noted already, I'm willing to wait and see if it will get better. I still think the costs overruns are disgusting.
>>28282170
Your friend is wrong, and retarded. The V-22 has a survivable glide ratio and rate of decent in the event of total power loss. Crash landing one is super fucking exciting, however, because those big props -do- hit the ground and -do- explode. (Away from the cabin, assuming the safety systems function as intended. In the field, they have so far.)
>>28281830
When in forward flight, yes, it is indeed a plane.
>>28282927
Because AF-02 is specifically rigged for collecting test data you fucking simp. Production units might have the latest and greatest components, but they aren't rigged for flight testing.
>>28282965
He is most likely trolling.
>>28282927
when the model you're testing still has the things that you want to test.
and you're forgetting that the f35 is a thirty year program incorporating thirty years worth of budgetary planning. every time you delay production to save money now you're simply deferring cost. and the cost is rapidly approaching original estimates for full rate production, as we approach full rate production.
go take a fucking look at the f14 program if you're worried about cost. that fucker nearly bankrupted grunman.
>>28282813
>The rollover was the result of a vortex forming, which happens too fast for human reaction times.
I see.
VRS is typically the result of excessive descent rate in-hover. It can be avoided simply by performing a sloped descent (which you really should be doing anyways to stay in the clear as far as the HV envelope goes) instead of a vertical one. Vertical descents and OGE hover are special procedures and shouldn't be performed unless circumstances call for it.
>>28282817
>But it doesn't autorotate either, at 2000 ft it can transition to forward flight, below that I guess it just crashes
Why the fuck are you hovering at altitude, anyways?
And hovering autos are a thing - if you're hovering just after takeoff or just below landing, you should still be low enough to autorotate safely. At any other time, you should have forward airspeed anyways (unless performing special procedures like long-lining cargo or fast-roping).
>>28282927
You don't use the latest model because this is your test aircraft, wired up for testing, with kinematics that are close enough to the latest production run that it can still be used to test out the flight control software, and in this case, determine that the computer is over-mothering the pilot, keeping him from pointing his nose where he wants it in situations where that might lead to a stall, *after* he kills the other guy. The software engineers now get to adjust the computer so that the F-35 kills the enemy first, and then recovers from the unsustainable position the pilot deliberately put it into.
>>28283033
And as recent tests have shown, you can put an F-35 into such extreme AoA positions that any other plane would fall out of the sky and still have the degree of control needed to point the nose anywhere you want to.
But no, the haters have to cling to anything they can parrot about it being bad.
>>28283047
AoA is great for airshows and all, but it won't win a fight.
>>28283081
Doesn't need to, because, in descending order:
Stealth.
Passive Sensor suite.
AESA
HOBS missiles.
F-14 had maintenance problems
meanwhile the MV-22 does this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S10ILKgOw0g
>>28283020
But then you are doing rolling takeoffs and landings, which means its effectively not a helicopter.
The marines are an amphibious force, they aren't going to be doing rolling takeoffs & landings on ships.
>>28283138
erm, there's plenty of videos of V-22's doing rolling takeoffs off the LPD's, but with the props at an angle.
It's the perfect setup, you do rolling takeoffs to get the most fuel and payload. You can do vertical landing with the payload once you get to the target area because you've burned off a lot of fuel, and similarly you can land vertically back on the LPD.
>>28283131
Agreed, but why did you bring up AoA then?
I like the F-35 but I'm doubtful it's any match for an F-16 in BFM, as heavy as it is. Lucky for us, BFM and actual combat are dramatically different things.
>>28283155
gonna be a lot of V-22's going swimming if you accidentally loaded too much, or as their airframe/engines ages
Off the LPD or the LHA?
>>28279761
Buying muzzle loarders instead of lever guns in the US civil war
>>28282595
the FAL was originally developed for 7.92x33 and then .280 British at the request of the brits
>>28280149
>>28280780
Fail-35 fagboy detected.
>>28283138
>But then you are doing rolling takeoffs and landings
No, that's not what I'm talking about. With a helicopter, normal operation involves lifting into a low hover (low enough to safely autorotate from), accelerating (still at this low altitude) to forward flight, then climbing away from the ground in forward flight. Approach and landing is essentially the reverse - you approach and descend in forward flight, slowing to transition as you approach the ground, then land from a low hover. In this way you can safely autorotate from any point in your flight, and also minimize the risk of encountering vortex ring state to boot.
