" 'I work for Boeing and I also have helped to biuld every V-22 our governmenthas witch is over 100 A/C so far . Im very proud to have had the oppertunity to have the chance to do so .We here at Boeing are gearing up for building two A/C a month. So to all that fly this aircraft and fly in it ,stay safe and God speed.

James A. Cucchi'

Um, is it just me, or does anyone else think someone building aircraft for Boeing should be able to use a spell checker?"

You would think so you wouldn't you? Also, Bell is the primary contractor on the V-22, Boeing only makes the fuselage. And I wouldn't exactly go out telling everyone that we put out two a month. Anybody wanting to hurt Mission Assurance on the V-22 Project would know that if they crippled the Boeing facility, it would do just that. Learn OPSEC you idiot.

Posted by: BroadwayJoe140 at May 9, 2008 11:06 AM

Jim- re your 25 Feb reply: Thanks for answering my comment. I was thinking in terms of helo speeds.

Posted by: Pete Sheppard at February 29, 2008 08:42 AM

With the weapon hanging from the belly like that, and with the peculiarities of the Osprey, it'll look just like the flying Hunter/Killer robots from the future scenes in the first Terminator movie.

Posted by: Keith at February 26, 2008 12:36 PM

I think a "Chin Gun" and a retractable, remote belly station is rational. As for the ramp, that weapon could be mounted in such a manner that it would always be in place requiring only loading and unloading. Then again, going into a hot LZ has a "pucker factor" of about 23; unarmed, it goes up to around 93.
Sergeant Major

Posted by: Raymond R Roughton III at February 26, 2008 10:05 AM

Looks like a very cool solution to the problem. I should think this mount should provide way more coverage than a door gun and a lot more accuracy for the operator. It would make sense this would only be seen on the specops version for now, I would think they would be less likely to come in or out with a lot of air support as compared to more conventional forces.

Posted by: steve at February 25, 2008 06:36 PM

1.) YES -- the V-22 needs a weapon system for protection of itself and the troops & supplies/ wounded it carries.
2.) That being said, the WPN System HAS to be practical, easy to use, maintain and NOT cause aerodynamic issues in flight or in transition between vertical & horizontal flight.
3.) The weapon system has to be a good fit as far as crew access,
reload & malfunction clearing capability.
4.) ACCURACY & rate of fire at stand-off range from small arms
fire & RPGs.
5.) Combat testing is the final proof the system actually works.

Posted by: SSG Yankee Medic at February 25, 2008 06:00 PM

Gratz! to all those who have displayed a knowledge of weapon systems way above my head. You explain it succinctly.

My short point is only that NO platform responsible for carrying troops into combat situations should be completely defenseless. Some suppression capability is going to be required from time to time, whether from outdated or bad intelligence, bad directions, forced downs possibly due to mechanical or weather problems.

Jeff Dulin's idea of an upside down phalanx style system - something that can pour a wall of steel in any direction - would certainly encourage the bad guys to keep their heads down long enough for insertion.

Posted by: Robert Pratt at February 25, 2008 05:41 PM

It has an xbox controller for the gunner

Posted by: Keith at February 25, 2008 03:10 PM

Well this is a familiar thought. Kind of matches up with the Huey gunships. Throw some rockets and another minigun on it and this Osprey could be used for a whole lot more than just infantry insertion.

Posted by: Sean at February 25, 2008 12:30 PM

I exited the military before the Osprey came in to regular use. Oddly enough, I live by the local airport where they are flown regularly (Bell/Textron test facility). I am still amazed at the speed with which they can take off, land and transition.

Considering the role of the vehicle, putting weapons on it will not accomplish much, IMHO. They should NOT make it in to the "air-hummer"...tasking it to do all types of roles for which it was never intended.

Posted by: Superdart at February 25, 2008 10:01 AM

Pete,

The answer to your question is simple...first the left window is too small to allow placing a weapon in it. However, the primary reason for not mounting weapons in the "hatches" is due to the amount of time it takes to swing the weapon into place, arm the weapon, acquire targets and engage those targets.

