1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Metal Storm

Discussion in 'New Version Suggestions' started by <P^R>Imperial, Nov 3, 2001.

  1. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Normally I would agree with you on this point strider...
    but have you seen some of the yahoo militaries who've been using these vehicles lately?
    Im afraid to ask how their learning to operate these choppers with minimal support from the manufacturer, as well as to where their getting spare parts and tools from.

    its note worthy that their flying at all in the >insert the name of todays dictator here<istan airforce.

    by the time we see them in combat they arnt happy birds internaly, and I wouldent put much faith in the pilots abilities.
     
  2. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    guess what I tripped over

    [​IMG]

    the **** of it is, its supposed to be electric ;)
    and designed to fit internally.

    theres no mention what a hybrid engin is gonna do to the range or performance.
    [edit:sorry, I cant resist the urge to say "GI JOE!! A REAL AMERICAN HERROOOOOO! :D]
     
  3. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    PILOTS ARE IRRELEVANT. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

    Seriously, though, we're talking about the hardware, not the human factor.
     
  4. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: guess what I tripped over

    I've seen the prototypes and, yes, they do look like something out of G.I. Joe.

    Here's a more realistic scenario -- I wish I could draw it, but I can't...

    The shattered, burning hulks of the V-22s lie on the ground, grisly funeral pyres to their crew. Only one of the electrojeeps even managed to get deployed, and sits some distance away from the remains of the V-22 that deployed it, riddled with bullet holes, the bloody carcasses of the three troops sprawled across the seats at angles impossible for the living.

    ...and all because of a couple of enemy heavy machine gun nests and RPG teams hidden in the woods in the background.
     
  5. Nightmare

    Nightmare Only human

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    <the things that would require skilled technicians however are <always nicely protected and usually in the cockpit (things like <electronics and such) if something got to them the pilot was <most likely a goner as well. The rest however was inherently <simple to maintain.

    <You've got to be kidding me, man. Russian equipment is famous <for being tough, reliable, easy to operate with minimal training, <and easily repaired in the field even in horrendous conditions.

    Try using Russian equipment when there is peace. Most western
    countries won`t allow people without real technical knowledge
    to do any maintenance on vehicles. So if there isn`t a war going
    on, your maintenance costs are incredibly high compared to any
    new western machine. OK, so perhaps not 5x, but double or triple at any rate. It all adds up.
     
  6. OICW

    OICW Reason & Logic > Religion

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2000
    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strider- according to what you said ANY helicopter and most ground vehicles would be toast.
     
  7. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite.

    The CH-53E can pack heavy armament, up to three Miniguns, and therefore can lay down heavy suppressive fire to protect itself. The Mil-26 is not known to have an armed variant, but the Russians could probably come up with one easily if they wanted to -- and the stock -26 is pretty well armored in the first place.

    Either the -53 or the -26 can haul armored vehicles up to and including the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle, which is more or less invulnerable to small-arms fire.

    Even the LAV is better than a open-top electro-jeep;

    Protection Level:
    Electro-Jeep: None
    LAV: Up to 7.62mm AP
    BMP-3: Up to 25 and 30mm chain-gun
    Bradley: More than the BMP-3, but not sufficient for heavy AT missile
    Abrams MBT: Up to high-velocity sabot round or heavy AT missile.
     
  8. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    ahh, now I understand
    the crews of the ch-53e posses E.S.P. and can fire on enemies befor the ambush starts...
    there must be something special about looking through the open door of a stallion while hovering 100 feet above the ground, thats compleatly unlike hovering 100 feet above the ground and looking through the open door of any other helicopter :D

    a minigun wont do you much good if your attacked in the hover.
    the 53 is no more bullet resistant than the v-22
    the osperys ongoing ballistics testing is making every new incarnation that much stronger.
    like the 53 her skin wont stop bullets. but unlike the 53 her systems can do things to prevent minor hits from becomming major problems.

    not every version 53 comes with those 3 miniguns, just as not every version of the v-22 will be equipped with the helmate aimed chin turrets.

    cover fire?
    what the hell good does cover fire do against a sam?
    or guys with a heavy machine guns waiting in the bush?
    weapons on a transport are just for buying time.
    if you dont posses the ability to lift your ass off the ground and get out of the enemies sites, you will still die.

    just look at the number of hinds shot down during the afgan war.
    most would agree theres no transport capable chopper more fierce than the hind.
    and look at who was shooting them down!

