Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "" video.

  1. By Dec 2020.,the V-280 has logged over 200 hours while the SB-1 barely logged 26 hours The V-280 demonstrated that it was considerably more mature and ready
    23
  2.  @Brandonthesnifferofall  You are correct that V-280 has larger foot print but it brings more to table than the SB-1 and Blackhawk For the Marines, the CH-46E required 3 days to make the trip from NC to AZ. The MV-22 does it in one day The MV-22 cruises at 300 mph which is fast enough for it to be refueled by KC-10, KC-46 and KC-135s in the air The Blackhawk can only be refueled by KC-130s in the air The V-280 cruises at 320 mph so its not limited to solely KC-130 for air to air refueling Being able to use jet tankers opens up a lot possibilities for deployment The USAF and USMC have both demonstrated the MV-22s ability to self deployed over considerable distances The Blackhawk requires C-5 break downs . With V-280, it can self deploy to a location, the change crew, allow maintenance to do a quick D/T and get to work with an 2 hours or less With C-5 break down, it takes hours for the Blackhawk , it has to be put back together, QAed, refueled, tested up before it can get to work The Blackhawk carry 105mm while the V-280 can carry 105mm or 155mm Now the real question is what will 160th SOAR and SOCOM say They may procure the SB-1 as its more adaptable for the Direct Action Penetrator (DAP) and Stealth modification
    14
  3.  @totalnerd5674  The CMV-22B is better because first its considerably newer platform. The C-2 has been out of production since the 80s, They get a lot of newer tech and greatly reduced and improved maintenance Secondly CMV-22B retains aerial refueling capability which C-2 didn't have . It also adds a multi-sensor payload pod similar the V-22s FLIR Lastly , It has considerably greater flexibility than C-2 The USMC is working on kit to make their MV-22s into tankers which the CMV-22s could also use as non-traditional tanker
    3
  4.  @totalnerd5674  E-2 and C-2 both lacked air to air refueling? The E-2D has it now but as the C-2 has been out of production, adding it would be challenge The USN gets a lot with the V-22s Ultimately, the MH-60 will still be the preferred asset for other operations because its considerably smaller and can fit on hangars of smaller ships
    3
  5. The simple answer is yes The USAF and USMC have proven the worth tiltrotor aircraft. The USN finally got onboard All that was left was the Army The SB-1 logged considered less hours than V-280
    1
  6.  @Brandonthesnifferofall  If you read up about the Marines during 2003 invasion, they flew directly from Crete to Erbil and Mosul, Iraq , 1100 miles via air insertion. The CH-53 refueled in air while the CH-46E crossed through Turkey. Turkey closed their airspace at the last minute That incident is one biggest reasons why the USAF and USMC doubled down on the V-22. Aircraft able to refuel in the air draws very little attention and refueling can done away from prying eyes. As the CH-46E could not refuel in the air, it had make a lot of stops in Turkey which drew a lot of attention and ire The MV-22 higher speed allows to get from a to b much faster. Modern warfare is about speed and payload Being able to travel faster but still carry a substantial payload in the process Function doesn't win wars Example, the Israel's made TOMCAR able to be carried internally by CH-47, CH-53 or MV-22 or sling load the TOMCAR carry 8 Spike NLOS missiles which can shred most any target on the ground up 16 miles away The US has JTLV with Spike NLOS Being able to carry JTLV with NLOS is far easier than 70 ton tank
    1
  7.  @The_ZeroLine  The real question is how much of the V-22 will carry over XV-15 lacked a lot of the MV-22 So it will be interesting to see what carries over to the production model
    1