To put it into context, it takes just over a minute for us to decelerate from 230 kts, convert the nacelles and land. If we installed weapons in the "hatches" we would be waiting to accelerate/transition out of the LZ while the weapons were being de-armed, stowed and closed the hatched/windows.

In the case of the V-22, our ability to accelerate out of the weapons engagement zone (WEZ) is as good (in some cases) as having a forward firing weapon. Coming from someone who has been flying on the V-22 for 4 years, and has experience using crew served weapons from helicopters over the previous 8 years, it is impractical to place forward firing weapons from the windows/hatches of the V-22.

Posted by: Jim at February 25, 2008 09:39 AM

I'm still wondering why the crew just can't mount machine guns to fire out of the crew hatch and opposite window (just behind the cockpit) when the props/rotors are rotated up for vertical flight. A stop to prevent firing into the nacelles would be a no-brainer. While arcs of fire would be limited to the forward quarters, suppressive fire would be available for the approach.

Or, is this method not gee-whiz enough?

Posted by: Pete Sheppard at February 25, 2008 08:26 AM

"I work for Boeing and I also have helped to biuld every V-22 our governmenthas witch is over 100 A/C so far . Im very proud to have had the oppertunity to have the chance to do so .We here at Boeing are gearing up for building two A/C a month. So to all that fly this aircraft and fly in it ,stay safe and God speed.

James A. Cucchi"

Um, is it just me, or does anyone else think someone building aircraft for Boeing should be able to use a spell checker?

Posted by: Brian D at February 25, 2008 03:26 AM

I know it's off topic and I shouldn't feed trolls but can't let this go unanswered:

Matt Hood said: "Since WW2 or Korea our generals dont die on the battles fields any more! They live safe lives hidden inside bunkers surrounded by armies while their soldiers are lacking their leadership on the battlefield."

I offer as exhibit A, this excerpt from "On Point" from the Center for Lessons Learned recounting OIF battles:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-4.htm#najaf

"Mortars at Checkpoint Charlie":

"The American Soldier's View of Senior Officers
American soldiers expect their senior leaders to exhibit physical courage and to face the dangers of combat without flinching. They have an informal network that passes information about leaders quickly, far beyond the immediate area of an incident. Nothing a senior officer does in combat is ever really hidden from his soldiers. They see. . . They hear. . . They know.
-
The details of one such incident involving several senior officers' actions under fire were soon known across V Corps and positively affected the confidence and morale of soldiers far from the actual fighting. On 30 March, the 101st Airborne Division was assaulting through An Najaf. Mortar fire began impacting near a crowded road intersection known as Checkpoint Charlie. There was a group of senior officers and other personnel at the checkpoint, including the V Corps Commander, Lieutenant General Wallace, the 101st Airborne Division Commander, Major General Petraeus, the ADC-O, Brigadier General Freakley, and a special forces liaison team. The senior officers huddled around the hood of a HMMWV, using it as a desk while they discussed the ongoing battle.
-
The initial mortar rounds landed 300 meters away. Rounds started walking in at 100-meter intervals. The three general officers continued their hood-top meeting, seemingly oblivious to the creeping mortar fire. A round suddenly landed unannounced less than 30 meters away, causing everyone to jump a little. One sergeant recalled that generals backed up about 10 feet and continued with their business.
-
Without warning, a sudden burst of small-arms and automatic weapons fire broke out near the checkpoint. Lieutenant General Wallace and the other general officers moved immediately to the sound of the guns, with their MP squad security detachment running to keep up. Another mortar round landed not 20 yards away from them as they ran. Fortunately, none of the group was injured. The firefight ended quickly, and a Kiowa Warrior (armed reconnaissance helicopter) finally spotted the mortar tube and initiated a call for fire that destroyed it.
-
The story of the calm way with which the generals reacted circulated quickly among soldiers. The military policemen assigned to protect Lieutenant General Wallace told their comrades about it and it spread from there. That the corps commander was willing to put himself up so near the fighting, and that he and Major General Petraeus seemed to move to the fighting instinctively, impressed many of the soldiers who heard of it. They said that it gave them a high regard for Lieutenant General Wallace and made them admire him as a leader."

