via War is Boring.
The operation kicked off according to plan. The CV-22s—which can fly like regular planes and land like helicopters—arrived on schedule at the United Nations compound in Bor, where the evacuees were sheltering.Read the whole story but lets call this what it is...a classic helicopter ambush.
The pilots from the 8th Special Operations Squadron then flew around the immediate area to check for any hostile fighters. The tiltrotors were about to land when someone attacked.
“The barrage of gunfire and RPGs from the ground hit the formation 119 times,” the 1st Special Operations Wing news report explains. In the end, all three Ospreys suffered severe damaged. Gunfire and shrapnel hit four special operators aboard the planes.
Three of the wounded troops were “in critical condition” and apparently could have died as the planes rushed to Entebbe airport in neighboring Uganda.
The enemy either had info or reacted to hearing the incoming aircraft, and then lit them up with RPGs and rifle fire.
For all the talk about the V-22 being inherently superior to helicopters I'm just not seeing it. The Osprey is particularly vulnerable in the landing zone, both during infil/exfil. It isn't particularly maneuverable when it enters its landing phase and that is a HUGE weakness...oh and these CV-22s got hit with RPGs and small arms...what happens when they run against SAMs and large caliber anti-air guns?
The enemy is learning, enemy is not stagnate. For my mech' infantry mind I always presume that if you send helos in to potential combat zone you send them with escort. The guardians first check the LZ and provide cover then transports land. In Polish army many times they used one type, the Hind as he is good in both roles. But also many times the single Mi-17 was in action without any cover... but Polish helos forces are rather small in comparison of US ones.
ReplyDeleteSooo... even if they will put the case of limited range, then I will ask... WHERE is the escort pattern of 22'?
What, nobody think that he will need an escort in action?
For the escorts to work they need to use prep fires on the LZ. About 50% of the ammo during the prep phase and save the rest as on-call during/after landing. Even though this is still taught in the schools it is rarely (never), allowed in combat.
DeleteDamn. I question the O$prey a lot. Although I wonder if any kind of helicopter would have made it back?
ReplyDeleteThe V-22 is fragile compared to helicopters. Plastic body, larger engines/rotors, no door guns (just a portable MG on the ramp), and no agility at all when landing. Plus a formation of V-22s can't land close together like a group of Black Hawks or Chinooks can. They have to either spread out widely to avoid wash problems, or take turns landing.
DeleteCRFP isn't any more fragile than aluminum. In fact, CRFP is generally significantly more durable than aluminum.
DeleteRotors aren't really any bigger than the blades on comparable helicopters. Nor are the engine really that much bigger.
what is CRFP?
DeleteCarbon fiber reinforced polymers, they made the B-2, F-1 race cars, uber priceexotics out of this stuff. A much as you commented on the V-22 did you never do any research on it?
DeleteSol: Read the next article in War is Boring / Medium.com. "V-22 is the Future."
ReplyDelete"https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-is-the-future-d47e08d57e56"
The authors basically discounts V-22 detractors as "luddites" that stick to old technology. War is Boring is doing a decent job publishing pieces on both sides of the issue. Note that the author is a V-22 IP, who has his own vested interest in the program....
And for the luddite view:
Deletehttp://www.g2mil.com/scandal.htm
You just need escort, I don't think CH 53 is more survivable versus RPG... For small arm fire they can upgrade V22 with armor, reducing troops load.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is the lack of armed escort for V22.
Also, I believe a lack of door gunners. Unless it's changed recently, the only defense a V-22 has if the guy hanging out the back with the machine gun.
DeleteUSMC 0802 stated "About 50% of the ammo during the prep phase". As known, before ammo comes the gun. No gun, then ammo is pretty much useless.
Solomon has joined the experts, Adolph, Ho, Stalin, Castro, Mao and Putin with censorship of his blog. Apparently criticism of his lack of critical thinking skills is not allowed
ReplyDeleteYou're an useless guy...
DeleteMeh, now he's gonna spam every topic with this shit....
DeleteNO airlift aircraft is maneuverable or non-vulnerable in the landing phase.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Osprey is, is 50+ years newer and less fatigued than the ancient CH-46s they're replacing, and markedly faster than those in the transit phase, which are the salient points.
This was combined intelligence, reconnaissance, mission escort, and LZ security fails, not an indictment of the V-22.
If we (or anyone else) have any helos (or any other a/c) that will stand up to RPGs, SAMS, and heavy-caliber AAA, kindly list them
Set up an ambush on a carrier fantail and tell me how third and fourth gen fighters on final fare against it, and we can talk about what's what.