    I honestly dont believe you would drop troops directly into a firefight at the lz.
    and I know for a fact you would be insane to try and retrieve them in the middle of one.

    the game is to get there fast, do what you have to do, and get out fast.
    (fyi, the v-22 holds the worlds record for fastest carry of an external sling load at 220 kts)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2001
  9. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0


    Suppressive fire is, by definition, fully automatic fire in the general direction in the enemy. THE CH-53E's FLIR can pick up body heat signatures -- probably not enough resolution to directly target a human, but enough to know if there's people waiting in the LZ.

    This is a misconception. The V-22, even with battle damage control systems, is inherently more vulnerable than the CH-53E. Having the engines sticking waaaay out there in exposed nacelles might have something to do with this.

    You have obviously never seen a Minigun in action. Suppressive fire, especially from that thing, forces the enemy to stay under cover. The CH-53E does have jamming and countermeasures systems as well.


    Heavy losses were suffered early on becase the Hinds lacked infrared jamming systems. Once IR jammers similar to the "Black Hole" units on our Apaches were fitted, the effectiveness of the US-supplied Stinger MANPADS units the Afghans were using became much less effective.


    Ever read detailed accounts of the Vietnam War? Ever heard the term "hot LZ"? Yes, you do in fact insert and extract troops under fire, if you have to.

    In Vietnam, CH-53s and CH-47s even went in under mortar fire --
    and yes, they made it.


    How much of a load, you in a handbasket?
     
  10. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
    Im sure it wasent anything useful :D

    if the osperys integral flir couldent see the target, then teh ch-53 would have had no better luck.

    according to your example, the first thing you'll see is an rpg flying out of the bush.
    in the .2 seconds it takes for you to explode, how does does the ammount of ammo spent in cover fire change things?
    how did having aluminum skin vs kevlar skin change the outcome when an explosive warhead hits the hull?

    you need some facts befor making a judgment call about the osperys survivability.

    first off, engin pods way out on a boom is better.
    its less likely you'll lose engin thrust on a v-22 at the same time since:
    1. an attacker on one side can only see one engin.
    2. an exploding fan blade in that engin wont affect the other engin.
    3. both engins can support each other via the transmission

    in the rare chance you happen to be caught by a heatseaker, it will go for the engins. which, by fortuitious arrangement, are not located right over the crew compartment :D

    the ability to glide like a normal plane and her fire supression systems will buy you a little more time than you would have in a chopper. shes able to ditch like an airplane (instead of just falling out of the sky like a helicopter) and still maintains the ability for autorotation when in hover mode

    their less likely to spot you, since both engins generate 75% less noise. no added equipment needed to disperse the heat, its integral to the system.
    you spend 40% less time trying to land, and half the time time flying in the area that you normally would

    when your leaving, youve got the choice of flying high over enemy guns or low below their radar. at high speed in any weather condition.

    yes, the ch-53 has jamming an countermeasures.
    but it dosent make 4g turns or have the lower signature of a v-22.

    Mortar fire will destroy most anything it hits.
    theres an eliment of luck if your survive the encounter, not armor.
    helicopters are known as hot targets.
    the four thousand eight hundred men who died flying helicopters in that war should tell you something about their combat survivability.

    helicopters and enemy fire do not mix, speed is what makes the difference.
     
  11. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're telling me the V-22 set a external load carry record hauling THAT????? I need the numbers before I'll believe it.

    Does the Osprey in fact have FLIR sensors? I thought it might, but never found anything authoritative saying that it did or didn't. You're right, IF it has FLIR then it'll have an equal chance at detecting an ambush.

    The point is to suppress, to have enough firepower pounding the enemy's general area that he can't get off a good shot. That's what machine guns, in general, are for.

    While the masking effect is notable, nacelle mounted engines have significant disadvantages. Number one being that they make a critical component of the aircraft an obvious, exposed, unarmored target.