May I also point out the Gen Petraeus nearly died as a battalion commander when one of his troops accidentally shot him in the back during training. Petraeus' response? He sent the Soldier to Ranger school to help his career.

Also direct your attention to the photo in the Gen Petraeus interview where you also commented. Note that everyone around him is wearing full battle rattle...except the General.

You are entitled to your opinion. It will go ever better on a MoveOn.org forum than here, I suspect.

Posted by: Cole at February 24, 2008 11:05 AM

Just paint a big red 'cross' on the side of it. That'll keep it safe.

Posted by: Olden Atwoody at February 24, 2008 03:27 AM

Back to the topic. Christian, do you know if the MV-22 are going to be fitted with this gun, has it not been decided yet, or is it just going on a few special ops version?
This is one very unique flying machine!
I do not believe every version needs a gun, but having a gun solves one crucial problem. No combat helicopter can escort a Osprey, or if it did, it would totally waste the entire design of it; ie forcing it fly in the constraints of its escort. Having a gun on another Osprey allows it do it all its wonderful fast flying and menuvering, but upon destination, instead of not having an armed gunship to cover the troops, and the vulnerable ospreys landing, another one can cover it from above day or night! Awesome.
An analogy would be...
A black hawk landing with only a 50cal open site gun on one side protecting it, or rather an apache (gun only) above scanning all over the place providing cover day or night, storm or no storm.

Posted by: MIke at February 23, 2008 11:15 PM

Whoever aka Matt is voting for.. I will be sure to vote the opposite, weather it be democrat or republican. There are so many things in that rant that are completely flawed, from the general logic to the way it was put together, it makes me ashamed to be a human. God help us all.

Posted by: Mike at February 23, 2008 10:59 PM

I work for Boeing and I also have helped to biuld every V-22 our governmenthas witch is over 100 A/C so far . Im very proud to have had the oppertunity to have the chance to do so .We here at Boeing are gearing up for building two A/C a month. So to all that fly this aircraft and fly in it ,stay safe and God speed.

