You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Osprey ' Peashooter'
2007-10-21
After investing $20 billion over 25 years and losing 30 lives in the development of the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey, the U.S. military might like to think that its long-awaited combat debut would go relatively smoothly. But even as 10 Marine V-22s have just arrived in Iraq, the Air Force — which is buying V-22s for special operations missions — has decided the gun on the marine's version isn't good enough for an aircraft expressly designed to ferry troops into hot landing zones.

The Marines now flying the $120 million aircraft have insisted that the small gun slung from the aircraft's opened rear ramp is adequate for war. That's a claim disputed by retired Marine general James Jones, who ordered a beefed-up, forward-firing gun for the V-22 when he was serving as the Corps' top officer from 1999 to 2003. The requirement evaporated after Jones stepped down as commandant, but the Air Force, which is buying 50 V-22s for the Special Ops command, seems to agree with Jones.
Real Marines don't need all that fancy technology!
"It is critical that the CV-22 possess a self-defense capability that will provide maximum protection from threats in the vicinity of the landing zone," the Special Op Command says in a recent message to contractors seeking an improved gun. Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" — in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun. The special-ops V-22 is slated to enter service in 2009.
Makes it sound like it's a fixed weapon, but hey! It's Time magazine!
This dispute is just the latest chapter in a troubled program begun in 1981 to provide a troop transport for all four military services; the Army dropped out two years later for cost reasons, and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, also citing cost, failed to kill it over objections from Congress — and the Marines. The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Co., was deemed ideal for carrying troops because it can take off and land like a helicopter, then tilt its engines and rotors forward to fly like a turboprop airplane. After three fatal crashes, numerous delays and compromises that some inside the military believe endanger those on board, the 10 V-22s are finally based at al Asad air base in western Iraq (the Marines have clamped down on all information about their operations, but expect a formal Iraqi unveiling of the V-22s soon).

At least one contractor agrees with the Air Force that the interim gun aboard the V-22 is wanting. BAE Systems has been investing in the development of a remotely-aimed gun that could be slung from the V-22's belly and installed starting in about a year, BAE officials say. The gun, which could range in size from 7.62 mm (the size of the current gun) to .50-cal. (the size Jones wanted) would protrude from the V-22's belly, just forward of the swiveling gun. A V-22 crew member located in the passenger compartment would fire the gun, based on the video images displayed, with a hand-held controller. A Pentagon official says this design, while perhaps adequate for special-ops V-22s, wouldn't replace the need for a final weapon for the Marine V-22 that would be integrated into the aircraft's internal electronic and computer systems. The Pentagon is seeking $82 million to develop a permanent gun, on top of the $45 million it already spent trying to meet Jones' requirement for one.
How about a B-24 turrent, with twin-50's?
V-22 pilots like Marine Lieutenant Colonel Anthony "Buddy" Bianca know their aircraft is heading off to war with inadequate firepower. "It says right there in the ORD" -- the Operational Requirements Document specifying what the aircraft must be able to do -- that "the aircraft is supposed to have 360 degrees field of fire with a defensive weapon," says Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22 over the past eight years. "I don't care if its a B-24 turret, you stick it out of a window or you patch it on with bubblegum, but we've got to find a way to do that." Bianca, 40, told TIME that the current rear gun is "not the answer," and that Marines are planning on installing a better gun eventually. He pauses when asked if he thinks the V-22 should be sent to Iraq with the small, ramp-mounted gun as its only weapon. "That question," he says, "is not mine to say."

But as has always been the case in war, the more junior the officer, the less concerned he is about the weapon he is bringing to the fight. The gun doesn't faze Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney from Albany, Georgia, who has spent nearly 200 hours flying the V-22 over the past year. McKinney, 30, and his fellow "Thunder Chickens" of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from Jacksonville, N.C., are now in Iraq. "I think the weapon," he said as he readied for the deployment, "is very sufficient."