There are special circumstances - such as a confined LZ surrounded by high obstacles, or anything that calls for an elevated hover - where these procedures must be deviated from, placing the helicopter (at least momentarily) in a situation it cannot autorotate away from if the engine dies - but under normal operation, this shouldn't be an issue.
>>28283203
>gonna be a lot of V-22's going swimming if you accidentally loaded too much, or as their airframe/engines ages
This is true of literally every aircraft that has ever had to take off from a carrier ever.
>>28282123
>This kid is a fucking cacophony of misinformation.
Irony
>>28281779
>the V-22 achieves its range because planes are infinitely more fuel efficient than helicopters.
Irrelevant since the V-22 is NOT A FUCKING PLANE you moron.
>>28280686
We need a story here. It's possible the people peddling the .223 actually cheated/there was some corruption involved. Not literal quid pro quo, but you know, the usual.
Nice lunches, dicks being sucked, drinks, offers of "consulting" jobs later, etc.
>>28283184
He brought up AoA because it counters the claim that the F-35 isn't maneuverable. From everything I've seen and read, the F-35 is kinematically inferior to a clean F-16, but with any kind of combat loading (same fuel load + missiles) the F-35 is superior.
So pretty much the F-16's only better if it's not configured for fighting at all.
>>28279761
>>28279783
>My countries flag on that plane
JUST
>>28279761
> more capable than what it replaces in every way
> fuck up
Pick one.
>>28281478
That must be why one of the leading FVL designs is a tiltrotor.
>>28281708
>>28281768
Prove it you utter fucking nigger.
Oh wait, you can't because what you said is 100% made up.
>>28282114
As opposed to what? There was no other reasonable alternative for the lo in the hi-lo tanker mix the US operates.
Anyone who thinks Airbus was ever going to actually get the final contract is retarded.
>>28282617
Dude, all the officers in my unit are wearing the new cammies. It looks like fucking multicam.
>>28284840
Pretty much this. The A330 MRTT is a bit larger/higher capacity than the KC-46, but the difference is that the former is the biggest Europeans and other buyers are going to have.
The USAF will ultimately operate the slightly smaller KC-46 but still have the KC-10 as well, which is far larger than the KC-46 or A330 MRTT. And eventually the KC-10 will eventually be replaced either by a 777-based tanker or something more radical like pic related.
>>28284868
no boom operator?
>>28284946
There are remote control booms on each side. It's just a concept though. I wouldn't think too hard about it.
>>28281250
with what? the only thing i can think of would be an m3.
>>28284805
Even if all the numbers and claims about it is true
It's still less capable of actually doing missions involving a helicopter
>>28284756
>Angry that you're getting a better plane
Seriously, what the fuck.
>>28285037
Good thing you've been proven wrong by reality. It does literally everything better than the Sea Knight.
>>28284868
>chemtrails.jpg
>>28283184
The TEST that you're talking about wasn't made to see which one was a better dogfighter.
It was a TEST(!) of the F-35's anti-spin logic which had not yet been tweaked to the best of its capability. At the time of the TEST of the anti-spin logic, they decided to use an F-16 as a point of reference in order to more easily compare the F-35's performance to contemporary aircraft. It was not a competition. The test pilot flying the aircraft states that while it performed worse than the F-16, he felt that it was due to an overly protective and constrictive FCS, not due to any actual disability of the airframe itself. Once the anti-spin logic was relaxed, the aircraft would perform much better.
>>28283538
Whatever you say, bro.
>>28279761
Getting rid of the detachable magazine on the Garand.
>>28285933
Because planes can totally take off vertically...
>>28286063
Some can, yes.
>>28286063
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
>>28286111
And yet, in actual operation, the F-35B never takes off vertically. Ever.
>>28286142
Which is a fuel efficiency thing, not a capability thing.
>>28280705
ok im going to need someone to explain this one to me...
>>28283081
it'll buy you one good guns jink
>>28286063
You do realize that tiltrotors are specifically designed to incorporate strengths of both planes AND helicopters and eliminate the weaknesses of both, right? That's the entire point of the concept.
>>28286142
and traditional helicopters often make rolling takeoffs when heavyweight.
next you're going to argue that a F-15 is a naval fighter because it has a tailhook.
>>28286194
Nice strawman. It's a FACT that the vast, vast majority of helicopter operations are vtol. It's a FACT than near-as-makes-no-difference all jump jet operations are stovl/stosl.
