Posted on 12/12/2007 6:49:58 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps’ MV-22 Osprey might be getting more firepower.
The aircraft, which is currently making its combat-zone debut in Iraq, has the ability to hover like a helicopter and fly like a fixed-wing aircraft. It is meant to replace CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, the Corps’ aging workhorse.
Ospreys come equipped with a gun at the ramp in the rear of the aircraft, but they might also get a gun with a 360-degree field of fire, said Marine Lt. Gen. John G. Castellaw.
“One of the options would be to install within what we call the ‘hell-hole’ — but that, that’s where the cargo hook is — a gun in there that would have the ability to shoot 360,” said Castellaw, deputy commandant for programs and resources.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Castellaw said the Osprey has significant advantages over the Sea Knight, most notably its speed and ability to climb rapidly, which means it requires less in the way of defensive systems.
“I told you I’m a -46 pilot; you know, the reason, the main reason I got .50 cals that are on either side (of the CH-46) is when I go into the zone, because I’m so slow and my acceleration rate is just a little bit better than a Volkswagen, then I want something that’s going to keep their heads down until I get enough speed and get away from there,” he said.
Not only can Ospreys get out of the path of the bullet quicker, but they are also built to take hits, Castellaw said.
Another advantage Ospreys have over Sea Knights is they can carry troops at 13,000 feet, which is out of range of most anti-aircraft artillery and missiles, he said.
Asked how well the Osprey is performing in Iraq, Castellaw said the aircraft is performing well, but he did not elaborate.
“It means it does well,” he said. “It does the mission that it was sent to do. It carries troops, it carries things, it goes where it needs to go, and it does it with a readiness rate that it allows it to sustain those operations.”
It seems like the gun would be able to fire right through the props though.
Should be simple to detect when the bullets would hit a spinning blade and when it would pass through.
Rate of fire would slow down when going through the props though...or at least be a bit irregular.
That’s very interesting. I’d say next they should make a smaller version that holds somwhere around the neighborhood of one passenger max. THen make the turret remote controlled by the driver so that the whole vehicle and weapons can be operated by one person in a pinch.
Maybe something about the size of a british “ferret” armored car.
Also, replace the dual 50 cal guns with a modern gatling gun.
Just how controllable are helicopters when they are hit by anti-aircraft fire or any type of missle? Remember, you didn’t say small arms fire. AA and missles are an entirely different game.
The standard MP crew is a 3 soldier team. I think anything less than that seriously degrades the ability for continuous ops...even if nothing is happening, you're looking at 12 hour shifts just for radio watch...add in vehicle maintenance and mission, and three is about the minimum crew you'd want to start out with.
"Also, replace the dual 50 cal guns with a modern gatling gun."
Actually the ASV's turret has one .50 and one 40mm MK19 automatic grenade launcher. IMHO a better tactical mix than just a vulcan that eats ammo faster than logistics trains can supply it.
The utilitarian fuctionalism and rugged design of the equipment is something we do not see often in military equipment these days. Everything about a B-17 was overdesigned. They were rugged.
A turret like that on a osprey with twin 50 cals would be awesome. Or even twin miniguns.
Two Ospreys could generate enough suppressive fire to land troops in the middle of a firefight if necessary, or land in the middle of a fire fight to extract troops.
I hope they go with it.
You know, I have an M42 paratrooper's top...it's as functional and every bit as rugged as anything I was issued 50 years later (although I think the Gore-Tex ECWCs will also go down as a military classic). I also think the M1 carbine is extremely under-rated for what it represented in the way of weapon design...
Bump
It can be synchronized, and would be especially easy with turboprops that turn at a constant rpm (blade pitch changes speed). However, the changing geometry of the nacelle/blade position would necessitate a special setup. Beyond my pea-brain but I guess those geniuses at Crane could pull it off.
I’m always polite to those who deserve politeness.
“I’d say next they should make a smaller version that holds somwhere around the neighborhood of one passenger max. THen make the turret remote controlled by the driver so that...”
What about getting rid of those big props & replacing them with A-10 engines? Maybe add some of the armor and that gun too. Sort of an A-10/Osprey hybrid. Imagine seeing that hovering between 2 buildings in Baghdad.
I know that I would sure be scared if I had to make the system work....this plane seems a bit flakey to start with even without shooting through the props.
All very well and good as long as it can differentiate between egressing and ingressing troops, and the enemy. Otherwise I think our guys would prefer to have one of their own in control of the Braaaapp.
All technology leaps that fly have their mis-steps and problems. Not much room for error. However, I spent much of my early life around naval aviation and still have family in the biz/service. I have the utmost trust and faith in those who practice this dark art. If they say this airframe is gonna work, I believe them.
But fire control has to catch up with ordnance, like phalax style guns on the battlefield. We have the tech to do it, its just not been fielded. Imagine an Osprey like A/C. with a couple of automated 360 degree turrets under it , each with a pahlax style gun? Tangos would become very scarce, very quickly.Those kind of guns could shoot rpgs right out of the air, back track the trajectory and wipe out the enemy , all in about 12 seconds. Its the same tracking tech used for missile intercepts that the military has developed.
The tech on the battlefield is about to take a quantum leap. All we need is the right president, and that be Duncan Hunter.
Is that a B-17 ball turret?
Not this old fashion thing again.
My brother the Marine, hates these things. He knew several good marines who died in crashes because these things were supposedly ready to go. I am not going to be impressed very easy by these things.
I believe the article states that they need the weapons when taking off and landing.
If such is being done in Vertical Lift, the props are out of the way.
That only leaves the landing gear, and even so, would still allow a large radius circle of ground coverage.
It just amazes me that with all of the advanced aircraft we have in this day and age that we have nothing better than the Osprey, which will probably be obsolete in ten years anyway, to bring our troops in by air.
From what the pilot is saying a souped up/modified, Harrier type troop transport would be better than the Osprey, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.