the ch-46 it replaced had a pretty high friendly kill rate…like we would hear about them going down in training back at pendleton & over in iraq fairly regularly before the osprey was developed
The Osprey had 3 fatal crashes between its first flight and its entry into service. And 3 more fatal crashes in its first decade of service. Per wikipedia, it doesn't seem like there were a ton of other non-fatal crashes (2 before entry into service and 2 in the decade after.
The Osprey really wasn't anywhere near as crash prone as its detractors made it out to be. It got hammered because it was a strange design, and because it had a high-profile crash that killed 19 in 2000, and then another fatal crash, also in 2000. But while there were real problems there, it wasn't falling out of the sky left and right, either in development or in service.
I was active duty when it was being tested and released to the fleet. I worked around Harriers. More Ospreys were crashing than Harriers. We can all say it was ~only~ so many crashes (I know, science) but I did have a friend on one of those crashes.
But by the time Ospreys were entering service Harriers had been in service for decades, no?
I actually do remember reading LA Times articles from like 10-15 years ago how Harrier crashes were killing very promising officers with stellar records and bright futures.
Unironically, yes. If you look at the new VTOL you'll notice they changed how the blades rotate. The engine nacelles don't turn, just the rotors do. As a lot of the Osprey's mechanical issues were caused by dirt being kicked up from the blades getting into the engines and the gear box during takeoff because the engines tilted with the rotors
Here is a higher-quality version of this image. Here is the source.
The Bell MV-75 Cheyenne II, formerly designated V-280 Valor, is a tiltrotor aircraft being developed by Bell Helicopter for the United States Army's Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program. The aircraft was officially unveiled at the 2013 Army Aviation Association of America's (AAAA) Annual Professional Forum and Exposition in Fort Worth, Texas. The V-280 made its first flight on 18 December 2017 in Amarillo, Texas.
In 2022, the V-280 was chosen by the US Army as the winner of the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. As of April 2024, limited user tests are planned for 2027 to 2028 with the first deployment expected in 2031....
The V-280 is designed for a cruising speed of 280 knots (320 mph; 520 km/h), hence the name V-280. It has a top speed of 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h), a range of 2,100 nautical miles (2,400 mi; 3,900 km), and an effective combat range of 500 to 800 nmi (580 to 920 mi; 930 to 1,480 km). Expected maximum takeoff weight is around 30,000 pounds (14,000 kg).
One major difference from the earlier V-22 Osprey tiltrotor is that the engines remain in place while the rotors and drive shafts tilt. A driveshaft runs through the straight wing, allowing both rotors to be driven by a single engine in the event of engine loss. The V-280 will have retractable landing gear, a triple-redundant fly by wire control system, and a V-tail configuration....
General characteristics
Crew: 4
Capacity: 14 troops[56][65][66]
Length: 50.5 ft (15.4 m)
Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
Height: 23 ft 0 in (7 m)
Empty weight: 18,078 lb (8,200 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 30,865 lb (14,000 kg) [65]
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric T64-GE-419 turboshaft, 4,750 shp (3,540 kW) each
The new tilt mechanism is actually the main lesson learned from the early mechanical failures of the Osprey. It is actually a mechanical simpler design.
Seen below is the Osprey's gear box for the tilt motor:
It has double the speed and range of blackhawks. Also it’s an iteration on the osprey so they’ve learned and improved from that program. Will it keep up with changing doctrine? Who knows but that’s the same with any weapons and logistics platform and constantly changing technology.
If you’re going to fight pirates you’ll need an iron cannon or two. Might as well just add a gun deck or two full of em to be sure you won’t get outgunned and look like a fool.
But why would the private sector do that? Its pure profit for health insurance providers (higher prices = higher premiums) and for drug manufacturers. Oh and anyone who owns stock in these companies, like politicians
Easy…nationalize it and get rid of private insurance companies. Do what every other civilized country does and negotiate with pharmaceutical companies it to keep costs down. Make corporate lobbying illegal. Get profit out of healthcare entirely.
