whats interesting is apparently the Stryker, when deployed in Iraq, would only be in limited combat areas where you really couldnt test a new military system and have that test be accurate.

Mean while the old standbys are still chuggin along fine.

They should really just bring back the Sherman, just up armor it and give it a stronger main gun.

Strykers are basically LAV-IIIs with 30% more protection, but at the cost of 4 extra tons of integral weight.
This weight includes simple sensors, lots of comms gear, additional machinery and computers, and a complex tire inflation regulation system. There is also no free payload for climate controls, so the crew and passengers are at the mercy of the elements. Furthermore, as the ground pressure is a startling 57psi when UNLOADED, the Stryker is dangerous to employ in any environment --- it wil destroy urban pavement, and easily get stuck in rural environments. By comparison, the crushing 70-ton weight of the M1A2 Abrams yields only 15.4psi, because tracks efficiently spread weight and wheels do not.

There are a lot of issues with wheeled vehicles in general being used as front-line vehicles. Thier tires are often air filled, and if so are flammable, poppable, and expensive, like the $800 tires that the Stryker wears out 8-13 of per day of use.
The original LAV-III is far less dangerous, but is one of the most logistically inefficient wheeled vehicles, and all wheeled vehicles overall are exponentially less efficient that tracked ones in terms of military utility.

The M113 Gavin it replaces is significantly simpler, safer, more mobile, and cheaper.
Your suggestion of bringing back the Sherman may not be feasible this long after any have been built, but a new US Medium Tank is sorely needed on the front-line --- the only modern Medium Tank is the Argentine TAM, which could serve well in a pinch, if not for the Army's NIHS.

I'd say the tilt-rotor is good on paper, but just can't seem to prove itself on the battlefield.

It only looks good if you happen to be reading the USMC Fact Sheet on it, but there are other facts about it that are censored by omission.

For example, the USMC rates the overall safety of it's aircraft in use by the percentage of mishaps per 1000 hours of flight. The V-22's percentage is 100%.

The V-22's wings do not fold up, and as a result it has an atypically large footprint in an LHA Assault Carrier --- when tested on the USS Saipan, the entire hanger deck had room for only FOUR V-22s.

A prerequisite requirement of USMC rotorcraft is that all must be able to auto-rotate effectively from altitudes above 2000ft, in the event of a power loss (Autorotation being the remaining spin of the unpowered rotor, which acts as a quasi-parachute, if you will) --- it was a specific prerequisite requirement of the V-22 specifically as well. The V-22 proved entirely incapable of this feat, and the USMC then WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT for the V-22, despite the fact that some 20 persons' lives would depend on it.

Then there's the biggest, meanest, toughest, most heavily-armored vehicle that will fit into the V-22's cargo bay, the Growler. The Growler... forget it, just go look at a picture of it on the net, and see for yourself!

Everything I've told you is only the TIP of the iceberg. Read the rest of my responses to the Replies to see the rest.

I meant the idea of tilt-rotors in-general...

Yeah. You'd think that after all of the other failed attempts that the Marines would get the picture?

I think they should stop trying to use it for a military transport and try to adapt it to civilian use.

That's not actually possible, because the FAA refuses to certify it --- civilians cannot legally own or operate a working V-22.

Other than that, it's just Government agencies and the military. However, the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard wouldn't touch it to save their first-born, and non-military state agencies don't have the same sort of prerequisite "Buddy System" with defense contractors that would entail their procurement of the V-22.
As more of the debacle becomes better known among more people, you'll eventually see the V-22 go the way of the Sgt. York Anti-Aircraft Gun --- it'll get buried so deep that 30 years from now, no none will even know what a Tiltorotor even is.

That is, unless greed once again prevails...

I hope they don't bury the idea of the tilt-rotor, just the V-22...

It does have some potential, but V-22 or not, it's STILL a highly immature technology.


If V-22's layout were up to me, I'd get rid of the wings and rotors entirely, and install tilting ducted fans instead --- they give tons more power (even with the same motor powering them), they won't snap off, and placing them that close to the V-22's center of gravity would greatly enhance it's stability and allow autorotation to be used.
They would also shrink the V-22's footprint down to the size of the Helicopters it replaces, and put less weight on the fuselage, and more lift. Most importantly of all, a V-22 in this configuration would be capable of rapid conventional takeoffs with large payloads, which you can't really do in the regular V-22 at all.

Ducted fans =

Have you seen the GDI's Orca, from the original Command & Conquer?

That's kind of like what I'm talking about...

YES! I LOVE THOSE THINGS!
Have you seen my design for the Cervidian Attack Chopper?