Perhaps soviet flying tanks... Will survive to light or old manpads... and until Cal .50 bullets.
DeleteIf a helo loses engine power, it can auto-rotate until the pilot can get it down. If an Osprey loses an engine/rotor while landing, the whole thing flips over and kills everyone on board. It has zero-tolerance for problems on the landing approach.
DeleteAn Osprey can glide - a helo can't.
DeleteAlso - as has been alluded to previously - when the Osprey encounters hits from HMG's and SAMs it will take said hits the same way every other aircraft in the world would take them - not well.
Osprey can glide? - show me the NATOPS Vbg - it might do well plummeting.
DeleteWeak Patrick.
DeleteThe Osprey can glide when it's in airplane mode. In VTOL mode, it's a sitting duck. It has to make a nice, careful, predictable approach. Or the whole thing will crash without the enemy's help. Helos can at least duck and weave a little bit, land close to other helos for support, suppress opposition with door guns, and have a chance of landing in one piece even if they lose an engine or tail rotor.
How much actual experience do you have with this system that qualifies you to make the above assertions? How many Osprey pilots do you personally know? How many combat reports have you reviewed? The damage sustained by these birds was extensive, and yet all managed to make it all the way to Uganda. No helo in the world could have done that. Plus, a CV-22 crashed in AIRPLANE MODE in afghanistan at full speed and suffered only 4 kia in a fully loaded aircraft. Yet somehow the mere fact that these birds took fire is now a design fault.
DeleteI'll give kudos to the aircraft (and the pilots) for being able to fly away after taking hits. But the Osprey's landing issues are well known. Observe:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1oekSObO3I
Notice how slowly and carefully this group of 3 V-22's has to approach and land. First one down, then the other two come in. It has to be done this way because the Osprey is especially sensitive to cross-wash throwing off its balance. So any two V-22s have to keep a wide separation when landing together. They also have to start high (well above treetop level), because the Osprey can't hover for prolonged periods due to heat issues with its gearbox.
Taking off, they're plenty fast. But that's a high, slow, and very visible approach. Compounded by the fact that they don't have any firepower to the sides to help cover each other from hostiles.
Now compare that slow, careful dance to a much larger group of 16 Black Hawks flying low, and landing in close formation (jump to 3:02):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1BC3igse50
They approach low, land as one, their troops disembark in multiple directions, and as a bad guy I wouldn't want to be anywhere near all those door guns.
I'm not saying the V-22 doesn't have its uses. But its poor at traditional insertion, and very expensive for what you get.
I used to think the V-22 was the future because it does not waste 15% of it's power on a counter torque tail rotor. Instead the V-22 platform wastes huge amounts of power through the prop rotors because they are ineffecient at being both a airplane prop and a helicopter main rotor. Helicopter rotors need to be long and skinny and airplane props need to be short and fat. There is no engineering solution for this.
ReplyDeletePretty much spot-on. The concept itself is flawed, but it looks cool, so we waste all sorts of money on it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really believe in the V-22 platform, but I have also had my doubts. No armor, no decent armament, no pressurized cabin, no auto rotation. Great range, great speed, good payload, foldable wings, and connected drive shafts. From what I've read the USAF CV-22's in particular have excellent ground following terrain technology and better range. Why can't they put a GAU-19 (50.cal) instead of the current (.308) RWS? I know, less rounds, I'd rather have the 50.cal on board
ReplyDeleteMaybe this was a truly a good tactical ambush by the enemy and the soldiers faired well in the V-22 given the circumstances and firepower... hmmm maybe. They should also consider jets engines instead of props, we just have so much time and effort invested in this craft. There must be something in that (30 year old) design for our armed forces?
I also like the AVX JMR, but lots of promises there too, no facts. The Sikorsky X2 platform looks very good and has proven reliable, this would be an excellent armed escort for the V-22, like an X2 "Commanche." Above all, I think VTOL is the future, we need that capability to get "in & out" from great distances. A lot of weapon systems have had major issues in their trial years, this is one of them, but I believe it will get better. Don't even get me started on the F-35B!
it seems the discussion here is an all or nothing approach but i am not sure thats appropriate. It seems the 22 has its uses, with its range but in scenarios where theres a hostile LZ it may be less effective, so does that mean shelving it or just choosing it for mission its suited, supply missions, deploy paratroopers, deploying marines where there are ground units and other air assets as well. I know the CH53K is coming along well and it will have some strengths and the black hawks are still very good aircraft, i think there are missions for all of them and save the airframes of the aircraft that can handle a hostile area by using the CV22s in other areas.
ReplyDelete