Bianca recalls why Jones' original scheme for a bigger gun was scrapped. "It was primarily cost, to be honest with you," he said. "I was in the room when (the contractors) were basically told that `this was our price-tag limits to develop this weapon' and they came back with a price tag and were told, `Well guys, you just designed yourself out of a weapons system.'" The gun's ultimate cost — $1.5 million a copy — ended up being too expensive in the Pentagon's eyes. That price — barely more than 1% of the V-22's current cost — ultimately doomed it, and sent the aircraft to Iraq sporting a weapon some Marines deride as a "peashooter."
Anybody else out there got an opinion? 7.62 mm machine gun? 20 mm vulcan cannon? How about a CIWS?
Posted by:Bobby

#29  Send along an AC-130 for fire suppression

Who needs troops on the ground after Spooky has done some plowing?
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-21 23:39  

#28  I'm with Steve and Old Patriot on this - send fire support along. Heck, that force element should be in the picture anyway.

Was talking to a vets group a few weeks ago, when the TIME cover story was the V-22, and amused them (and myself) recalling how many careers were made in journalism in the 1980s exposing the failure of the Maverick missile system, its cost over-runs, etc. I mentioned that it was unclear whether any Iraqi field commanders from 1991 could be found to confirm that in fact the system didn't work in combat, and also that it appeared the mysterious occurrence of flipped-over, killed Iraqi armor was the result of the Maverick achieving a kinetic kill, and the warhead detonating on the ground, turning the tanks over (naturally, this sorta kinda also validated the guidance system).

Sadly, journalism and scrutiny of many major defense programs haven't mixed well, even though there's a real potential value to it. Sort of the archetypal case of Beltway perfectionism failing in an imperfect yet adequate world. (Now I'm remembering how every Pershing II flight test failure was lovingly and excitedly reported by the press - as though ballistic missiles didn't work, or something. Ridiculous)
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-10-21 23:32  

#27  Send along an AC-130 for fire suppression, and you won't need a weapon aboard the V-22.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-10-21 22:11  

#26  The day is looming when human troops may no longer be needed for OFFENSE either.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-21 20:31  

#25  "Tis what NAPALM, WP, + Baby MOABS, etc, are for. While OSPREYS are around, traditional Helos [Hueys, Commanches, Kiowas, Blackhawks, Apaches]were suppos to be used for armed recon roles prior to the arrival of OSPREYS or heavier follow-on helos. As technology advances and heavier, more capable YTOL/VSTOL. etc. transports are introduced, the OSPREY [gunship -combo version]may take over the armed recon role completely from classic helos. FUTURE BATTLESPACE > Army + DARPA is still evaluating the combat utility of low-orbit armed dirigibles + "Static/floating", maglev/EM-powered multi-weaponed unmanned platforms. ONCE BATTLE GROUND -SPACE IS TAKEN BY THE ARMY-MARINES, ETC. IT STAYS "TAKEN", MAXIMALLY PROTECTED ONLY BY SUPER-DEADLY TECHNOLOGY, NOT BY LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN ARMED TROOPS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-21 20:29  

#24  I think the Chinooks have door guns.
Posted by: Remoteman   2007-10-21 19:44  

#23  I don't seem to recall any weaponry on chinooks etc.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-10-21 19:09  

#22  If the Osprey have to use a gun something got wrong. Gatlings are overrated, slow to max rate of fire and too heavy.
Posted by: Pholugum Stalin1270   2007-10-21 18:49  

#21  Chin turret from an Apache shoudl be all thats needed.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-10-21 17:00  

#20  Just put in a damned laser or maser and be done with it. (Cook-em).
Posted by: 3dc   2007-10-21 16:23  

#19  The Osprey guys are looking at out latest remote weapon station which is extremely light at about 125lbs all in with M240 and 400 rounds of ammo. Probably put it in some kind of mount that can raise and lower as needed. Weight is a huge consideration so most traditional solutions are not going to work, but we (Precision Remotes, Inc.) are here to help!
Posted by: Remoteman   2007-10-21 16:03  

#18  I had the chance to see a V-22 a couple years back. Very impressive, but I don't see how you put a decent gun on this and have it perform its main mission -- moving people and material quickly.