    No one will survive if the V-22 takes a hit to the engine. Like I said, the loss of thrust from an engine will cause the V-22 to go into an immediate, uncontrollable, unrecoverable side roll crash.

    Like I said previously, the crosslink transmission will only save it if it works PERFECTLY. Which it probably won't if it's taken battle damage.
     
  12. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    the flir pod is the little sphere under the nose, just forward of the landing gear. built in at construction time, not retrofit

    supress what?
    you still havent seen anything to shoot.
    if you did, you wouldent fly into its range. thats just begging to get hit with something nasty.

    if you really need supressing fire, then Im sure an m2hb machine gun (a design thats been in almost constant service with the us military since ww1 in one form or another) will suffice.

    miniguns are overkill for our needs. not to mention their heavy and ammo hungery.

    everything on an aircraft is exposed, everythings sensitive.
    at least this way theres backups. all your eggs arnt in one basket, and theres a possibility either the transmission or engin will survive.
    if the blast was strong enough to seperate the rotorblade from its hub, well theres a situation pilots like to call S.O.L.
    there is nothing in the history of flight that could save you.

    Ive already explained, with the power transfer system theres nothing to "kick in". its like other heli transmissions weve been using for years.
    theres no torq problem, theres no twisting.
    it functions in flight, nuff said.
    of all the things on the v-22 prototypes to fail so far, that was not one.
     
  13. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, good. I would be annoyed if they built something as expensive as the V-22 without having a decent sensor set on it.

    You seriously belive a M2 machine gun can match a Minigun in suppressive fire? You have to be kidding. The GAU-2 fires 7.62mm ammunition at a rate of two to six thousand rounds per minute and a muzzle velocity of 869 meters per second. The M2, on the other hand, fires 12.7mm ammunition at a rate of four hundred to six hundred rounds per minute and a muzzle velocity of 860 meters per second.

    The point of suppressive fire is to spray out a maximum number of rounds in order to pin down and trap the enemy. You don't even need see them; just hose down any cover likely to conceal enemies for a few seconds -- the Minigun's ROF pretty much guarantees that anyone hiding there will be very unhappy.

    No, the engines on a regular helicopter are not exposed in the way that those on the V-22 are. A regular helicopter has its engines and transmission in the middle of its fuselage; you have to get through pretty much the entire chopper, including whatever armor protection it may have, to hit them. The V-22 has its engines and transmissions out in the open in unarmored nacelles -- even if the V-22 fuselage is armored, the nacelles aren't.

    You are either being a jackass or an idiot -- to stubborn to listen to the facts, or too dumb.

    The difference with the V-22 is NOT that the transmission crosslink is any more or less reliable than the transmission of a standard chopper. The difference is that the transmission is not driving a single rotor at or near the center of mass; it is driving two rotors widely separated from the center of mass.

    In physics, torque is defined as force times distance -- that is, torque is dependent on both the magnitude of the applied force and the distance between the location where the force is applied and the center of mass of the object it is acting upon.

    In normal flight, there is no net unbalanced force on the V-22, because the two rotors provide an equal amount of force on opposite sides of the center of mass. There is no net torque, becase the two rotors cancel each others' tendency to rotate the V-22.

    The problem arises when one engine fails. The transmission will re-route power such that the remaining engine will power both rotors -- it's analogous to the way a modern four-wheel-drive system reroutes power between the four wheels.

    If the transmission works perfectly, then there's no problem. The V-22 loses a little less than 50% of its power, since the remaining engine will go to emergency boosted power, but it will remain flying.

    The problem is, the transmissions are in the nacelles with the engines. That means that if an engines failed due to battle damage, the transmission it goes with is probably pretty well shot up as well. It might still work, but definitely not at 100% capacity.

    Well, there's the problem. If the transmission power transfer isn't working perfectly due to a damaged tranny, the good engine's prop will have more power than the other prop. That means that the net torque about the center of mass is no longer zero, which means that stable flight is no longer possible.

    Worse still, with the engines waaay out on the ends of the wings, even a minimal disparity in engine thrust will cause a lot of torque due to it's having a longer lever arm to work with. This problem is inherent to any tandem-rotor design except for a coaxial-rotor setup.

