72 million per unit?
FOR THIS?
>/k/ will defend this
ok
>$92 million for a Stallion
?
Could an Osprey have changed the outcome of Operation Red Wings?
>>29869763
Having been an Aviation Mechanic and worked on Osprey, they kinda suck. I felt considerably safer riding in a CH-53
>>29869793
>$92 million for a Stallion
Really? Wow. Maybe I just have an unrealistic idea of what stuff should cost.
See in Glorious People's Republic of China, a whole ship, plane, gun cost nothing to make at all!
If anyone complains about not getting paid, they always suddenly feel the urge to sell all their organs the next day and give the profit to the government, because they are true Comrades!
I remember reading about someone proposing an attack/CAS version of the osprey, what do you guys think?
>>29869796
Only competent SEALs would have changed the outcome.
>>29869763
Mi-26 costs $30 mil. WTF?
Ospreys cost a lot more now too, they use old numbers because they are shills
>>29869948
1/3 of the labour costs, a 200 km/h less cruise speed and what not, taken into account. That is a lot. I am surprised. A new Chinook is listed at $38.5 million.
>>29870323
Old number as in flyaway cost for 2015.? What ya want, for them to account the commodities market daily change or something?
>>29869948
Russian workers earn $6000 a year.
US workers earn $39,000 a year.
>>29870619
Oh i thought it cost more
>>29869763
the last time i was in one of those things the left engine gave out and they suck
>>29869793
>$92 million for a Stallion
Wiki has it listed around $25 million per unit. I know Wiki is often wrong when it comes to military hardware, but almost 4 times as much?
Hard to believe.
>>29871092
The CH-53k's cost over 100 million
But thats just marines being retards more than anything else
>>29871092
>Wiki has it listed around $25 million per unit
>1992 cost
anon
Also King Stallions are a huge beef up, almost twice the engine power.
So what advantage to these have over a normal helicopter again?
>>29873598
speed and range
>>29873598
Speed
Range
Honestly not worth it in hindsight.
>>29873598
Range.
>>29873611
This looks fake
>>29873636
MV-22's have 3x the max range of CH-46, and that is before aerial refueling.
>>29873684
Looks a lot more like 4 times desu
>>29869942
They should have fucking stuck with the Marine Scout Snipers plan and inserted almost 10mi (or whatever it was) from the AO instead of bitching it was too far and dropping them off on the Talibans doorsteps.
>>29869763
Honestly if they could just outfit them correctly they would be perfect for cas-evac. Don't know if they have dedicated case evac models yet but that's the best thing these could be used for.
>>29873768
The USAF already uses them for CSAR. I'm pretty sure CASEVAC is also one of the intended mission sets.
>>29873768
Why aren't they CAS/Evac now?
What are they used for?
Fuck dude open up a hole on either side for an M240 or some shit like that and you instantly have something that's not shit.
As it stands the Osprey is just a really big really expensive Chinook.
But without an actual armament
>>29873712
Or more importantly made sure they had good fucking comms prior to going in.
>>29869796
>filename
Kek'd
Pictured: some crazy shit.
>>29873636
It is fake, its a comparison of a modern tilt rotor to a 50 year old chopper, and the V-22 doesn't actually have that sort of range in practice, either.
You compare the V-22 to a modern chopper and the differences aren't so big.
>>29874309
They are far too vulnerable to go anywhere near a hot zone, they are incapable of operation at high altitude, so useless in afghanistan, they can't land in dust/sand/dirt without risking engine issues so most of iraq is also off limits.
Overall they are a giant fuckup
>>29874309
>As it stands the Osprey is just a really big really expensive Chinook.
Not really.
>>29874340
>Pictured: photoshop
ftfy
>>29874415
>25% more range than a Blackhawk while carrying a far heavier payload, faster, is not significant
>>29874415
>YFW they were designed to operate on US soil
>>29874473
Only carries about twice as much, at 3.5 times the price tag
>>29874293
You can transport a couple of litters in it but at least the ones I rode in (2010ish) didn't have a dedicated one that could be easily filled with litters like say some MH-60
>>29874592
>"Only" twice as much
>>29874622
twice as much vertically at sea level
You start going up and the Osprey can't even hover
>>29874672
I don't think you understand. I was mocking the nothing that "only" twice as much somehow isn't a significant difference in payload. It is literally double the payload.
>>29873684
You can aerial refuel a king stallion.
>Shaped like an Anvil
>flies like one
P O E T R Y
Do we need the Osprey? Like, I know it can do more than an Mi-17, but how much do we need it to? American can already cuck every other nation to death twice, so what's the point when we could spend the money on providing Aryan Waifus for Aryan men instead?