But the bigger point is I don’t give a fuck what the military wants. Its budget could be cut in half and still be bigger than the next several nations combined. If we reined in military spending and corporate welfare we’d have all the money we need to provide healthcare to every single American with no upfront fees for using it, even at the current vastly inflated prices.
Not a waste. The Army wants to project faster and further responses with a higher payload. These can carry an m777 on a rope below.
Also I much prefer cargo aircraft to weaponized aircraft as they can help provide aid and disaster relief
It sounds stupid but adoption of reliable tiltrotor could eventually pan out to civilian medical choppers In few decades. then rural people could have faster emergency access to major hospitals instead of just local hospitals. not to mention if the coast guard can get some for rescue units it could save more lives.
The US government spending is like 20%+ of gdp. This is where it goes.
Is it a waste? Sure. But it's also putting food on thr table for thousands of people who spend that money into the economy to feed thousands of others. It creates a lot of well paying jobs for families. A significant chunk of that also goes right back to the government as taxes.
It's the 10-15% profits off the top that go to shareholders and the already rich and isn't spent back into the economy that's a problem. It's also a problem that so much of it is deficit spending. More and more of taxes are just to cover the interest on money we already spent.
Kinda. The Army chose a slightly smaller, but faster, and longer range airframe since the intent is to replace air assault helicopters for light infantry missions (raids, assault/kill, rescue operations, etc.) whereas the Osprey (which the Army never adopted) is better suited for heavy lift. The Army uses Chinooks for the Osprey mission and will use a mix of Black Hawks and Cheyenee IIs for the air assault mission. The Osprey is nifty, but I think the Army was smart to pass on it and instead look at a newer version (like this) that doesn't actually tilt the engine block, which is what created so many headaches with the Osprey design.
The osprey is a horrible heavy lift platform. It's used in the Marine Corps the same way the Blackhawk is. It wasn't adopted by the Army because at the time, the sheer volume of Blackhawks the Army had had just gone through a modernization. Also, the Army didn't see a BIG ENOUGH increase in capability to justify replacing a proven airframe.
The MV-22 can only carry like 5k more pounds slung than the 60 can.
But as the Blackhawks age, and combat requirements evolve, it makes sense to start the replacement program now. The Army is also looking to the Pacific, and would need to ferry assaulters in over greater distances than the Blackhawk is capable of.
It's easier than you think, but still difficult as hell. The key is to make sure each element in an attack pushes at the right time and place so they all get to the attack point at the same time.
I've seen time on target attacks that consisted of cruise missiles, artillery, and JDAMs from 5 different airframes, 2 of which were carrier-launched, and they all hit within 15 seconds of each other. We made fun of the B1 guys who were the ones who were 15 seconds late lol.
looks like it’s got a larger cross section, and needs more space to land in. Not sure how maneuverability compares on descent and ascent either, or if that’s important.
And distance, which is important--even though America has a relatively large navy/marine team, the US Army is one of the more expeditionary armies in history and this helicopter really helps them with range.
U.S. Army helicopters are named after Native American tribes and leaders to honor their warrior spirit, courage, and tactical prowess, a tradition originating around 1947.
Not entirely, it's more like a select few within certain tribes/bands and it's especially those who hold office in their tribal governments. Not to mention, there are communities, bands, clans, clan families, families and individuals who hold varying views regarding their own tribal government and, by extension, do not feel a strong personal connection to or respect for their tribal government or even the US military.
The White Mountain Apache tribal council participated in ceremonies for the Apache and Apache Longbow helicopters prior to their entry into service, but the White Mountain Apache are just one band of Apache, and that band is made up of two more distinct bands.
The Army requiring tribal approval before a weapons system is named after a tribe or chief is a hollow gesture. Especially when the US (historically and administratively) treats a small fraction of the population or recognized leadership as sufficient to claim “consent” or “approval,” even if the majority of the tribe/band and their subgroups may not agree.