>>28286221
And the V-22 doesn't use jumpjets, it uses props/rotors just like any other helicopter.
>>28286221
i'd like to see some citation for that, because if i can load up a helo with more fuel and cargo by allowing it to roll forward to build up speed and get out of ground effect and into translational lift, i'd go ahead and do that.
also the CV-22 glides like a brick according to some dudes who've flown it over at Herby i've talked to.
>>28286237
And will you look at that, it does basically only vtol operations.
>>28286243
Are you actually trying to claim that rolling take off make up any notable percentage of helicopter operations? Really?
>>28285257
Except, you know, operate from ships. I know of very few classes that can stand the heat they produce. And in a day with less amphibs, that's a problem.
>>28286237
No fucking shit. That's why it is for nearly all practical purposes a helicopter.
>>28286274
What the actual fuck are you talking about? It is based on ships right now and performs far better than the Sea Knight.
>>28286266
pretty common in afghanistan for one.
>>28286154
The numbers are generally a bit deceptive. There's two variants of the Growler jeep, the standard utility vehicle (ITV) and a mortar carrier (EFSS). The ITV works just fine, and costs only around $200,000. The EFSS had a combination of development troubles and a much smaller order size (66 EFSS vs 650 ITVs) which inflated the cost.
>>28286287
Maybe for heavy helicopters like the Super Stallion. Not for your average gunship or Blackhawk though.
>>28286275
>>28286254
Except, you know, it can transition into a plane mode in midflight (or even during takeoff) so the wings can provide the lift so the rotors/props can focus on providing forward momentum, which is where the Osprey's superior speed come from.
The fact of the matter is that due to its design, the Osprey is capable of traditional takeoff, STOL, AND VTOL, which makes it extremely flexible and is the only military utility craft with this capability.
>>28286321
dude.
https://youtu.be/8RZSlxCRnHw?t=9m00s
>>28286334
> the Osprey is capable of traditional takeoff
That's false. The rotor diameter is too large to perform a regular horizontal takeoff like a normal prop plane would do.
>>28286360
the nacelles tilt to 45 to clear the rotors, so the thrust vector has horizontal and vertical components.
>>28286343
You're not really countering anything being said. The fact is that medium and light helicopters rarely do rolling takeoffs. Finding an exception to the rule doesn't make it the new rule.
>>28286372
>not understanding why aircraft are less efficient in hot, high environments
>>28286371
Which is not a traditional takeoff. It's a short take off. The Osprey is STOL, VTOL, STOVL, and VTOSL capable. It is not capable of taking of and/or landing like a normal plane (e.g. C-130, Dash 8, C-27, etc.)
>>28286391
> not understanding that that doesn't mean the majority of operations are rolling
You're cherry-picking within an already cherry-picked situation.
>>28286416
it's more fuel efficient to perform a rolling takeoff in a helicopter because you transition into translational lift without burning the gas needed to take off into a non-ground effect hover. if you have the room to do so, i'd imagine that you'd do it. community, squadron, base, wing, etc. standards applicable. not a helo dude so i don't know personally.
>>28282180
>The engines share a common gearbox so the thing is still stable even after the loss of an engine.
Wat
>>28286154
>>28286304
And the mortar carrier price includes the mortar and related equipment.
>>28286945
You rig the crankshafts of the propellers such that the loss of one engine doesn't kill power to one propeller. Instead, both engines drive both propellers, so in the event of an engine failure the remaining engine will continue to power both propellers.
>>28286321
Rolling takeoffs are pretty regular for heavy loads, particularly in unfavorable environments like Afghanistan. The Hind, for example, is incapable of hovering at full load and has to do a rolling takeoff.
>>28287892
Each engine nacelle is completely independent from the other, fucknugget
that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today, that you think there is a crankshaft going through both wings and the body
>>28287938
I think nothing of the sort, I know it to be true, because that's how they built it, ridiculous or not.
>>28288015
It has a shaft for APU power not running the rotors
>>28280340
>chop heads off
This is both the only one that's true and completely irrelevant to the airframe itself.
Not the Osprey's fault people are dumb enough to walk into a very loud, very visible running propeller.
>they also do this with literally other fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft in the entirety of human history
Hell the tail boom on the AH64's killed more people than the V22 has in total. And it sits almost 7 feet off the ground.
