Article

2007-10-21 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2007-10-21 06:09|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 06:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 06:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 07:12|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 08:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 08:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 09:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 09:13|| Front Page Top

#8 Works both ways. The B-29 ended up ditching everything but the tail gun.

Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-10-21 09:18|| 2007-10-21 09:18|| Front Page Top

#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">Glenmore 2007-10-21 09:19|| 2007-10-21 09:19|| Front Page Top

#10 That's a little too big, A5089.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-10-21 09:24|| 2007-10-21 09:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 09:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 09:26|| Front Page Top

#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">Richard Aubrey 2007-10-21 10:01|| 2007-10-21 10:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 11:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 13:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 14:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 14:05|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White 2007-10-21 14:50|| 2007-10-21 14:50|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 16:03|| Front Page Top

#20 Just put in a damned laser or maser and be done with it. (Cook-em).

Posted by 3dc 2007-10-21 16:23|| 2007-10-21 16:23|| Front Page Top

#21 Chin turret from an Apache shoudl be all thats needed.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-21 17:00|| 2007-10-21 17:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 18:49|| Front Page Top

#23 I don't seem to recall any weaponry on chinooks etc.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2007-10-21 19:09|| 2007-10-21 19:09|| Front Page Top

#24 I think the Chinooks have door guns.

Posted by Remoteman 2007-10-21 19:44|| 2007-10-21 19:44|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 20:29|| Front Page Top

#26 The day is looming when human troops may no longer be needed for OFFENSE either.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-21 20:31|| 2007-10-21 20:31|| Front Page Top

#27 Send along an AC-130 for fire suppression, and you won't need a weapon aboard the V-22.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-10-21 22:11|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-10-21 22:11|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-10-21 23:32|| Front Page Top

#29 Send along an AC-130 for fire suppression

Who needs troops on the ground after Spooky has done some plowing?

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-10-21 23:39|| 2007-10-21 23:39|| Front Page Top

23:51 Old Patriot
23:47 twobyfour
23:43 Zenster
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:39 Zenster
23:32 Verlaine
23:23 Eric Jablow
23:19 Verlaine
23:17 Zenster
23:12 Zenster
23:10 Abu Uluque6305
22:59 Zenster
22:58 Seafarious
22:52 gorb
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 Barbara Skolaut
22:47 Zenster
22:42 Zenster
22:38 Zenster
22:32 trailing wife
22:31 Zenster
22:30 trailing wife
22:29 Zenster
22:29 Old Patriot