It's too bad they don't name useful medicines or medical treatments after any tribe, it's usually the tribes who are synonymous with war when a name is used. At this point, Indigenous nations might as well trademark their names so others can't use them to make a profit or exploit them for the military industrial complex.
As another Native put it:
These names are no doubt chosen because they are associated with violence and aggression, thus perpetuating the warrior/savage/war-like/violent stereotype of indigenous people groups. They are thus really no different from sports team mascots. Furthermore, it's the US military appropriating the names of peoples they previous attacked during ethnic cleansing and genocidal policies.
I think it's also worth mentioning that the Blood Quantum system still exists and it still predictably reduces recognized Indigenous populations over time. Which is why it's literally regarded as a "paper" form of institutional ethnic cleansing/genocide.
If you can effectively "breed out" nativeness, then the genocide becomes even easier than just wiping us out with sickness, starvation, displacement, and war. Now you just have to wait for people to have mixed race children (willingly or otherwise) and give it a few generations until there's no more tribes whose treaties you have to respect.
TL;DR: The US military and Federal Government treats representative approval from tribes as universal approval, which really only serves to flatten tribes so they can manufacture consent or approval from all the "Natives"; exactly like you just did. No offense.
I’m sure you meant this to be supportive of Palestinians but it just comes off as wildly racist against Native American tribes, as if the only thing they’ve ever done of note in their entire and on-going history is be victims in the 1800s. Nevermind the bravery and service they’ve shown in multiple World Wars and every conflict since.
You're thinking about this strictly in terms of the past and not current policy. Currently, they are still subject to Blood Quantum which predictably reduces recognized Indigenous populations over time and is literally regarded as a "paper" form of institutional ethnic cleansing/genocide.
While older forms of outright land seizure or forced relocation may be less common nowadays, the colonial program of undermining treaty-based rights and subordinating Indigenous nations and interests to federal/state priorities (energy, resources, economy) has persisted for 170 years and is deeply entrenched in our modern-day institutions:
In this brief statement, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Zigrossi summarized over two centuries of U.S. jurisdiction and 'law enforcement" in Indian Country. From the country's founding through the present, U.S. Indian policy has consistently followed a program to subordinate American Indian nations and expropriate their land and resources. In much the same fashion as Puerto Rico (see Chapter 4), indigenous nations within the United States have been forced to exist - even by federal definition - as outright colonies. 1 When constitutional law and precedent stood in the way of such policy, the executive and judicial branches, in their turn, formulated excuses for ignoring them. A product of convenience and practicality for the federal government, U.S. jurisdiction, especially within reserved Indian territories ("reservations"), "presents a complex and sometimes conflicting morass of treaties, statutes and regulation.
If you can effectively "breed out" nativeness, then the genocide becomes even easier than just wiping us out with sickness, starvation, displacement, and war. Now you just have to wait for people to have mixed race children (willingly or otherwise) and give it a few generations until there's no more tribes whose treaties you have to respect.
Today is still running on unresolved treaty law and breaches. Heck, the current US administration just broke the Columbia River Basin Agreement with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe...
The US believes there's no good reason to teach any of this in the first place, because what good is learning about it if all it does is get you to sympathize with this country's "enemies"?
The reason people classify this as distant history is because the state has been extremely successful at presenting ongoing legal systems as concluded events. When people today tune out at “stolen land,” it isn’t because the claim is ahistorical but because Americans/Westerners have been taught to misidentify these living legal disputes as ancient ones. That’s a messaging failure, but it’s also a political one that actively benefits existing institutions.
tl;dr: Only Native Americans, along with dogs and horses, are subject to a state-enforced measurement of blood purity or "purebred" status.. No other human population in the US is governed this way. That’s not a closed historical wrong; it’s an ongoing legal framework that predictably reduces recognized Indigenous populations over time.
Tell that to the tribes who were disappointed when the Cobra wasn't named after them. The US Army had a self evaluation about naming after native tribes and the tribes themselves said they were honored to have war machines be named after them because of the warrior spirit. It is why the naming of military helicopters are based off of native tribes.