No, but I think I'll take a look right now!

tilt rotor was plauged by a few problems, but every weapon and vehicle system in the military sucks. The words made by lowest bidder is true. The LAV III was used by Canada for years. But the us couldn't leave it stock and added tons of garbage to the vehicle like the electronics suite making it battlefield command vehicle. Should have left faster lighter stripped down versions and one comand unit for the command element of the unit. Thus making them overweight and unstable and high risk loss if pegged by IEDs or RPGs. Seen footage of one in Iraq hitting a IEd and flipping over completely, the crew suffered minor injuries and the vehicle was still driveable after the attack.

Can bitch about it but most likely if they were in a M113 or even a brad they all be toast. Tracked vehicles suck in urban ops. You also have to go back and repair any damage said tracked vehicle has done to the roads there. 73 ton M1A1 does a number on streets, and any pluming under it and gas lines are a major worry burst one of them you die. Not to mention sewage pipes, really make people happy crushing them under your tanks tracks. Mosty pentgon farts that think putting shit loads of gadgets in the vehicle will make things better at leats the bad guys can't keep most of the us hardwear running for long to use against us

Tilt-Rotors: Read my reply to Blakgryf's post to see just how problematic the V-22 is. Then compare the percentage to any other aircraft in development of service to see just how screwed-up the V-22 is. Compare the V-22 to 3 contemporaries, the F-22, F-35, and RAH-66 --- by 2000, the F-22 had only suffered ONE mishap in flight, and the RAH-66 and F-35 NEVER have, even to this day. It has no ejection seats and WILL NOT be fitted with them, and in order to drop off troops, the V-22 must do either of 3 things;

1- Retain horizontal flight at speed and altitude, and drop paratroopers.

2- Enter vertical flight mode, and deliver troops as a Helicopter would.

3- Drop-off the troops 10s-to-100s of miles outside the battle area, by either of the above means.

The problems with those delivery means are as follows;

1- As the aircraft never makes a rotor transition inside the battle area, there was never any point in sending a Tiltrotor to begin with --- a C-130 does precisely the same thing, but under better protection, at a 25%-higher altitude, a 50% higher speed, while dropping five times the troops, and all at half the cost.

2- In vertical flight mode, the V-22 is no faster on it's way into possible enemy fire than a regular helicopter, defeating the whole purpose of having high-speed horizontal flight to begin with --- an MH-53F delivers four times the troops or 3.5 times the cargo, at 2.3 times the range at the same speed, at 1/4 of the cost (and has some actual ARMOR!).

3- The point of rapid aerial insertion is to get them INTO THE BATTLE AREA QUICKLY, not to force the troops to expend time, fuel, stamina, and possibly BLOOD, just to get to the starting point where a C-130 or MH-53 could have dropped them hours or days previously. You'd think the USMC leadership would have heard of Operation Market-Garden!

The Stryker: The problem withe wheeled AFVs is that few of them are actually fit for front-line service. This is the same idea as not using an RV to get groceries, not using a Motorcycle as a Tow-Truck, and not using a Limousine as a daily commuter vehicle. The LAV-III, for example, is an excellent vehicle for use by Peace-keepers, Rear Security Forces, and MPs --- baiscally, it's an Armored Car.
That's alright for Bosnia or Sudan, but the LAVs are being used in a madcap attempt to prosecute a Guerrilla War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's no way this can be done effectively with an Armored Car. There is no peace to keep unless a total cease-fire is achieved, no rear area (as these are Non-Linear Battlefields), and MPs are in the middle of all of this.
If you compare tires to tracks, the only significant disadvantage tracks have is that once severed, the vehicle is immobile. But how likely is this to occur?

In the Korean War, Task Force Smith's weapon crews could not reliably penetrate the armor of the advancing North Korean T-34s. They turned all thier efforts on taking out the tracks, but this proved fruitless --- they disabled one or two of the T-34s this way, managed to disable about 3 more through other means, and were helpless against the other 50-or-so.

In a more recent example, the Somali Insurgents in Moqadishu funneled the wheeled Humvees and Trucks that tried to rescue a stranded group of Army Rangers, by simply laying down blockades of furniture, rubble, telephone poles, and chained cars --- few wheeled vehicles (short of Mining Trucks) can cross these obstacles, and those sent by the US were either destroyed, stranded, or driven back.
When the US Army went to the local Pakistani Peace-keeping force, they sent in M60A1 MBTs and M113 Gavin APCs, both tracked and armored. They blew clear through the blockades and immediately rescued all the stranded troops, all without a single loss.