    A similar problem is encountered in a twin-engine jet aircraft; if you lose one engine, you'll yaw into that side because the thrust is no longer balanced. It's not so bad with a jet, though, because the engines aren't that far apart; the lever arm is short and therefore the torque is small.

    Note that single-engine control has always been a problem with the F-14 Tomcat -- because its engines are widely spaced. The F-15 and F/A-18 have much narrower engine spacings and thus are easier to control with one engine shot or flamed out.
     
  14. Nightmare

    Nightmare Only human

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    <Note that single-engine control has always been a problem with <the F-14 Tomcat -- because its engines are widely spaced. The F-<15 and F/A-18 have much narrower engine spacings and thus <are easier to control with one engine shot or flamed out.

    I`ll support that. Two Finnish F/A-18s collided during night flight
    excersise last week. One came up too close under the other, and
    lost it`s tail fin. That one crashed, but the pilot managed to eject.
    The other one lost one engine, but the pilot still brought it back to
    base. Says something about the craft (and pilot) that it`s stable
    enough you dare try instrument landing without one engine.
     
  15. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    *shudder*

    /me has nightmares remembering landing a me262 with 1 shot up engine in Aces High. if you have to approach the runway at with your 12o clock pointing at 11 o clock ssomething is wrong.
     
  16. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    on both choppers the only thing seperating weapon fire from your engin, is the engin cover.
    a flip down panel where by the mechanics gain access to the bay.
    ...I feel safer already :p

    [​IMG]

    the engins sitting in plain view... as is the pilots chair, the fuel tanks, and the rotor head.

    the engins on the v-22 are larger, Ill give you that much.
    but the power transfer system is no different in design than one in a shawnee or its replacement, the chinook(introduced in the 60's, and a work horse up to today around the world)

    unlike conventional twin engin aircraft (which do not have power tranfer systems)
    or jets (which do not have power transfer systems)
    this things designed to keep the aircraft flying on an even keel if one engin was to fail for any reason.
    this was a well known and planned for possibility.
    fly by wire means the balancing is controled by computer. the pilot just sits on his ass points the plane.

    shutting down one engin suddenly will not cause an irrecoverable torq roll.

    so far her safty record isint as bad compared to other programs.
    this "always falling out the sky" thing is hype caused by other companies worried about their sales.
    in 10 years of testing, theres been 3 fatal crashes to date.
    the uh-60 had 20 accidents in 10 years design.
    the ch-46 had 44 mishaps in under 5 years of testing

    4 mishaps in a brand new vehicle design is almost a record.
    one was non fatal, and another was pilot error when he flew the plane at double the recomended speed through transition.

    the popularised military grounding of aircraft was for ALL vehicles
    due to a recent rash of incidents.. not just the v-22 program.

    as for an m2hb not being enough firepower, it seems to work quite well on tanks, other helicopters, hmmwv's, apc's, and stand alone.
    it even works in inf :p
    miniguns are heavy and waste ammo, you dont all that need that equipment just to scare the enemy into hiding.
     
  17. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonetheless, the V-22's engines are more vulnerable, since they are more exposed.

    Correct. Read my lips: "This problem is inherent to any tandem-rotor design except for a coaxial-rotor setup." So the fact that it's like a Chinook doesn't mean jack, because the Chinook has the exact same problems. Why do you think both we and the Russians only tried tandem-rotor heavy-lift choppers once or twice?

    This is silly. You treat this as if it's a huge advantage in the V-22's favor, which it isn't since it's the V-22's wierd design that makes such systems needed in the first place They don't need them.

    Do you even bother to read my posts? Obviously not, as you continue to delude yourself into thinking that the only reason I believe the V-22 is unstable in a one-engine configuration is I don't understand what the power transfer system does. The fact is, I seem to understand the power transfer system a lot more than you do.

    It has to work perfectly to save the V-22.

    It won't work perfectly under battle damage.

    It is exposed and vulnerable to battle damage.

    Therefore, battle damage makes it unlikely that the power transfer system will save the V-22.

    I never said shutting an engine down would create a torque roll. I stated that failure of an engine, followed by non-perfect functioning of the power transfer system, will create a torque roll. I also stated that such a pairing of failures is a likely scenario due to the close proximity of the two.



