4 ms·
Design remings me of something... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_i
by dmbche 7mo ago
Design remings me of something...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involv...
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- yabones 7mo agoThe next generations of accidents are going to be even more looney-tunes in nature.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- conorbergin 7mo agoThe Osprey's accident rate is not that bad, and the US Army have ordered a new smaller tiltrotor, the v280.
- owlninja 7mo agoThey officially named it recently to the 'MV-75'.
- remarkEon 7mo agoThe Wikipedia page says this will replace UH-60s, but I just do not see how that airframe is a direct comparable to what’s been a workhorse for decades. Maybe it means only in a long range reconnaissance role? But even then, that mission is primarily owned by UAS platforms now. Confusing.
- joha4270 7mo agoWhat is so unbelievable about that? Sure, its going to take decades to actually make the transition and the UH-60 will remain in service for decades more after that in less demanding roles. I expect by the time this finishes, the MV-75 will be considered another workhorse, if maybe slightly fuzzier and the UH will be an antiquated platform. But ultimately they both solve the same problem, moving stuff from A to B in rough terrain fast. But with the ever increasing amount of reconnaissance assets, A needs to be further behind the frontline and so range and speed needs to increase beyond what you can manage with a pure helicopter.
- icegreentea2 7mo agoI imagine UH-60 and variants will continue to serve (who knows, maybe with new airframes) along side the MV-75 for quite a while, in a similar way to how UH-1s continued to be in use well after UH-60s were deployed in large numbers. This Congressional Research Service summary of the FLRAA/MV-75 program states that the Army has plans to continue ordering UH-60s (on the order of 255 between 2027 and 2031) - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12771 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12771 The key requirements that drive MV-75's downsides (size, complexity, cost) is the Army wants to play game in the Pacific. The UH-60 is deeply limited there. For example, the MV-75's range should let it go (one-way) from Guam to the Philippines, straight from Okinawa to Taiwan (no need to island hop) - potentially as a two way mission. Same as Philippines to Taiwan. The "comparability" is that the MV-75 and UH-60 can be delivery ~14 troops into an order magnitude similar size clearing.
- remarkEon 7mo agoThank you! This context really clarifies what the use case is for this. The range difference matters.
- rootusrootus 7mo agoThe Osprey has a reputation, for sure, but it's mid-pack. They called the F-104 the widow maker for a reason, for example. And the F-16 has a fairly high accident rate, too, slightly higher than the Osprey. Though I think the F-16's history is a bit more lopsided, they made some changes after early production airframes proved pretty accident prone.
- sedatk 7mo agoIn Turkey, F-104 was called “flying coffin”.
- TitaRusell 7mo agoThe Netherlands had problems with it too. The procurement of the Starfighter was also a huge corruption scandal. Lockheed was a very scummy company in the cold war.
- hyperific 7mo agoMaybe the Osprey's reputation is due not only to the accident rate but also to the fatality rate. A fatal accident in a standard F-16 (not the 2 seater), assuming no one outside the plane is killed, means 1 death. A fatal accident in a V-22 with the same assumptions would have a minimum of 2 deaths (pilot and copilot) at a soft maximum of 26 deaths (2 crew + 24 passengers, possibly more if overloaded).
- remarkEon 7mo agoThis is correct.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- ikekkdcjkfke 7mo agoAll flying craft that cannot glide by itself should have failsafe parachutes. If one engine goes out the other engine needs to stop too to prevent flipping. Parachute is easily acceseible behind a red lever with glass to break
- burnt-resistor 7mo agoL PRGB CHIP BURN Any time there are planetaries or splines attached to jet engines, it's a really weak spot. This holds for ordinary turboprops too.
- GorbachevyChase 7mo agoI was wondering why we’ve already give up on the harrier.
- aksss 7mo agoWell, it's a jet from the 60's, can only scrape mach 1 on the downhill, is in a CAS role, primarily. Cool jet, but it's old tech.
- laughing_man 7mo agoThe Harrier is obsolete.
- burnt-resistor 7mo agoIt was deafening too many pilots and Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop needed more money. /s The F-35B can also do Mach 1.6 and the stealth thing. Some country should give that Pepsi contest winner a demil Harrier in lieu of Frontier Airline miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico%2C_Inc.