James A. Cucchi

Posted by: James A. Cucchi at February 23, 2008 10:40 PM

This plan will go down has a waste of money and will cost many lives of our soldier if a major war breaks out. A simple AK 47 will not this plane out of the sky. This weapons system was shoved down the throats of the people by Generals with their pie in the sky schemes who have refuse to read the writing on the wall. This plan needed 10 years more of research and planning. Since WW2 or Korea our generals dont die on the battles fields any more! They live safe lives hidden inside bunkers surrounded by armies while their soldiers are lacking their leadership on the battlefield. We have a nation of Generals like President George Bush, who have 4 stars on their shoulders. The military seems to be looking for a fight so they can use all of their wonderful toys while our schools , roads, and our nation falls apart because they are getting to much of the budget to fight a war in Iraq to turn every Muslim into a consumer of American goods. Inside of every Muslim is an American trying to get out so he can vote! Bush's love of democracy is idol worship and a sin. It violates the first of the 10 commandments. He uses democracy has a weapon of war to justify the destruction of a nation were 99% of the people have done nothing to us! For those who think Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because it was a city of homosexuals, you are wrong! These cities where destroyed because the elite violated all of the 10 commandments without any remorse, who fabricated their own god of their own making, whom they could use to control the population that ended up making them into sheep made for the slaughter where the elite use the common people to live at their expense through corruption of all kinds of ,vices, usury, and where the rule of law did not apply to them. They destroyed the souls of all of those who entered her gates to remove God's curse from the cursed earth like Cain who wanted back into the Garden of Paradise so has man since that day has tried to live in the Garden at the expense of others. We the American people are being lead down the same road has Sodom and Gomorrah by the elite of America who worship the Golden Calf of wealth that their god of capitalism through the deception of democracy has destroyed more nations who were democratic than those that were not! We don't need no more weapons of war unless Bush intends on making the world hate us! I dont know why we need a State department. They do nothing but fabricate more wars for us that their worthless kids will not fight! Bush hates Islam just like they hated Communism. It denies them their right to private property. It was the concept private property why this nation murder the Indian Nations. Islam is a threat to capitalism. They dont want Iraq to have a national healthcare program. America;s drug companies would go broke. Washington could easily give this nation a great national heath care for all Americans; but, the military would be afraid it would lose tax dollars. America wasted 13 trillion dollars on the cold war that we did not fight; but, we did provoke the Russian into a arms race. Vietnam had nothing to do with communism. The war was over the exploitation of Vietnam by American corporations after the French was driven out by the people who owned the country. The Bush family invested in Vietnam because of the rubber the country produced. They had money in Firestone and other companies in Vietnam. They lost their money in the countries they tried to exploit like Cuba, Vietnam, and the Philippines. When will it end! The military is bankrupting this nation! American corporation can not make any money in America so they invest in foreign countries they can control so they can cut our throats while they destroy organized labor and to reduce wages in America with their deliberate use of illegals. This is exactly what the wealthy, who did not want to pay taxes, did during the great depression after they bankrupted the nation. They took their 5 tax breaks given to them by an elite America;s Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon to invest their treasonous money in Adolf Hitlers, Anti-union, Germany while America starved. History is repeating itself. Billions of American Tax dollars are hiding in Banks in the Middle east and Switzerland so American corporation can avoid paying any taxes! If that is not treason then what is!

Posted by: matt hood at February 23, 2008 10:38 PM

Cole:

Thank you. I read and enjoyed the article regarding "Large A/C IR Countermeasures". Neat and I hope it works. However, being a synic at heart, with regards to some of the stuff that comes out of the Pentigon and/or those who would sell us VERY VERY expensive new "stuff", I remain concerned about this. I know the good old WALL OF LEAD theory works. The Navy still uses that theory to defend against incoming missiles on their boats don't they? I guess it's the old "known devil" vs the new "unknown devil" thinking.

Anyway, I sure hope that this new stuff really works. We've got a lot riding on it but I still question some of the costs. I know a radar and steel gun system is not nearly as expensive and is readily available. The new lazer stuff,... how effective is it really;, why is it soooo expensive and will it hold up in the field? The jury is still out on that I guess.
Thanks again for the heads up on that article.
Jeff D.

I find it hard to believe that the lazer will be that quickly effective at low altitudes when there is very little time for it to blind and deflect an incoming missile. If the missile utilizes both heat and radar for guidance, it would seem to me that you'd be in trouble. Hit that same missile with a few projectiles, and I know it will be destroyed or deflected.

Posted by: JEFF DULIN at February 23, 2008 09:52 PM

Jeff,

Google: Large Aircraft IR Countermeasures, to see what they are doing to protect some C-17s and C-130. At $70 million a copy, hopefully they have some pretty good ECM on the V-22, as well.

I'm wondering if there are any easily accessible voids in the floor that could hold large ammo containers. Seems like it would need to be in the cabin which would explain its use primarily on the Air Force version.

Thanks to Jeff and 360 who mentioned serving in Viet Nam.

Posted by: Cole at February 23, 2008 02:46 PM

"Christian, a loaded V-22 cannot manuever as it approaches an LZ, that is prohibited since it may roll over. It cannot descend fast either due to VRS since its rotors are so small. It is not a helicopter, but flies approaches like an aircraft-- straight and steady."