>>28288041
Under normal two engine operation, sure. But that shaft can be used to transfer power if one engine fails.
>>28279761
>Beretta M9
>Beretta M9A1
>pretty sure soon to be Beretta M9A3
>Elcan Spectre DR
>Eotech anything
>any and all AAC suppressors (Surefire has always been better and the same or lower cost)
>any and all HMMWV models (there have always been cheaper and far superior options. Not cheaper -or-, cheaper AND)
>OH58D (should've kept it a non/lightly armed 4 person observation bird, cramming 1000lbs of ordnance on an airframe capable of lifting 400lbs of passengers was dumb)
>Lakota, all models
and I'm sure there are plenty more but that's my area of expertise.
>>28288129
M9A3 was directly rejected from any entry for the new pistol.
>>28280589
>payload negligible
It carries more than a CH47 or CH53. Has greater hook capacity than a CH47.
>speed and range negligible
It's nearly TWICE as fast as a CH47 or CH53 (170kn for CH47 and CH53, 270kn for V22) and has three times the operational range.
>hurr range is from more fuel
Who cares, it still carries both more people and cargo weight while also being faster
>>28280677
>nobody else wants them!
Because they're expensive and have far more range than necessary. You'll also note that literally the only other country that even uses a (still in production) heavy-lift SVTOL aircraft is Russia, because literally nobody else needs the capacity and range.
>>28280686
For the role it was intended, 5.56x45 was perfectly fine.
Was it inferior at actually killing things to the .280brit? Sure. But it was significantly lighter and more compact and kicked less, meaning you could put more of it downrange faster and more accurately within the scope of even many of the extreme-outlier scenarios.
The infantry has never killed a significant percentage of enemy combatants, particularly not with aimed rifle fire (most of the infantry kills are with man-portable explosives and crew served weapons, aimed fire has historically accounted for less than 5% of all infantry kills, and infantry kills have historically accounted for less than 10% of all kills).
>>28281184
He's absolutely correct about the failures of the Kiowa airframe.
The fact that it still actually performs both decently and economically is entirely on the sheer hatred of everything living its maintainers and ground crew have.
t. Kiowa ground crew
>>28288162
Then they scrapped that procurement (process? Feeler? Request for bids?) and started over and invited Beretta to enter it again anyway.
Of course, it's pretty much guaranteed this pistol trial will go like all the others: Spend hundreds of millions, get all the way to selecting a replacement, then going "lol we'll stick with the 30-year-old M9, thanks for playing. See ya again next year when we start the shitshow all over again"
>>28288308
Unless Beretta meets specs, the M9A3 won't be what gets entered. The safety placement is a no-go.
>>28282046
>TOTAL PROPULSION FAILURE
>>28288171
>It carries more than a CH47 or CH53. Has greater hook capacity than a CH47.
Thats not true at all, hook capacity is below 10,000 lbs.
>It's nearly TWICE as fast as a CH47 or CH53 (170kn for CH47 and CH53, 270kn for V22)
V-22 is more like 220-230 knots, at sea level, loaded.
>Who cares, it still carries both more people and cargo weight while also being faster
It carries far less than both, however yes its a bit faster and goes a bit further.
At the cost of being able to actually perform like a helicopter.
>>28288599
I have never seen a straight answer to why the M9A3 was discarded.
>>28291406
M9 might be current weapon, but the Army is straight up rejecting new submissions with the slide-mounted safety. They also never asked for an "A3" model and it's not a valid type classification.
>>28291387
>underplay V-22 specs
>overplay CH-47/CH-53 specs, if you bother to even state them
>make a hilarious claim to finish off
rinse repeat ad nauseam
>>28291434
>They also never asked for an "A3" model and it's not a valid type classification.
Beretta could have called it the M9 Dragon Dildo, it has no bearing on what the US army would type classify it as.
>>28280340
The FMC rate is pretty laughably bad yes, but the high speed low drag guys like them so they are not going away.
>>28279761
>Not adopting the .276 for the M1 Garand.
>>28291455
http://pogoarchives.org/m/dp/dp-V22-dote-092005.pdf
Demonstrated a 7,200 pound external lift out to 69 nm in the 2005 OPEVAL
If it was capable of more
why wouldn't they demonstrate it?
>>28286304
Didn't they stop using all the Growlers because no protection for combat and too unsafe to be used as a garrison truck?
>>28292070
Not as far as I know. We still had them a couple years ago when I was on the MEU.
