I know that Christian loves the Osprey. I know that lots of people love the Osprey. And what’s not to love, right? It’s a plane! It’s a helicopter! It’s a tilt-rotor aircraft! And believe me you, there is nothing worse than having to choose between one or the other and ALWAYS having to have both around. SUCH a drag.) And now it is an armed plane/helicopter! Who says we can’t have it all?
Dave Adamiak of BAE Systems explains more about this new addition to America’s uber-aircraft:
The major factor in determining what weapon with which to fit the Osprey was size limitation, he said.
The entire system needed to fit into two holes in the aircraft’s floor, each known as a “hell hole,” which is used to attach cables to external cargo, such as a Humvee, Adamiak explained.
Weapon systems such as the .50-caliber machine gun were simply too big to fit in the space available, he said.
The weapon system weighs between 700 and 800 pounds, meaning the Osprey will have two to three fewer seats for troops, Adamiak said.
Wait a minute. Where have I heard this before?
That’s when I realized that the Osprey is like the M2 Bradley of the skies.
Did anyone here ever see “The Pentagon Wars”? It was an HBO movie loosely based upon USAF Col. James Burton’s book about his years at the Pentagon in the early 1980s. Although the movie is about the politics of defense acquisitions more generally (from the 1950s onward), it also about the “Bradley Fighting Vehicle” specifically. The Bradley went through many manifestations, starting out as a troop carrier, evolving into a tank, attempting to be amphibious at one point, and ultimately becoming the “fighting vehicle” that we know it as today.
As an aside, lest you think the Pentagon Wars is not worth watching, consider the following:
[Conversation after redesigning the Bradley to carry a gun turret]
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: That’s one hell of a cannon.
Jones: That’s the problem.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: What is?
Jones: You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy’s going to unload on you with everything they got. Might as well put a big red bulls eye on the side.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: But it’s a troop carrier, not a tank.
Jones: Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, “I am a troop carrier, not a tank. Please don’t shoot at me?”
I see a sequel coming.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
And a rather excellent vehicle the Bradley has proven to be eh….
Saw the movie, it was a good one. I was in a Bradley, yuck. I left the Cav right when we were getting them. I was in one at Ft. Knox, didn’t like it. The Army missed the whole point of having a Cav recon vehicle and a troop carrier, they are different. This one size fits all mentality has cost more money then it was supposed to save. Bean counters and REMF’s should not be making these decisions.
As for the MV-22, great concept good aircraft. They need to be product improved. A turret with 360 degree rotation at the bottom with an M-193 20mm gun would be perfect. put it in a position so that it does not interfere with any of the capabilities it already has. To offset this extra weight new engines would be needed, they are needed anyway. Do both at the same time. Get a more efficient engine with more power so that more fuel will not be necessary.
Oh sorry, that makes too much sense so it will never happen. I’m sure they will find a way to screw it up and spend a hundred times more then they had to.
It is hard to “have both around” when you are on a Gator freighter in the Indian Ocean.
I like the idea of the gun: but only if it can be removed and reinstalled quickly.
The key of course is flexibility. It would even be great if they designed extra fuel tanks to go into those spaces, for long operations.
Not to get to far off subject.
For the Gun, one or two can be kept on aircraft, and those planes can be used for insertion operations.
If it takes ten hours to get the guns out, it is a bad system…..
The troop capacity loss is probably due to usable weight considerations. Some bitch about the guns, some bitch about the lack thereof. Pick your bitch. Humvee’s didn’t have remote controlled turrets either. This equipment will be modified to suit the existing and assumed conditions.
There have already been articles about the Users wanting more powerful engines. Of course the whiners bitch what we should have delayed the program until the engines were bigger in the first place (then they would have killed the program for being too expensive).
No red-blooded american boy can resist souping up his ride, especially if it will aid his mission or minimize risk. Get over it.
As for any more growth missions for the Osprey, they are cart-before-the-horse.
USMC is stating the gold plated wonder needs a new power-plant. That will cost some dinero.
Let’s just accept it is a capable system as is and a potentially dynamic system in a few years.
I just think the whole thing should have been left to NASA to develop. The whole aeronautic part of their mission.
Let the marines stick to trying to define their mission in a post airborne, SEALS, etc world.
Harping on how they squandered their budget on some niche airborne platforms (H-1 at 50 anyone), insisted for YEARS that the M-1 tank was not compatible with the marine corps mission, and how every marine is special enough to ride the short bus but not special enough to be part of SOCCOM, will only make that force look myopic and defensive.