Posted by: joey at February 23, 2008 06:42 AM

That is a lie "joey". You need to get some authentic gouge and stop parroting the misinformation put out by people who have no clue as to the capabilities of the Osprey. The V-22 can descend at a rate over twice that, 1700 FPM, of any rotary winged platform in the inventory at 40 KIAS or less and does not begin to experience the effect of VRS until the rate of descent exceeds 2000 FPM under 40 KIAS. All rotary winged platforms other than the V-22 are governed by the 800/40 rule which means that at 40 KIAS the maximum rate of descent is 800 FPM. The claim about not being maneuverable and ingressing and egressing LZs at a snails pace is simply BS. The V-22 can decelerate into and accelerate out of an LZ much faster than any transport helicopter currently in service.

In addition, the VRS argument is an old and tired one that was put to bed a long time ago but people like you never let the facts get in the way of perpetuating a lie. The physics in the refernced report is most likely way over your head but even someone with your low acumen should be able to comprehend the abstract.

V–22 HIGH RATE OF DESCENT (HROD) TEST PROCEDURES AND LONG RECORD ANALYSIS

http://www.vtol.org/pdf/test-60.pdf

ABSTRACT

In August 2003, the V–22 Integrated Test Team completed a thorough investigation of the V–22’s low-speed / HROD flight characteristics. Testing defined an operational envelope for the aircraft and demonstrated flight regimes free from vortex ring state (VRS). Tests also probed deeply into fully developed VRS to determine precise flight conditions where it may be encountered, and to confirm the ability of the V–22 to recover from the condition. The ability to tilt the nacelles proved to be a powerful and (in every case) reliable means for rapidly regaining aerodynamic function of the rotors, even when operating in
VRS beyond the point of having sufficient controllability. Results for steady-state HROD conditions are presented and the methods for testing are described. In an operational sense, the test results show that the V–22 has a significantly higher rate of descent margin for avoiding VRS with respect to the published NATOPS limitation than conventional low disk-loading
helicopters. Furthermore, dynamic maneuver testing of the V–22 showed that VRS cannot be initiated outside the steadystate VRS boundary. Simple engineering analysis is used to show that the V–22’s steady-state VRS boundary is predictable
by simple methods that work for conventional helicopters. High blade twist, and the side-by-side rotor configuration of the V–22 do not play a significant role in defining the VRS boundary.

'As for Iraq, if you check the forum here at military.com there is a recent article in which the Commandant says that news of the V-22s poor performance in Iraq is being "suppressed."'

Posted by: joey at February 23, 2008 06:42 AM

Your characterization of what Conway actually said is another lie. He made no mention of "poor performance" and the report in question quotes him out of context. It should be noted that Conway is not an aviator and has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth.

'Earlier, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Conway told the same session "the fact is we'd like to get a multiyear on the aircraft so that we complete our buy and save some money in the process over time."

Conway said the corps was trying to "suppress" news for now on performance of the V-22, which made its combat debut in Iraq in September.

"It's just that we don't want to overpromise and underdeliver," he said.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSGOR28078120080213

Posted by: SATCtech at February 23, 2008 02:15 PM

A 7.62 Nato caliber "Mini-Gun", on a turret of some sort is a great idea for some sort of fire suppression. The ammo feed boxes will have to be in the floor of the A/C with cross-over drives between the boxes. 6,000 rounds of this stuff takes up an area about 1' high x 18" wide and 5' long. That was the size of the ammo system we used on the XM-21 system I had on my UH-1C gunship in Viet Nam. It too was a flexible, aimable system fired from the left (co-pilots) seat. 6,000 rounds gave us 3,000 rounds per side and at low-rate (1,500 spm) it didn't take a long time to run dry. Hi rate was 3,000 spm but that kicked in automatically when one gun cut out due to the fact that it hit a mechanical stop on the system. So, many time, if we made left traffic, our left gun would run dry before the right.