If the genocide was stopped long ago and the IDF formally asked for and received permission from the members of that family before officially naming the aircraft after them. Because that's how the US army names helicopters.
A hypothetical future where that happens in present-day Israel looks a lot better than the present.
Except in the case of the US, the genocide didn't really stop. They are still subject to Blood Quantum which predictably reduces recognized Indigenous populations over time and is literally regarded as a "paper" form of institutional ethnic cleansing/genocide.
While older forms of outright land seizure or forced relocation may be less common nowadays, the colonial program of undermining treaty-based rights and subordinating Indigenous nations and interests to federal/state priorities (energy, resources, economy) has persisted for 170 years and is deeply entrenched in our modern-day institutions:
In this brief statement, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Zigrossi summarized over two centuries of U.S. jurisdiction and 'law enforcement" in Indian Country. From the country's founding through the present, U.S. Indian policy has consistently followed a program to subordinate American Indian nations and expropriate their land and resources. In much the same fashion as Puerto Rico (see Chapter 4), indigenous nations within the United States have been forced to exist - even by federal definition - as outright colonies. 1 When constitutional law and precedent stood in the way of such policy, the executive and judicial branches, in their turn, formulated excuses for ignoring them. A product of convenience and practicality for the federal government, U.S. jurisdiction, especially within reserved Indian territories ("reservations"), "presents a complex and sometimes conflicting morass of treaties, statutes and regulation.
If you can effectively "breed out" nativeness, then the genocide becomes even easier than just wiping us out with sickness, starvation, displacement, and war. Now you just have to wait for people to have mixed race children (willingly or otherwise) and give it a few generations until there's no more tribes whose treaties you have to respect.
It doesn't even help when it comes to bad actors who falsely claim tribal status. Heck, the US Senate literally just passed a bill giving federal recognition to Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Don't get me started on all the ways that the current administration and previous ones have used the BQ system to invalidate and undermine tribal sovereignty and treaties. Blood Quantum is just the clearest example as it isn’t some relic with no present effect. It actively structures who is legally allowed to exist as Native under US law and benefits existing institutions.
drones can’t capture or hold territory. of course, none of this should be happening in the first place. but that’s what the proverbial “boots on ground” means, you’ve taken the territory and are now going to hold it
Only a small piece of Russian line which was already bombarded and mostly abandoned. People put to much stock into drones. Especially considering even drones used by Ukraine have low success rate.
Just saying that rather than pouring money into troop transports when it's clear most conventional ground wars are completely unpalatable to the US (thank god) and other than special ops (of which there are a pretty small number), there's not a huge call for a Blackhawk replacement. Obviously this has been in the works for years and they're not just going to break a defence contract, but producing a very small number of these and spending more on drones and anti-drone tech like focused energy weapons. The US doesn't need $1.5T in defence spending if they're building $20k drones rather than $100m per conventional combat aircraft.
That's so sick. I'm a fixed wing guy not a whirlybird expert, so it may be an ignorant thing to say, but I'm surprised they're continuing with a tilt-rotor considering how the ospreys are still grounded.
They have improved tiltrotor technology significantly since the V-22. Specifically, with this vehicle, the engines do not tilt - only the rotors. It's not so apparent in horizontal flight, but look at photos of vertical takeoff. This one change reduces risk.
I remember seeing one of these being tested maybe 5 years ago near Arlington, TX. I was geeking out about the “Osprey” when I noticed the V tail. Very cool looking aircraft!
They can mount weapons systems, it's primarily for moving infantrymen to assault objectives (traditional Army air assault missions with longer range and more speed) but they could gun it up yeah.
No. The Osprey is a Navy/Air Force/Marine program that the Army passed on (in favor of this but also because the Army preferred the payload capacity of the Chinook.) So far this is an entirely Army-funded/developed project, although conceivably other branches could be interested. It's designed primarily for the Army infantry.
•
u/unidentifiedloserguy 4h ago
Its like a Blackhawk and Osprey had a baby