Tires, on the other hand, take just as long to replace or repair on equivalent-weight vehicles as tracks, are changed more often, and are more expensive --- the Stryker's tires cost $800 EACH! They are flammable and poppable by all manner of weaponry, they cannot spread weight like tracks, and consequently localize ground pressure, which intensifies it. The LAV-III has 43psi of ground pressure, compared to just 15.4 for the M1A2 Abrams, so it will destroy roads and trails just as much as a heavy MBT would.
Speaking of roads and trails, wheeled vehicles are bound to them, as going cross-country with said pressure exerted on those 8 spinning, rubber rotary-saws means getting stuck for certain --- this forces wheeled vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan to stay on said roads & trails (0.000001% of all the terrain there), which are inescapably predictable routes. This way, even the weakest, most incompetent, and most under-staffed foe can wreak maximum havoc with the minimum effort, manpower and resources (hence, the casualties and rapidly-fluctuating logistics in Iraq and Afghanistan --- 9% of ALL casualties are in the Stryker Brigades alone).



These are only about ONE THIRD of the problems with using wheels on the front lines, and I don't want to fill this comment box with an exhaustive strategic study --- I have to eat, sleep, and use the bathroom like any other person!

I have even BEGUN to delve into the horrors of the Stryker.....

What we need to do is contract Mitsubishi to build us some planes: The Mitsubishi 1 Zero was the most feared plane in World War 2. Now that we've got Japan as an ally, we need to use their knowledge: Have them make us a newer plane, by digging up the old Zero blueprints and innovating on them. Of couse, jet engines are a must, but hell, I'd bet they could make a plane beyond anything we've made in Recent years. Boeing has some decent stuff, mind you, (Does boeing still make military planes?), but Mitsubishi is infamous for thier aircraft.

Not among the Axis --- the most feared plane to THEM was the P-47 Thunderbolt, which by German accounts single-handedly won the entire air war.

The Zero, however, had potentially fatal flaws built-in in order to facilitate it's awesome maneuverability, range, and numbers. It was made of flammable wood and fabric, had no self-sealing fuel tanks at the same time, had no cockpit armor, could not be completely disassembled, and had an ineffective engine governor.
It was also slower than the majority of the Allied fighters, and speed (believe it or not) is the single most effectively-exploited asset in air-to-air combat --- if a slower enemy gets on your Six, just go full-throttle, open the distance, climb over him, and dive at him with the sun at your back. It's very easy to do, and maneuverability cannot counteract speed in this manner.

But you are RIGHT-ON about looking back at PRECEDENCE when designing a warplane --- the problem is that the current "Money/Me/NOW!!!!!" climate of US military aviation development prevents any such sensible approach at aircraft design. I'll go into more detail on this in a later upload.

A WWII warplane, re-manufactured today, would make one hell of an effective Attacker or COIN aircraft...

*scotty from star trek* "Captain, we can't maintain this altitude much longer. The engines are gonna blow."

Let's hop it's BOTH engines at once, because if one shuts down and the other still produces thrust...

Best thrill ride EVER!

I want one.

*Snert.*

Well, it would certainly be the most unique rotorcraft at the airshows...

Yes, but it does defend against a land invasion of the Falkland Islands.

I wouldn't try driving it around on the ground, if I were you --- when completely empty, the Stryker has 57psi of ground pressure atop those 8 spinning, serrated, rubber rotary-saws.
That's from the 16-ton (empty) Stryker, and I estimate that an "Osker" would have 89.6psi of ground pressure!

Compare THAT to the 15.4psi of ground pressure in the M1A2 Abrams!!!

lol

Well, I doubt anybody'd try to do an overland invasion of the Falklands, anyhow.

Not with two bases full with troops, a frigate and attack sub pernamently on patrol and a good defence netwrok; the Typhoon will be stationed there *soon* XD

...And, nobody has noticed yet.

I said, it would defend against a 'LAND' invasion, of the Falkland ISLANDS.

...

Could it be possible to incorperate the Incindiary Bat Bomb system?

For example:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/1090bat.asp

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

I scanned over the articles you pasted links for, and at first glance I thought it was loony...

But THEN I noticed that the idea was to tie a time-released incendiary charge to each of the Million-or-so Bats. It's an intriguing idea, but with normal scattered, retarded-descent incendiary bombs, you can easily cause a similar level of damage --- that was how London, Berlin, Tokyo, Dresden, and many other cities were burned off the map in World War II.



So, my verdict is this;
Physically: Practical

Logistically: Impractical

But trust me, I've heard of weirder proposals. In fact, in the video comments on Youtube, I see regularly see posts form people who fanatically defend (to the point of near-worship) many existing systems, that have already proven themselves not to work!
That was my main inspiration for the "Osker".

LOL That would never happen, unless HQ really starts smoking weed XDXDXD It would be way too fragile in a combat zone, plus the V-22 isn't exactly as wonderful as they hoped; a wheeled one? A joke XD

And by looking at the Dollar still falling, they wouldn't be able to afford it XD