Anyway, this is a great idea! Some sort of system should be adapted for Anti-Missile defense on some of our larger A/C too. The C-17 looks like a sitting duck to me! Perhaps an upside down phalanx style system with a computer control to spot incomming and hit it with a wall of lead before it can hit the a/c.

You don 't need 20 mm however. Small missiles are made of alumnum and a 7.62 hitting it will do all the damage necessary. The tracers, (every 5th rd) could also confuse the seaker head in the missile too. Recoil isn't a factor with the 7.62 but is sure would be with 20/25 or 30 mm, not to mention the a hugh reduction in number of rounds carried. Re-arming a 7.62 is also easy in a field environment because the mini-gun uses the same M-13a1 linked ammo the M-60 and other NATO med. MG's use.

If you want to examine these old sub-systems for the early Huey gunships, et al., go to:Tri-army.mil/LC/CSaaarmsys.htm. That is about the best, most accurate web site I've found that covers most of the stuff we had then and up to today. We actually DID some of the nutty things in Viet Nam you hear about: ie; setting the fuze of an 81 mm PD round and tossing it overboard! It worked! Not very accurate but,.. it went off when it hit te ground,... someplace. A frag or WP in a glass bottle. god, I'm surprised we survived. But we were 19 and industructable.

Posted by: Jeff Dulin at February 23, 2008 11:18 AM

I was in the US Army during the vietnam era. I was not in combat, but I heard many stories from my brother that was and among the other vets that served in combat roles. They need all the fire support that they can muster for protection from the ground attack. A nice mini gun shooting 60 rpm is a handy thing to have when you run into trouble. The troops deserve the best protection that money can buy. I hope this works out and does not jam when needed.

Posted by: bob walker at February 23, 2008 08:00 AM

Note that isn't a picture of the new gun, just a computer generated image. They also don't list the gun caliber or even the sytem weight. They also need to tie into electrical and hydrualics. This won't be ready for a couple years, if ever, which is why it was not original equipment.

Christian, a loaded V-22 cannot manuever as it approaches an LZ, that is prohibited since it may roll over. It cannot descend fast either due to VRS since its rotors are so small. It is not a helicopter, but flies approaches like an aircraft-- straight and steady.

As for Iraq, if you check the forum here at military.com there is a recent article in which the Commandant says that news of the V-22s poor performance in Iraq is being "suppressed."

Posted by: joey at February 23, 2008 06:42 AM

The Osprey and this weapon system is more aimed towards AFSOC and their mission for the aircraft. But, with that said, the retractable remote turret will not be deployed when on the ground or when approaching the ground. But it doesn't necessarily need the capability of putting down suppressive fire when on the LZ for it's role in Iraq. Iraq isn't Vietnam and we are landing in predominantly non-hot areas. The problem is with RPGs and other various rockets/missiles during intermittent flight and low-flying maneuvers, as seen by the loss of 46/47s copters recently. But the main advantage to avoiding that is the tilt-rotor capability, so the turret is just an extra safe-guard.

Posted by: Drew at February 22, 2008 10:48 PM

In Vietnam we made a number of Hot-LZ insertions. One in early April 1969 was into the HQ of an NVA Division. This was a surprise to everyone until after 3 days and several more days of holding the position we found typed paper work referancing an agreement between the NVA General and a VC sapper battalion CO with a close by Korean compound CO not to bother each other within certain grid squares. My platoon of 64 Marines landed first and the airwing flew off untill they were ordered to drop off the rest of Lima Company with two other 3/1 Companies walking in. They fought like hell because they had an underground hopital, Supply depot, RPG 7s,B-40 rockets, other types of rockets, morters and lots of brand new weapons andammo most wrapped in Russian and Chinese plastic bags.
The point is, you never know for sure, what you may find. We were supposedly on a multiple Company practice mission in a reletivly safe area.
Fortunatly the NVA and VC thought it was a safe area also, and initialy ran from us. There were at least 3,600 NVA combat troops and more than one VC battalion at this NVA base about 10 miles South East of Danang. Four of the other 2nd LTs and to many marines died, but thanks to "very close air support" ( some within 50' by Navy and Marine corps Phantoms ), Continual Artillary and Naval gunfire, alought more of the enemy and a large amount of there supplys and equipment were destroyed.
This Mission tought me why the Airwing does not like going into any LZ without "lots" of fire power. I had been angry with the Airwing because they would not drop me and two of my squads off for a recon mission because I could not "gaurentee" a safe LZ. With the heavyer fire power on the Osprey The Airwing will be aloght more confident about going into harm's way.