>>29874415
>, they are incapable of operation at high altitude,
Memes. They have 6k feet on the blackhawk. You are looking at disk loading and forgetting about the fact that it has 2 roters.
>>29876636
Pic related.
>>29869796
>Could an Osprey have changed the outcome of Operation Red Wings?
Since a V-22 is neither a war crime nor a ghost writer, I'm gonna go with "no".
>>29869763
can we put guns on it?
VTOL attack aircraft with JDAMS, an avenger, all that good shit.
Stealth package and converted to be a weapon platform when?
>haji face when ac130 stops flying and begins to hover attack multiple locations at the same time.
>>29869763
ducted fans soon
>>29876923
>Hovering ac130
Also I read it as hovering A10 for a second, and was equally horrified/aroused.
>>29876923
>AC130 crew's faces when they fire up the 1812 overture on the external speakers, with the howitzers firing at appropriate moments
>>29876923
problem is that the weapons are asymmetrical and only on one side.
we'd need to match that on the other side and add all the appropriate shit since there's no way a crew could survive in there.
of course, theres also the problem of a vtol turboprop 4 engine cargo plane.
>>29877099
>not ride of the valkyries
who put you on the planet
>>29876541
>le crashed afghanistan picture XD
This meme needs to die.
>>29877115
>who put you on the planet
Parents with excellent taste who took me to see the Boston Pops concerts on the 4th of July a few times, that's who. It's the only place I'm aware of that uses the original arrangement of the 1812 Overture, including artillery fire (thanks to an actual US Army unit firing Howitzer blanks over the Charles River) and all the church bells in the city ringing at once. This ACTUALLY HAPPENS every year, which makes it better than a dumb Apocalypse Now reference.
>>29874473
>one quarter as versatile
>>29874702
But it's 3.5x the price (according to annon). So if you want twice the payload just buy an other chopper which is cheaper
>>29869763
>hey guys, guys
>what
>lets take the shithook
>and make it even more retarded
>promoted to CEO of boeing next day
Actual Osprey crew member here. Yes, the plane lives up to the memes. In reliability and capability.
>>29877243
Reliability my ass. They are constantly broken at my station. The headache of our wing by far.
>>29877270
That's the point, cock breath. They aren't reliable. But when they work, they fucking get it done.
>>29876937
muh pebbles
>>29877304
So basicly any US product ever.
>>29874525
I miss Opposing Force. I need to play it again.
And blue shift.
>>29873598
It gives the occupants a nice coolant shower
>>29877173
The point is that no matter how cheap a blackhawk is, if it can't carry the load, its not a savings. Its a capability loss.
>>29877849
But with two blackhawks you have more more flexibility. You can transport half the payload of a V22 at two locations or if one is in maintenance you can still move half the payload of a V22.
>>29877885
>But with two blackhawks you have more more flexibility.
Which is why you don't buy JUST V-22s or JUST Blackhawks.
Much like you don't JUST buy F-22s or JUST buy F-16s.
Not sure what you're not understanding about this. V-22s go further and faster, providing a capability blackhawks simply can't. They're worth the cost.
Having twice the helicopters also isn't a solution on ships with hangar space so limited. Could be 20 times as expensive and still worth it for the space savings.
>>29877885
Not really. They're given out in units of the same size. So in actual usage, it's a 1:1. Y'all gotta stop thinking in cost and think in terms of organization.
>>29877894
>>29877896
Right, I didn't think about space. But to me 3.5x the price (If that coeff is near correct) isn't worth the payload/range increase, especially if it has terrain and reliability issues.
>>29876937
what are the advantages of ducted fans? how does it affect performance compared to normal turboprops?
>>29877173
Purchasing cost is not the only cost associated with operations. You need to consider the air crew, maintenance crew, storage, fuel, etc. costs at a 2:1 ratio.
You also need to consider operational ability. Can you fit twice as many black hawks on LHD? Do you want to trade off the extra range? Operating off of ships you do not have the ability to spread out your air assets to cover the largest possible battle space.
>>29877928
Prop tip losses are lessened.
quieter.
>>29877955
Ospreys seem like they'd be really good at ASW.
>fly long patterns like a plane
>find a sub
>hover and drop a load of fuck you directly on it with no need to lead the target
>>29877974
Hovering they're less efficient than a conventional helictoper by far, its not their strong suit.
>>29877916
The range and speed payoff is huge, never mind payload.
>>29877173
So in your world, something that carries 2x as much can't be more than 2x as expensive otherwise its shit?
