Comments on: Osprey Gets Its Gun

By: Pete Sheppard

Pete Sheppard — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:42:00 +0000

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

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:09 +0000

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.

By: Raymond R Roughton III

Raymond R Roughton III — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:05:26 +0000

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

By: steve

steve — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:36:34 +0000

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.

By: SSG Yankee Medic

SSG Yankee Medic — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:00:03 +0000

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.

By: Robert Pratt

Robert Pratt — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:41:25 +0000

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 Some suppression capability is going to be required from time to time, whether from outdated or bad intelligence, bad directions, forced downs possibly due to mechanical or weather problems.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.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:10:42 +0000

It has an xbox controller for the gunner

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:30:41 +0000

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.

By: Superdart

Superdart — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:01:47 +0000

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.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:39:24 +0000

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.