And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Sunday, December 11, 2022
Bell V-280 Valor Multi Domain Operations - The army's pick to replace the Blackhawk
I should have thought that after the debacle in the Ia Drang Valley in 1965, where we lost two battalions of the 101st Air Mobile, we would have wised up about helicopter assaults. The late Col. David Hackworth surely hated them.
That was the 1st Cav Division. Airmobile assaults certainly were very effective in Vietnam. They work well against any lightly armed insurgents in the right conditions. The Rhodesians and South Africans made good use of them in bush wars as well.
To your point, this thing is a bad idea. It is too vulnerable in transitioning from conventional flight to replace a pure helicopter in that role. Beyond that, like everything else the MIC does, it will be over budget due to the ripoffs, and less aircraft will end up being produced. While helicopters proved invaluable in Vietnam, the war also demonstrated that there will be significant losses regardless. Over priced and vulnerable boondoggles such as this will be too few to start with and unsuited to the utility helicopter role in the conventional conflicts we are likely to enter. The way things are going, the Ukraine fiasco and military support for the Socialist coup here at home will end up being the end of the US military anyway before this thing ever gets produced.
Thank you for the correction. I missed Vietnam because I was too old. But two of my brothers in law served with the Marines in I Corp. Another flew of B-52’s out of Thailand. The waste appalls me. Now we are risking nuclear war for a bunch of Nazis. It is to weep.
I am retired Air Force that also did 10 years as a military contractor. I have flown passenger in every passenger aircraft available. The small jets are nice. The only air frame that scared the shit out of me was the Osprey. This looks like an updated Osprey.
No wrench turners will be in uniform. All contractor maintenance and even then it will have a 20% operational readiness rate. Thankfully we don't do mass insertions any longer (think Lam Son719). Battalions of now legacy systems (UH-60 series as a whole) will be traded for companies of these. It's a diamond studded Rolex when what we need is a good Times. The USMC gets it right.
The CH-46 was a 60-year-old legacy shitwagon too, an oily greasy collection of parts flying in loose formation, when they finally retired them, 40 years late. Should've been dumped by the '70s. The Osprey traded all those problems for entirely new ones. Trading steer manure for horse manure is never a bargain.
A lot of marines died before they got the Osprey to quit crashing. The transition is tricky and needs to be handled by the computer. VTOL is risky stuff.
Exactly my question, more to the point: what happens if one engine is running at anything less than 100% - damaged prop or losing oil from hostile fire, etc? The premise absolutely relies on balance for stability.
The two engines are linked by one drive shaft through the wing spar. If one engine fails it continues to fly at half power. This airframe has twice the speed and range of a Blackhawk. It is a massive improvement in capability and survivabiilty.
The correct question is "Cui Bono". Who stands to profit from this decision. Because THAT is the real reason behind almost ALL defense spending choices.
Poor choice. Tactically, a tilt rotor is not s flexible as hybrid helo, which is nearly as fast as tilt rotor. The helo can get into places the tilt rotor would have to bypass, but the helo would not. Such a selection shows they are more enamored with technology than they are with fighting wars.
Heres an idea for a test, send two to Ukraine, one in Russian colours so the Gepards can have a pop, one in Uke colours so the S300s and S400s can try a shot. I predict 15 minutes flying time followed by two descending clouds of debris. Big targets, heat seekers will love those engine pods, not as manoeuvrable as a straight helo, problematic weapons load due to those big flappy fans and restricted pilot vision. This is a bird for people with absolute air superiority, in actual near peer wars, these are a tool for your enemy.
Good grief what am aggregate of experience and wisdom there is among you readers of CW. I learn much from the comments section on these types of posts.
I bet it can't go faster than those stinger missiles that we send all over the world and no one knows who has them. It probably already has a nickname by those who have to ride in it.
Uggh. No tiltrotors. Too many downsides. They're fast, but transition to hover is slooow and takes great care. Does this suffer from not being able to have side door gunners like the Osprey, too? Ospreys are more limited in combat than helicopters, and I'll bet this is no fucking different. Too many moving parts that are too highly stressed. I wonder if the hydraulics are shit like the Osprey's, too? No. Just no to tiltrotors in combat.
I should have thought that after the debacle in the Ia Drang Valley in 1965, where we lost two battalions of the 101st Air Mobile, we would have wised up about helicopter assaults. The late Col. David Hackworth surely hated them.
ReplyDeleteThat was the 1st Cav Division. Airmobile assaults certainly were very effective in Vietnam. They work well against any lightly armed insurgents in the right conditions. The Rhodesians and South Africans made good use of them in bush wars as well.
