I know there’s some debate around these parts on whether or not the Osprey is combat effective with or without a defensive weapon.
We all know the MV-22 has a ramp-mounted gun pointing aft, which gives the plane very little in the way of fire supression in a hot LZ (that is, if the gun works. On my last flight on the Osprey in Iraq one of the planes’ guns malfunctioned)…
My impression from flying around in several Ospreys in Iraq is that the speed and agility make up for a lack of defensive firepower…you don’t see a door gun on a C-130 do you? But I can still understand why the SOF community wants a little more bang bang given its mission. And it seems to me that if you can then why don’t you put a lead-spitting gatling gun on the darn thing. Better safe than sorry, I say.
So BAE Systems has been working with the SOF CV-22 folks to design a defensive weapon that sits under the Osprey’s belly and can swing 360 degrees for covering fire. They just sent me a release yesterday that showed the company is well on its way to flight testing the gun, a modified GAU-2B minigun. It’s an version of the company’s Remote Guardian system which is intended for a variety of rotary aircraft in the US inventory.
I know our friends at Aviation Week reported the official “unveiling” of the system last fall at Modern Day Marine, but this marks the first time the system has been installed on an actual plane, readying it for the first test flight and aerial fire…
(PHOTO: BAE Systems)
– Christian
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.
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).
why not convert some of them to gunships like the C-130s ? Hmmmm?
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.
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.
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!
Why not make a gunship Osprey for COIN role?
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.
@ 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.
“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.
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.
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).
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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just paint a big red ‘cross’ on the side of it. That’ll keep it safe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It has an xbox controller for the gunner
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Jim– re your 25 Feb reply: Thanks for answering my comment. I was thinking in terms of helo speeds.