>>29874340
Please tell me you're joking
>>29877963
>>29877928
The big problem with ducted fans however is that they're very difficult to make in a large size. Smaller size = higher disk loading = less thrust per induced drag (you have to spin the blades faster and drag increases with the square of velocity) = less overall efficiency
>>29878061
It's actually a good thing. Think about it- the Marines get a tanker which can fly off their LHAs and LHDs. This in and of itself is a marvelous thing which drastically increases the range at which you can do anything with any aircraft. This is especially good if, for whatever reason, the Marines decide they need to use the LHAs and LHDs as primarily platforms for the F-35B to work off of. At this point you essentially have a mini carrier. You could probably two full squadrons of F-35Bs off of one of the thing, and still have room for tankers. This is a massive capability to have.
>>29878332
the RN is interested in this application apparently, it'd save having buddy refuelling for the QE class.
>>29878364
That's the one big problem with those ski-ramps: You can't have any normal force multiplier such as AEW-C, tankers, Electronic Warfare planes, etc.
>>29874434
It's not though.
>>29869763
It's american so it must be good.
>>29878391
Yes, it is.
>>29877980
It doesn't need to be the most efficiant, just needs to be in place long enough to drop depth chrges.
>>29878391
>Still falling for this facebook-tier shopping
Thought /k/ was better than this desu
>>29878471
That's not how they do things. The correct answer would have been "so they can lower and use the dipping sonar." First of all,, they don't drop depth charges anymore. They drop torpedoes. And they can do it on the move. Sometimes at pretty high altitude. In fact, the P-8 is pretty much designed for that. Also, you'll be chucking sonobuoys out the back, which doesn't require a stop.
>>29878391
Notice the differences in your picture and the shoop posted previously.
>>29877144
Referring to the Blackhawk of course.
>>29878524
>>29878457
>>29878540
You're right. Didn't even look at it desu.
This one is real though>>29878391
>>29877792
me too man
>>29878570
When these photo's popped up I had to argue with anons that they were real and not the shooped F-35B being refueled while in transition.
>>29878391
>illegal in Canada
>>29870879
>The left engine gave out
You are now aware that one engine is more than powerful enough to turn both props
>they suck
You are now aware they have a better safety record than every helicopter in service.
>>29874415
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
Edited for brevity.
>>29878386
...could...could you put a radome on an Osprey?
>>29881774
Brits want to do just that.
>>29878525
why no depth charges?
the only reason they were shit is because our ASW and targeting were shit, and they were inefficient designs because lolww2.
today, depth charges could be fucking glorious.
>>29869763
it is the acceptable price to kill marines in a humorous manner
>>29882610
Mate. They literally drop torpedoes off of helicopters these days. These torpedoes can chase after a submarine. A depth charge can't do that.
>>29877133
Good god. I've got to go see that
>>29881774
You possibly could. If there was an AEW variant, the brits and marines would cream their pants.
You could put one of these things on here easily. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2016/05/04/italian-firm-launches-new-360-degree-airborne-radar/83943310/
The reason they don't do stuff with the V-22 is because it's a piece of shit, and twice as expensive as a helicopter would be.
>>29883575
The CH-53K is even more expensive.
>>29883693
Yea well marines are retards and the CH-53K needs to take over the role of CH-53E's and CH-46's now
>>29883575
>because it's a piece of shit, and twice as expensive as a helicopter would be.
>helicopter
V-22 is pretty cheap for an airplane. Btw it's an airplane not a helicopter.
>>29883575
So I guess all the stuff it gets used for are just pigments of our imaginations?
>>29882873
It's amazing. They do a bunch of other songs beforehand but they always finish with 1812 as the finale. It's after dark so you've got fireworks too, and then there's a big fireworks show over the river. Aerosmith showed up one year since they're from Eastern MA. Orchestra plus electric guitar is a hell of a sound.
>>29888061
Also it's had a B-2 plus fighter escorts flyover every year since the program was declassified.
>>29888061
>Orchestra plus electric guitar is a hell of a sound.
You ever listen to the Trans Siberian Orchestra? It's that, but with predominantly Christmas themed music. Still has Flight of the Bumblebees, which is nice. Also, their light shows are amazing.
>>29871682
>But thats just marines being retards more than anything else
So is the V-22. And the F-35B.
>>29888300
But the F-35B is better then the harrier in every way.
>>29876923
>ac130 stops flying and begins to hover attack multiple locations at the same time.
That's how helis get shot down by RPGs, anon.
>>29888308
The Harrier was a tag-team of Muhreen-bong retardation.
>>29888317
The Harrier was a very effective aircraft for its time, and served both the Brits and the Marines very well. However, at this point, their propulsion system is obsolete and the airframes are ancient.
>>29888391
The Harrier was shit just like any VTOL
It's failed concept that gave birth to more disasters than successes, just cut this retardation off.
>>29888469
Did an AV-8 fuck your girlfriend?
Pretty much the only reason to be this salty
>>29888474
I remember there was a greentext about an F-14 fucking a kid's mom at an airshow so it's possible.