Posted by: 360-633-7604 at February 22, 2008 09:54 PM

I suppose the new gun will work fine when the Osprey is in flight; approaching and departing the LZ. Can the gun be trained onto a target and fired when the landing gear is down and Marines are boarding or exiting? Isn't that when the craft is most vulnerable? Well at least the Osprey isn't totally unarmed and helpless.

Back from Iraq

Posted by: Back from Iraq at February 22, 2008 09:47 PM

This system being developed by BAE is what needs to be on the V-22, and particularly AFSOC's CV-22s. It is a 360-degree defensive system that can be retracted and deployed when needed, perfect for infil/exfil operations, of which the CV-22 is going to be used for. The video display is perfect for AFSOC and its mostly night-time missions.

The Osprey is not meant to be a gunship, nor should it be in the future. Better systems (and not to mention cheaper) are available for alternate roles of the AC-130H/U, such as the C-27J. The characteristics of the V-22 (cost, tilt-rotor, size) aren't necessarily a priority in a gunship airframe.

Posted by: Drew at February 22, 2008 07:05 PM

Looks like the Osprey will be converted to a B-17. Why not just install a ball-turret on the belly of the Osprey as well.

Posted by: Paul at February 22, 2008 06:22 PM

I don't know, my question is can it remain deployed and operational ON THE GROUND! When on approch and the crap starts do you have to tuck it away? If it can be tucked why don't they place it in a position that can fire before, during and after drop and take off!

Posted by: 1/4 Scout at February 22, 2008 05:40 PM

"Even that, because we don't do the "We Were Soldiers"/"Blackhawk Down" hot-LZ stuff anymore..."
------------------------------
Maybe the Marines don't...;)

Wonder where they put the ammo can? Inside the already narrow 6' x 6' cabin? But guess the ramp gun gets in the way, too. The ramp gun never seemed a problem enroute since they fly so fast, seems they would fly past the threat before being shot at most of the time.

I just wonder how you sight anything with that thing from 8,000' or low level. Zoom camera attached? FLIR?

Heh Han Solo. Didn't know you hung out here...if you are the S.H. that is.

Posted by: Cole at February 22, 2008 05:23 PM

My bet is none of the USMC versions get anything more then a rear mounted gun.. for a very long time. The main reason for having a gun on the osprey is to protect it in its most vulnerable state.. ie dropping of Marines, and taking off. I guess it does make it a mini gunship that can pick off insurgents and what not.

Posted by: Mike at February 22, 2008 04:54 PM

I love the fact they finally have a defensive weapons system that can cover 360 degrees under the aircraft.

I'm curious how well it could handle the abuse of an AH platform. It's well known the Hind was a tank of an aircraft and could take major punishment. But can the Osprey take any punishment? Don't forget it has yet to be shot at in theater (or at least it hasn't been reported).

Posted by: Jeff at February 22, 2008 04:21 PM

Heh, it looks a bit like the pop-out gun under the Millenium Falcon in the Empire Strikes Back.

Also, I think this was written about in an old Dale Brown novel called "Hammerheads". iirc, that came out about 1990. I'm floored only in that it has taken them so long to arm the Osprey.