So I'd suggest no gun at all. If you're going into an environment that's even mildly warm, have a F-16 or Harrier along to provide suppression.
Posted by: Steve White   2007-10-21 14:50  

#17  And can you imagine how that airframe would have to be beefed up to handle an effective gun system? That airframe was designed to handle "normal" airframe loads, not the recoil forces of a gun system. I suspect this would void the warranty.....

I would guess that designing a gun that would work, be effective and not take 15 years off of the service lif of the aircraft won't be cheap.
Posted by: Throger Thains8048   2007-10-21 14:05  

#16  How about a B-24 turrent(Turret), with twin-50's?

Actualy a very good idea, make it unmanned, and belly-mount slightly forward of center, short enough to clear the groung when landed(Remember to level the barrels when landing, could be made to auto-level when wheels are deployed)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-10-21 14:02  

#15  Question. How many troop carriers (helo) have anything more that minimum armament? None. Gunships lose most of their capacity to carry troops and sometimes their range due to the weight of their guns, rockets, guidance electronics, ect. Guns vs Troops & supplies. Perhaps that is why we use gunships for support and transports to transport.
Posted by: Throger Thains8048   2007-10-21 13:57  

#14  I'm a big fan of Gatlings on aircraft. Put out as much lead as fast as possible because it's a big, fat stationary target. Ideally a .50cal GAU-19 on a chin turret, though a 7.62mm GAU-2 will do.

The problem with the Osprey is that the door gunner is useless because the big engines get in the line of fire when landing vertically. Ideally, a remote turret would be placed under the chin for best field of fire, but that is precluded by the landing gear. Hard to believe, but no thought was put into arming this combat aircraft.

But the Marines will probably shoehorn a CROWS like remote turret firing 7.62 ($250K, I think). Due to the low ground clearance of the Osprey, I'm sure a few turrets will be crushed on operations.
Posted by: ed   2007-10-21 11:22  

#13  The TIME article allows the unwary to think that all transport aircraft capable of landing in hot areas already have 360 coverage. The implication is that the Osprey has less than is currently available.
If you want 360 coverage, you need a protruding emplacement, like a turret. Even then, you have problems. The tail provides a no-shoot area for the top turret, as do the wings and props. The ball turret has several shsdows, as well.
A small version of the Apache system might work, especially as the props should be rotated out of the way on landing.
The cost???
But, anyway, the TIME article also sllows the unwary to think other systems have come along just dan and finedy, with no problems.

But, hell, it's journalism. What can you expect?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2007-10-21 10:01  

#12  Thomas Woof: I am sorry to report the ChiComs are building plenty of enemy subs for our consideration.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-21 09:26  

#11  That was made tongue-in-cheek; anyway, from what I heard, isn't the main air-to-ground mean of attack of the Osprey crashing unwillingly unto its target, due to mechanical failure?
I sure hope they're ironed out the bugs.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-10-21 09:26  

#10  That's a little too big, A5089.
big gun
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-10-21 09:24  

#9  Can't use a turret or other 360 degree coverage mount because of the huge props. You really don't want to hit one of them, and with all the other risks on that aircraft, you don't really want to trust a timing system that only shoots between the blades.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-10-21 09:19  

#8  Works both ways. The B-29 ended up ditching everything but the tail gun.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-21 09:18  

#7  Actually bigger guns on aircraft are always in demand. In WWII, some of our aircraft started out with very light weaponry and ended up just bristling with the heaviest guns it could manage sticking out every available hole.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-21 09:13  

#6  There was a proposal for an anti-sub variant. Luckily potential enemy subs no longer exist.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-21 09:02  

#5  It won't be long until someone proposes a V-22 gunship - and that would be cool.
Posted by: mrp   2007-10-21 08:54  

#4  I suspect enemy ground fire will be the least of anyone's worries with the Albatross Osprey. Just saying....
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-10-21 08:33  

#3  Gen. Jones sounds like one of those pointy-headed boss types who order massive changes in a project when it's way too late to do anything about it.
Posted by: gromky   2007-10-21 07:12  

#2  Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22

I'd stay damn close to this guy in combat.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-21 06:47  

#1  Anybody else out there got an opinion? 7.62 mm machine gun? 20 mm vulcan cannon? How about a CIWS?

This, of course.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-10-21 06:46  

00:00