Why is it that the ARMY, NAVY, COAST GUARD and AIR FORCE can use the H-60 for transport, gunship, and SAR mission and the marines need their own independently designed, and funded platform?
I guess for the same reason that Marine officers need their own seperate hat covers.
Something to do with tradition costing more than utility and common sense.
Oh, goody, Carissa is a KosKid…
http://www.militaryspousesforchange.com/Links.html
And she is in bed with the Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW), the new “Winter Soldiers”…
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164272,00.html
Interesting that her expertise extends to operational experience…
Anyways, messenger shot and all, let us move on.
Make this simple for y’all. Look up the concept of Sea-basing (here’s a good place to start: http://www.globalsecurity.org/). The quick concept is that speed kills. Being able to – follow me here, my little puppies – deploy from further out with a faster platform to locations further inland gives us, what again?
That’s right, SPEED. That means we can respond anywhere in the world with more forces in less time. That means we can quickly oppose enemy action, which is itself a deterrent to conflict.
The helicopter isn’t going anywhere, the Corps will still have them, but now we also have a high intensity platform to move troops from safe locations (past the kill envelopes of anti-shipping missiles and mines) into the enemy rear.
I expect the lame-o stuff from Carissa, who’s moonlighting with the alternate-reality crowd. The rest of you need to put on your boots.
Christian, can we get a disclaimer on this chick?
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=454
She is a Democrat working for several democratic leaning, if not actual party organs. And has worked for the presidential campaign of one Joseph Biden (Windbag, Delaware).
Kinda ruins her “nonpartisan” objective bona fides, does it not? Or is DefenseTech turning into another partisan circle-jerk like it was under Shacthman?
Alright, I generally don’t care as long as the posts are interesting. But a defense technology blog written by a political activist is a little much…
As my own disclaimer, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the Osprey. I was just immediately struck by the parallels in the process of developing these items. My own husband, who is a blackhawk pilot, says that tilt-rotor aircrafts are the future of aviation. In fact, I used the wrong quote from the movie. What I should have used was this:
[the generals want to add a rapid-fire cannon to the Bradley]
Jones: Where am I supposed to put the extra ammo?
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: I don’t know.
Jones: You’ve already got 30,000 rounds of machine gun ammunition, now he wants to add 30-millimeter shells?
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: The general wants his ammo.
Jones: He can’t have his ammo, not unless he runs alongside this thing carrying it.
The blog was meant to be humorous, not an attack on the Osprey or the Bradley.
Some of you guys need to lighten up….So Ms Picard poked a little fun at us…Give the woman a break..
If you can’t see the humor and laugh at our selves now and then….
So she is an activist…aren’t we all in one way or another.
RMH
Allowing a partisan activist to post here undermines the credibility of the site.
I, for one, don’t see what qualifies her to be posting in the first place. Being someone’s wife is not a credential.
Furthermore, the liberal interest groups involved in defense are generally critical if defense systems and spending. They only want more spending for token items they can make a political issue out of, like MRAPS and body armor.
Now, contrast this with the reader base of defensetech, which is overwhelmingly PRO-defense tech. In sure Christians posts are better received because he keeps an open mind and gives the topic a chance instead of coming into it with an agenda. Take his F-22 reporting for example.
Criticism of certain programs might be warranted in some cases, but excessively negative views such as those expressed by liberal defense spending ‘watchdogs’ who have been attacking the Osprey since day 1 do nothing but turn off your readers.
Defensetech has been criticized for liberal bias before, and appeared to be paying attention to that criticism, but inviting a partisan activist to post is a new low.
Finally, here are some other reasons this post is bad:
(1) It is rehashing an issue that has already been posted on. Adding a gun to the osprey is not news.
(2) It is an opinion without any real news hook.
(3) The REAL point of this post is to promote and push a movie, and the movie is quite frankly a full blown criticism of the defense department and the supposed scandals surrounding the Bradley procurement. It is a movie any person who is already biased against defense spending and thinks it ought to be cut, like ‘watchdog’ liberal groups, love.
But I don’t think Defensetech readers share those sentiments. Outside of a small number of liberal defense-spending-hating activists, most people interested in “defense tech” actually like it and would be happy to see even more money spent on it.
Finally, the quoted scene was idiotic. The idea that an enemy will aggressively attack an armored vehicle with a big gun, but leave one with a small gun alone, is beyond idiotic. That kind of nonsense is something only a hollywood writer could come up with, and even then, only while high.
The link to her diary, provided below, goes into detail explaining her role in Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, and her support of Biden.