    This is patently untrue. The M2 has been a SECONDARY weapons system on combat vehicles since the Second World War; it is only a primary weapons system on transport vehicles that are not designed to directly participate in heavy combat, such as the Humvee and the M-113 APC.

    Since the military retains and utilizes Miniguns, I would surmise that they continue to be useful.

    Accounts in Vietnam indicate that the Minigun is VASTLY more effective than a standard machine gun in the suppressive fire role, both physically and psycologically. The high rate of fire creates a weapon that can literally saw through light and medium armor, as well as hose down enemy infantry in a very literal sense.
     
  18. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    if I recall the numbers correct, we own more chinook variants than 53's
    the ch-46 variants moved well over a million tons of cargo in the last war, and their going to continue to do the job till their replaced with the v-22's in a few years.
    I would say they worked out, roflol

    her engins are both in the back, at the base of the rear rotor. all power is sent via that transmission.

    anything that might stop a v-22, will do a similar number on a normal chopper. why dont you take some time to mark off the spots on this chopper that are NOT vunerable and not exposed :p
    [​IMG]
    dont worry about the engins. their safely tucked behind the pilots heads and between her fuel tanks. where no harm can come to them.

    new standards for ballistics tests say that the v-22 must be able to stay airborne for 1/2 hour after getting shot.
    so far, out of 500 shots, shes managed.
    meaning when the v-22 surcums to its unjuries, it will be at least 100 miles away.
    where as a chopper will only be 50 miles, assuming it can pass a test developed 20 years after it first entered service.

    speed is still everything in war.
    the evacuation of the embassy in mogedishu(sp) was started on the 6th of that month, and ended on the eleventh. using ch-53E's and chinooks from saudi arabia to carry everyone back to the waiting ships at sea.
    new predictions say that with the v-22 placed at those same airbases, they could have done the same mission in 6.5 hours.

    keep taking... Im waiting for you to catch yourself in a "doh" moment ;)

    I still think the m2hb is more than enough gun.
    a slower fire rate means the party lasts longer.
    if the numbers are right, 1000 rounds lasts about 2min in an m2hb, and less than 30 seconds in a minigun.

    but if you insist...
    [​IMG]

    wierd design?
    damn strait its wierd :D
     
  19. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0


    Uh huh, sure, sure. Notice that after the Chinook we never again built a multi-rotor transport chopper...not because the Chinook was bad, per se, but because they realized that the design contraints imposed by a tandem rotor setup made a single rotor setup superior.

    If twin rotors were better, they would have used them in the newer designs; instead, they went back to single rotors.


    I didn't say they were more protected, I said they were less exposed. Say you have a machine-gun and you fire a burst at both the CH-53E and the V-22. With the CH-53, you're most likely to hit the fuselage; with the V-22, you're most likely to hit the engines.


    As with the 9mm vs .45 ACP debate, that's not the issue. The issue is shot placement, and the V-22's more likely to get shot in bad places like the engines.

    Unless, of course, they were shot down at the embassy.

    You wish.

    With its greater capacity, the CH-53E can carry plenty of ammo, so that's not a consideration.

    Several of my uncles were in the war, had their asses saved more than once by Air Force AC-series gunships...cargo planes equipped with side-firing Miniguns.

    It was the sheer ROF of the Minigun that made the AC gunships as effective as they were...the least powerful of them, the AC-47 "Spooky" with three GAU-2s, was capable of spraying two football fields at an average bullet-to-ground density of one bullet per square foot...with thirty seconds of firing.

    They whole point of these gunships was suppressive fire on a massive scale...and no, they never tried to build one with M2 machine guns. The Minigun is the ultimate small-arms suppressive fire weapon, unfortunately it eats too much ammo to be used as a squad weapon...otherwise they WOULD.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2001
  20. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    They whole point of these gunships was suppressive fire on a massive scale...and no, they never tried to build one with M2 machine guns. The Minigun is the ultimate small-arms suppressive fire weapon, unfortunately it eats too much ammo to be used as a squad weapon...otherwise they WOULD.
     

Share This Page