>>28292041
>POGO
Why would I bother reading a report from a group with a long history of lying to make 'new' things look bad.
>>28281125
What's up with the M27IAR? Heard some people bitching about the 416 being adopted a year ago or so, never heard any follow up.
>>28292667
Eh, a few Marine units have it. Mine had a few. All I really know is rumor and that is that it's pretty up in the air as to whether we will replace all the SAWs with them or just supplement the SAW with them. I've heard some rumors that we'll be replacing all the M16's and M4s with them. But when I got out we were getting ready to replace a bunch of M16s with M4s from the Army because the Army was upgrading to M4A1's.
>>28281125
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
>>28292667
It's a solid weapon. We had quite a few in our unit on deployment. Easy to use, extremely accurate, not nearly as heavy as a SAW. Downsides are that it's mag fed so when you switch to it's open bolt full auto mode, it eats through that shit fast so you gotta be on top of your reload game. I think it would be a great replacement for M16s, just not quite good enough at the SAWs job which is sustained suppresive fire.
>>28292911
Are they not just getting some larger magazines or drum mags for it?
>>28292965
Wouldnt a 5 pound metal drum mag with a hundred rounds be heavier than 200 rounds on links in a cardboard/metal box?
>>28292965
I asked my company commander about that and he said the marine corps was exploring that option. I asked an armory snco and he told me that they couldn't find anyone who could make one that could take being loaded for extended periods, reloaded constantly and be cheap enough to order the amount we'd actually need. Not official statements, mind you, but there you go. Shit might have changed in the 2 years I've been out.
>>28292987
The drums they use for SAWs are plastic. And 200 rounds ain't light, they're like 5 lbs by themselves.
>>28293152
5 pounds for 200
5 pounds for 100
One with more ammo available is more reliable
One with less ammo available is less reliable
dodamaff
Just off the top of my head?
F-104: Lockheed was the inspiration for the useless law known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act because no one would willingly buy a plane that killed all its pilots.
M4A1: Picked a rifle unable to fight effectively in the jungle, it understandably stopped working.
B-58 Hustler: Built a nuclear bomber with one-of-a-kind million-dollar parts.
F-111: Built a swing-wing plane for the Navy, fail utterly to the point where you have to start over and design the F-14.
RAH-66 Comanche: >Finish a stealth helicopter and find out that the requirement for a recon helicopter has changed entirely, killing not only your program but the Kiowa it was supposed to replace.
>>28293186
SAW
16.9 lbs unloaded
21.7 lbs loaded with a 200 round belt
Vs.
M27
9lbs unloaded
14 lbs with supposed 100 round drum
Total of 19 lbs for similar amount of rounds with one reload that is much faster than reloading a belt fed MG.
Still lighter than a SAW, more reliable, more accurate than an M16 and the flexibility to switch to semi automatic.
Currently, with just 30 round mags, I don't think it's better at doing the SAW's job. But if they did get drums, I think it would edge it out. At the least, it's better than an M16/M4.
>>28293133
rah fellow devil shitposter
>>28293273
>m4a1 can't fight in the jungle
that's the m16
>b-58 with expensive proprietary parts
this isn't the norm with all cutting-edge aircraft?
>f-111 for the navy
wrong. f-111b was for the navy, the air force versions were fine
>rah-66 Comanche was finished
except it wasn't even close to being finished and the program had encountered significant technical challenges that contributed to its cancellation
>>28293273
>M4A1: Picked a rifle unable to fight effectively in the jungle, it understandably stopped working.
You're an idiot, you know that, right? The AR-15 as originally selected was excellent. They decided not to chrome the bolt and changed to a shitty powder against recommendation, and then told troops it didn't need cleaning. Updates since have developed it into probably the best rifle in service. The M4A1 is god tier, you colossal faggot.
>>28293311
>Still lighter than a SAW
True
>more reliable,
Not true
> more accurate than an M16
Sauce
> and the flexibility to switch to semi auto
>Weapon thats supposed to lay down heavy fire And suppress enemies
Semi automatic fire isnt needed in a LMG which is why there never was an option and should never have the option.
>>28293349
Don't forget they told GIs to reuse the disposable mags were supposed to be empty and throw
>>28293377
Semi-auto fire doesn't hurt anything and adds to the versatility of the weapon, which is a plus even if only on person
![1916205_536831486475340_2982443852082550328_n[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/NDV1LM0.png "1916205_536831486475340_2982443852082550328_n[1].png")
>>28293324
>>28293273
F-104 gets a bad rap because of German pilots without enough flight time.