It includes a some out-of-mainstream anti-war comments like: “In 2008, this nation could elect a widow-maker or a peace-maker. I do not mean this figuratively.”
Thing is, I really don’t see what her posts will bring to this site except the taint of partisanship. Opinion-heavy posts coming from a partisan source is just asking to inject politics into a site that isn’t supposed to be a partisan battleground.
And yes, “the pentagon wars” paints a very exaggerated, untrue picture of the Pentagon and the acquisition process. It might not be perfect, but that movie exaggerates things to an absurd, and ugly degree. If you really believed the movie was remotely accurate, you’d have no choice but to believe defense spending is largely wasted, which is the effect the people who made the movie were going for.
And if they got their way, there wouldn’t really be anything for this site to write about.
Kaltes
“I really don’t see what her posts will bring to this site except the taint of partisanship. Opinion-heavy posts coming from a partisan source is just asking to inject politics into a site that isn’t supposed to be a partisan battleground”
“Allowing a partisan activist to post here undermines the credibility of the site.”
And your Point is What? With your Responses I’d say You bring the Partisanship, instead of just posting your thoughts and oppinion of the issue!
You’re showing your lack of a free open critical thinking mind by following the shrinking herd of others ideologies, not yours!
Ah so it turns out this story was by some rabid Kos Klown, grow up Defence Tech your readers won’t buy this naustiating moaning especially if it comes from an anti military,pro dictator Kos kid. /Fail/
Let’s consider two things:
A. The diary
B. The comments
The diary takes a look at a very mechanically troubled piece of equipment and finds those problems to be crippeling. So do lots of rather important folks like the pilots, the Generals responsible for making decisions about what works and what is worthwhile for armament, and the Congress who has to authorize much, much more money to pay for it.
The comments would have you believe that a political agenda is all that is being expressed. Funny, the only political comments I see being made are by the commentors.
Why don’t all you pissing and moaning SOB’s shut your collective suckholes.
This a blog intended to promulgate an exchange of thoughts and ideas, not a platform to attempt to discredit the editor of said blog, or cry in you beer about your worthless lives and opinions.
Use this form of communication for what it was intended for, or do not read/post.
As far as all this “Liberal” crap, get over it!
After thirty (30) years in the Corps, I’ve seen better pissing in the wind.
Semper Fi,
Maddog
So Vercingetorix and the rest who have something smart to say , are we evaluating the writer or the writing? In my book, she has made a pretty good evaluation of a vehicle that has many drawbacks. It doesnt matter where else she blogs or what she’s doing with other organizations, what matters is that she writes a blog that everyone can talk about and debate. Its obvious that she can do that. You might want to take a step back my friend before you start flapping your gums. Just because everyone doesn’t see things your way, doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Maybe its YOU. As far as being an activist, we all should be if we care about our country and our military. When you see things going wrong, you can look the other way or you can stand up on your two feet and stop the bullshit. In my opinion, she is willing to do that. ARE YOU? Or are you gonna continue to let our military be taken advantage of? Im no fool…
“Why don’t all you pissing and moaning SOB’s shut your collective suckholes.
This a blog intended to promulgate an exchange of thoughts and ideas, not a platform to attempt to discredit the editor of said blog, or cry in you beer about your worthless lives and opinions.
Use this form of communication for what it was intended for, or do not read/post.
As far as all this “Liberal” crap, get over it!
After thirty (30) years in the Corps, I’ve seen better pissing in the wind.
Semper Fi,
Pigdog”
Way to have an E-tantrum douche.
Interesting to see how many posters here only want input from one side.
That’s a great way to learn new things. The Bradley and the Osprey both have had serious issues raised about them. Apparently one must be a certified member of a right wing group to comment on those matters, at least here.
Picards presence does not discredit this fine group. Those who want to bar the participation of anyone they don’t agree with will surely erode the usefulness of this forum.
No Politics on defensetech? There’s this thing called an “Archive.” Look it up. Use it. I did, and lookie what I found–a political post! From Sept 26, 2007:
“First USS Iowa. Then high school ROTC. Then the Blue Angels. Now the US Marine Corp. How much more dis’in can the US Military take from the city and ‘burbs by the bay?”
Sure sounded political to me!
“The weapon system weighs between 700 and 800 pounds, meaning the Osprey will have two to three fewer seats for troops, Adamiak said.”-
Better carry two less soldiers and have the rest live, than have those two soldiers and the rest of the crew die because the Osprey was unarmed. What a completely idiotic piece.
