Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: V-22 Osprey
Message-ID: <11490@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 89 06:10:02 GMT
References: <11339@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 50
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <11339@cbnews.ATT.COM>, isaacj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Jason Lee Isaac) writes:
> I would like to get information on the V-22 Osprey.  Specifically on 
> capabilities, operating while damaged, specs, or whatever.
> 
> I read a while back in the Corvallis, Gazette-Times a letter to the editor
> about how screwed up our representatives were for supporting the Osprey.
> The writer said it was a lousy aircraft that had no real purpose.  He wondered
> why we needed it to establish a beachead when we already had the Harrier to do
> that.  

Well, for starters, the Harrier can't carry in many troops...which are
generally needed to establish the beachead.  While there are proposals
for ground-support versions of the Osprey, the current version is a
troop/cargo hauler.

One common objection voiced against the V-22 is that it can operate
well beyond the support of naval gunfire.  Which is curious, 'cause
this same defect is shared by the helicopters operated by the Marines.
Unless they all have less than a 25-mile or so combat radius.  (What?
Did the Harriers go away?)  The V-22 has the advantage in both speed
and range over helicopters such as the Ch-46 and -47, and probably will
turn out to be less maintainance-intensive than the big 'copters.

It likely would be better at the job of getting troops in sneakily from
troop carriers over the horizon, too.  Reduced warning time (for the
defenders) would not be something for the assault troops to sneeze at.

> I realized then that he was doing a bad job of supporting his position.

Really?	8}

> He also criticized it because the propellors (rotors?) extended below the
> bottom of the aircraft when in the down (forward?) postion.  
> Which makes landingwith damaged landing gear (i.e. stuck in the retracted
> position) a real mess.

Since the V-22 *never* lands (intentionally, anyway) with the proprotors
horizontal, this is a non-issue.  In fact, a vertical landing from hover
sans wheels out is going to do a lot less damage to the aircraft than would
a gears-up landing with any conventional airplane.

------------
"...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by 
reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion 
of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."
	- Petronius Arbiter