DeleteTo your point, this thing is a bad idea. It is too vulnerable in transitioning
from conventional flight to replace a pure helicopter in that role. Beyond that, like everything else the MIC does, it will be over budget due to the ripoffs, and less aircraft will end up being produced. While helicopters proved invaluable in Vietnam, the war also demonstrated that there will be significant losses regardless. Over priced and vulnerable boondoggles such as this will be too few to start with and unsuited to the utility helicopter role in the conventional conflicts we are likely to enter.
The way things are going, the Ukraine fiasco and military support for the Socialist coup here at home will end up being the end of the US military anyway before this thing ever gets produced.
Thank you for the correction. I missed Vietnam because I was too old. But two of my brothers in law served with the Marines in I Corp. Another flew of B-52’s out of Thailand. The waste appalls me. Now we are risking nuclear war for a bunch of Nazis. It is to weep.
DeleteI am retired Air Force that also did 10 years as a military contractor. I have flown passenger in every passenger aircraft available. The small jets are nice. The only air frame that scared the shit out of me was the Osprey. This looks like an updated Osprey.
ReplyDeleteNo wrench turners will be in uniform. All contractor maintenance and even then it will have a 20% operational readiness rate. Thankfully we don't do mass insertions any longer (think Lam Son719). Battalions of now legacy systems (UH-60 series as a whole) will be traded for companies of these. It's a diamond studded Rolex when what we need is a good Times. The USMC gets it right.
ReplyDeletewhat will its weapons capabilities be?
ReplyDeleteRPG and 12.7 magnets
ReplyDeleteThey dumped the Ch-46 for the Osprey for money reasons. The CH-46 had many good years left. The Osprey is a shit wagon.
ReplyDeleteThe CH-46 was a 60-year-old legacy shitwagon too, an oily greasy collection of parts flying in loose formation, when they finally retired them, 40 years late. Should've been dumped by the '70s.
DeleteThe Osprey traded all those problems for entirely new ones.
Trading steer manure for horse manure is never a bargain.
There is NO WAY this pos will be successful; it makes a great target, but other than that it is a shitstick.
ReplyDeleteA lot of marines died before they got the Osprey to quit crashing. The transition is tricky and needs to be handled by the computer. VTOL is risky stuff.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the Osprey, and I don't like this either. Far to complicated for a machine expected to survive in an anti aircraft filled environment.
ReplyDeleteSo, what happens when one of the fans quits turning?
ReplyDeleteExactly my question, more to the point: what happens if one engine is running at anything less than 100% - damaged prop or losing oil from hostile fire, etc? The premise absolutely relies on balance for stability.
DeleteThe two engines are linked by one drive shaft through the wing spar. If one engine fails it continues to fly at half power. This airframe has twice the speed and range of a Blackhawk. It is a massive improvement in capability and survivabiilty.
ReplyDeleteeven if it can't do half the cool crap it says, it will definitely scare shit out of um....RUN
ReplyDeleteThe correct question is "Cui Bono". Who stands to profit from this decision. Because THAT is the real reason behind almost ALL defense spending choices.
ReplyDeletePoor choice. Tactically, a tilt rotor is not s flexible as hybrid helo, which is nearly as fast as tilt rotor. The helo can get into places the tilt rotor would have to bypass, but the helo would not. Such a selection shows they are more enamored with technology than they are with fighting wars.
ReplyDeleteHeres an idea for a test, send two to Ukraine, one in Russian colours so the Gepards can have a pop, one in Uke colours so the S300s and S400s can try a shot. I predict 15 minutes flying time followed by two descending clouds of debris. Big targets, heat seekers will love those engine pods, not as manoeuvrable as a straight helo, problematic weapons load due to those big flappy fans and restricted pilot vision. This is a bird for people with absolute air superiority, in actual near peer wars, these are a tool for your enemy.
ReplyDeleteGotta love the MIC if you're innit. Bastards.
ReplyDeleteBear Claw
Good grief what am aggregate of experience and wisdom there is among you readers of CW. I learn much from the comments section on these types of posts.
ReplyDeleteI bet it can't go faster than those stinger missiles that we send all over the world and no one knows who has them. It probably already has a nickname by those who have to ride in it.
ReplyDeleteUggh. No tiltrotors. Too many downsides. They're fast, but transition to hover is slooow and takes great care. Does this suffer from not being able to have side door gunners like the Osprey, too? Ospreys are more limited in combat than helicopters, and I'll bet this is no fucking different. Too many moving parts that are too highly stressed. I wonder if the hydraulics are shit like the Osprey's, too? No. Just no to tiltrotors in combat.
ReplyDelete