If it wasent for this gun, the Osprey would be unarmed.
“”First USS Iowa. Then high school ROTC. Then the Blue Angels. Now the US Marine Corp. How much more dis’in can the US Military take from the city and ‘burbs by the bay?”
Sure sounded political to me!”
If a municipality tries to expel the US military, that is news. If you agree with San Fran, play in traffic.
Great, now we get to have crazy “Winter Soldier” types writing pseudo-articles with no factual content. Anyone want to bet when the first Truther gets invited to spew here? I’m sure I could find one who writes more interesting idiocy.
“The enemy prefers damaged Americans to dead Americas. We have to pay for the wounded. Correction: we bloody well owe it to them. We tend to fall short. I see different numbers floated but when you count maimed and traumatized soldiers, you’re looking at, what, about 75,000 Americans lingering in purgatory? And we CANNOT leave these people behind”
Are you somewhat retarded sir? You honestly think Jihad Joe and his pals would rather see 100000 dead American soldiers or the same number just wounded? Dinlow.
Jimbo–
I am not retarded & yes, I believe that the enemy would rather bleed us out by placing us in a position where we are either forced to pay for our wounded (economic cost) or abandon them (political cost viz. media scrutiny).
The grunts doing the killing, well, they might not discriminate so much. But the baddies doing (much) of the planning, they are figuring in dollars and cents.
The grunts are fighting like grunts anywhere. They’re mad. They’re out for any blood they can get. The folks in charge, they’d rather force the US into an economic/political crisis.
Some of them, anyway. Some of these folks just want us to leave. Some want to exterminate American culture. The easiest way to do that, given the resources at their command & our weaknesses, is to destroy & damage equipment, logistics & bases & leave heaps of wounded who we can either take spend money on or abandon.
Al-Queda & its offspring are not run by stupid people. Evil people, but not stupid people. And given that this has clearly been a war of attrition directed at the US economy, I suspect I am right regarding intent re. enemy command level strategy, at least where the most extreme extra-national extremist groups are concerned.
Incidentally, I agree with Tal (I believe I mentioned it, but it was a long rant) re. the benefits of trading off a bit off troop capacity for vehicle survivability. I’d be curious as to what they eventually load the Osprey with as far as ordnance goes. Most folks here could make a better guess then me on this point.
“I am not retarded & yes, I believe that the enemy would rather bleed us out by placing us in a position where we are either forced to pay for our wounded (economic cost) or abandon them (political cost viz. media scrutiny).”
Well, you’re very, very wrong on that. Wounding a US soldier gets the terrorists almost nothing. The excellent medical facilities available to the US military are getting many wounded soldiers back in the fight, and those who can no longer fight nonetheless remain uncounted in the almighty “death toll” that the media likes to hype so much.
If you think that the US military will ever “abandon” its wounded, you’re kidding yourself. The cost is a PITTANCE compared to our overall defense budget. The enemy will never get anywhere trying to wage ‘economic’ war on the US military because our resources are bottomless compared to theirs.
Killing soldiers, a body count, and the free anti-war media propaganda that brings, is vastly more important to the terrorists than hoping they inflict a dreaded… HOSPITAL BILL.. on US taxpayers.
My personal favorite is the user interface which includes a hand-held controller that resembles an X-box or Playstation game controller. Take a closer look at the Remote Guardian System in action at the following link >
http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/video/mdm_symposium.htm
MV-22 7.62mm GAU-17 minigun
My personal favorite is the user interface which includes a hand-held controller that resembles an X-box or Playstation game controller. Take a closer look at the Remote Guardian System in action at the following link >
http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/video/mdm_symposium.htm
MV-22 7.62mm GAU-17 minigun
Kaltes–
Thank for for your civility.
I still disagree. We have excellent field medicine. KIA/MIA is about 1:15 last time I looked.
But we have to KEEP paying for the wounded. I WANT US TO KEEP PAYING FOR OUR WOUNDED. THEY DESERVE NOTHING LESS.
But it’s still a strategy the enemy can exploit.
Wounded men cost a lot of money.
The question should be how do we define a concrete objective using reasonable assets & execute & exit with reasonable costs in terms of life & assets.
The enemy will always try to bog us down, both physically & at home, by forcing our hand politically and economically, by forcing us to keep the bleeding alive. It costs us in other ways, by ripples. They know it. I’m not sure our leaders do.
It’s a devil’s deal. I’m open to suggestions.
With respect,
-G
I was always surprised that they never tried to mount tilt rotors on the Bradley.