>>28293517
I talked to a guy that was a rep for Lockheed and set up the German airfields with their 104s, and was called to nearly every crash. He said 90% of the crashes were caused by the Germans putting excess stress on the airframes by loading them down with bombs and other shit it was never designed to haul. The other 10% came from bad weather and hot shot pilots getting in over their head.
>>28293387
versatility is great and all, but thats why you have a whole squad of guys with you, most of whom are already carrying select-fire platforms.
The M249 is simple, light, effective, easy to maintain, and packs enough rounds on a belt to maintain suppressing fire without having to drop your mag and fuck around with another every 10 seconds.
the M27 isnt a SAW, its an AR15 with a makeover so it can pretend to be a SAW. And thats not what an infantry squad needs.
>>28293655
Jesus dude, you are wrong on so god damn many levels. You've never even touched a SAW have you? Let alone served in an infantry squad. Your retardation is staggering and everything you are saying is flat out wrong.
>>28293377
The heaver construction means it's more accurate in automatic fire then an M16/M4, as the greater mass moderates recoil and mutes vibration.
The true advantage is that it is able to sustain a rate of fire about three times higher then an M16 without overheating, and it's lighter then a SAW. I don't really think much of it either.
>>28293273
>F-111 bad
Say that to the Aussies. They loved theirs
>>28293377
You know, considering that I've worked with both weapon systems and seen the reports from other units, I can safely say you are full of shit. The M27 is far more reliable. End of story.
And out of the box, an M16A4 has 4 MOA. The M27 has 2. These are manufacturers specifications and I can attest personally due to the amount of time we spent just training with them on KD ranges, let alone the field exercises and combat patrols we did in country. This also non-debatable. It has been tested thoroughly in controlled conditions.
And if you don't know why being able to switch between closed and open bolt is fucking amazing, you've never had to clear houses with a SAW. Seriously, you are spouting uneducated bullshit.
>>28279771
it is very related
>>28280705
the million dollar jeep is the only thing that will fit inside the V22
Thats the great thing about the V22, not only is it awful and expensive but it requires you go and remake the rest of your military with more awful and expensive equipment to work with it
that jeep, the America class LHA and San Antonio LHD, etc
MEANWHILE a regular landrover or g4 or several ATV could fit into a CH-47
>>28280729
a marine that used them in an MEU posted in a thread about them once, I wish I wish I wish I had screensaved it
He said they were underpowered and broke down constantly
There is already a replacement program underway
>>28281091
200,000 on its own
thats still retarded
>>28279761
M40A3
>outdistanced by pretty much every semi-modernized platform out there
>pretty much combat ineffective outside 1000m
>7.62 not very hard hitting round
Marines still train/deploy regardless of how they get outranged by various enemy MGs all the goddamn time. The M82, or better yet the Mk15 should have replaced it, but the US didnt want to spend the money.
>>28286154
The Marines need a fast attack vehicle that can fit into the V22
Their previous interim fast attack vehicle the G4, or a landrover, or a hummer could not do the job
(I reckon an ATV or gator could)
And in their infinite wisdom comissioned a brand new design
Which because of its design limitations and short production run is extremely expensive: 200,000 for the basic model
various kits jack the price up further
and the mortar carrier is the most expensive of all at a million bucks
As usual the general who approved it went to work for the contractor
And a new replacement program is already in place
>>28286189
except the V22 has the weaknesses of both
>>28286285
Based on what ships? LHD and LHD solely? Okay gotacha. Very compatible.
>>28281231
The m14 was competing against the FAL. And a us variant designated the t-14.
The m-14 won because of the subzero testing. Springfield got prior warning and adjusted the specs of the gun for it.
FN was not notified. And subsequently failed the cold weather testing
>>28286321
British Apaches always did rolling takeoffs from Camp Bastion.
I mean there's literally no reason not to do a rolling takeoff if you're starting the mission from a semi-established airbase, which most of the time you are. I'm starting to think you're full of shit.
>>28280140
Well considering it's being brought back out of mothball they're really getting alot of mileage out of it.
>>28286266
Why take off vertically if you have the space and wheels.
Why land vertically for the same reason.
Rolling allows for more payload whatever your ship.