IMHO, it took them far too long to arm it. The more they arm it, the better --I think making a AH-22 version should be a top priority. A modern day US-made Hind. Not a bad idea, at all.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at February 22, 2008 03:44 PM

"May have solved the need for a COIN aircraft accidentally."

Wouldn't that be something? Take a helicopter and a turboprop, mush them together, and you get a plane that can drop troops off, pick them up and support them. You might even be able to reload the cannon from the stowed position (but I doubt it).

I'm just floored. The possibilities are endless.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 22, 2008 03:20 PM

@ James, SW:

IIRC, the chin turret idea didn't work out because of weight, space, and aerodynamic issues.

I also vaguely recall something about situational awareness issues: like, the pilot and co-pilot have their hands full, even without a gun station in their laps.

Posted by: demophilus at February 22, 2008 02:53 PM

Hopefully they program it with a limited traverse so you don't shoot the props off the Osprey at certain angles. They should definitely look into mating the 25/30mm chain gun to the belly of the plane and move that GAU up front ala attack helicopter. Or they could just have cutouts/multiple guardian systems like an AC-130. May have solved the need for a COIN aircraft accidentally. Unlike an AC-130, or really any other copter, this could drop a SF team in and provide some serious CAS for the mission.

Posted by: SW at February 22, 2008 02:35 PM

Why not make a gunship Osprey for COIN role?

Posted by: VileFather at February 22, 2008 02:24 PM

i alaways wondered when they designed the osprey why didntthey make the cockpit kinda like the Hind and put a gun up front? weight?

Posted by: James at February 22, 2008 01:49 PM

Oh, my God, it is an AC-22! I have to say, I am rapidly falling in love with the Osprey.

That weapon system is better than conventional door gunners, more accurate and with better avionics. It is a Cobra weapon package mated to a H-46 on steroids with a PCP spritzer.

It still allows ramp-mounted rappel ops, but does use the hellholes.

This deftly destroys the starkest criticism of the V-22, that is unarmed. Even that, because we don't do the "We Were Soldiers"/"Blackhawk Down" hot-LZ stuff anymore, is weak tea. But this gives the Osprey standoff firepower beyond even a whole flight package of 53's and 46's.

Bravo!

Posted by: Vercingetorix at February 22, 2008 01:39 PM

Yep..its just a mater of time before we see the AH-22 attack version with hellfire missiles mounted and a front mounted 30mm gatling gun.

It could handle the AH role as well as have 4 hardpoints to deliver some 500lb'ers as well so it do bombing runes as well and could be known as the AH-B-22.

Posted by: Han Solo at February 22, 2008 01:34 PM

Grandjester...

Speed and agility do have something to do with landing and taking off in a hot LZ, it seems to me. The Osprey (and I'm not rolling off bullet points here, just giving you my impression from riding in it a bunch) can dive into the zone pretty steeply from way up (I am happy to talk to you privately about why they do that), bank hard into the zone, land, and literally POP up off the ground and within a few meters angle steeply (I think it's about 20 degrees but it seems like a lot more) up to gain altitude quickly. Now, I haven't done more than a couple "air assault" type missions with the 53 and 46 (and I've actually never ridden in a 60) and I've never seen performance like that.

Posted by: Christian Lowe at February 22, 2008 10:50 AM

why not convert some of them to gunships like the C-130s ? Hmmmm?

Posted by: AFRet91 at February 22, 2008 10:31 AM

Good. Long overdue.

And Christian (and really, I am NOT trying to bash here) the speed and agility don't really help during landings or in hover, which is where our Blackhawks bought it in Grenada and Somolia (not that the door gunners did much either, obv).

Posted by: Grandjester at February 22, 2008 10:11 AM

Why not arm it with some rocket pods & missile pods on the wing section inboard of the engines OR modify the belly for weapons module
& have 180 arc turret in the nose with 50 cal MG or Bushmaster cannon aside the Belly minigun.
& side door gunner post with dual 50cal MG.

Posted by: stephen russell at February 22, 2008 09:36 AM