Sorry folks, been on vacation with my family for a few days, but back up now…
On Friday I attended a press conference at the Pentagon — I called it an end zone dance — where the Marine Corps talked about its successful deployment to Iraq with its first Osprey squadron.
They’ve already replaced the VMM-263 with another squadron and the press conference — which surprisingly lasted about an hour — was pretty standard stuff.
One thing that the Corps’ chief of aviation Lt. Gen. George Trautman said was that the service “had an all-aspect, all-quadrant weapon system” on the Osprey “since the very beginning.”
“The reason we don’t have an all-aspect gun on this platform is because it’s hard to do. Okay? So it’s more than just weight with regard to the chin gun.
“I’ve got a lot of time flying Cobras, and the Cobra is the only helicopter in the Marine Corps that has a forward-firing gun. It is not an easy proposition, even in the Cobra.
Well, SOCOM said the same thing, and it looks like they’re getting what they want. BAE Systems has developed an underbelly gun for the spec ops version of the Osprey. And though some claim the mechanism makes the V-22s cargo cabin tighter, Trautman had positive things to say about the design and its ability to track the entire circumference of flight.
“The system that we’re looking at now, with the Special Operations Command, is an all-aspect weapon that would be mounted in the belly of the aircraft.
“I actually have a better degree of confidence about this than I’ve had about any other approach that we’ve taken. And if it comes out the way that we hope that it will come out — and I actually have some degree of confidence that it will — Special Operations Command will have this all-aspect weapon mounted, and they intend to deploy with it early in the fall.
And that brings up another interesting point…So is AFSoc going to deploy with the Osprey in the Fall of ’08? There’s some rumor that SOCOM wants to deploy with the bird early, so was Trautman showing SOCOM’s hand?
We can rehash the whole argument over why the Corps left an all-aspect gun out of their current design, but in the end, it sure goes against the Marines’ culture to leave one off. As VMM-263 CO Lt. Col. Paul Rock said:
“Well, I mean, never ask a Marine if you wouldn’t want more guns on his airplane. I mean, you know, that’s kind of, I mean, more guns is good.“
– Christian
The OV-10 Bronco would have made an excellent escort aircraft for the Marine’s V-22,but we sold them all to South America(especially Venezuela).So now we have to reinvent the wheel.….again.We also got rid of excellent COIN aircraft like the OV-1 Mohawk & the OA-37 Dragonfly(again,all sold to South America),so now we are re-inventing the wheel with arguments over buying the Super Tucano,among other choices,for COIN Aircraft.I’m really trying to understand this CHILDISH “breaking toys to get new toys ” mentality,but it is totally senseless(& immature).So now,because the Marines don’t want to arm their V-22s with something else besides a gun in the tail ramp that you can only shoot if the ramp is down & doesn’t do s**t for any possible frontal attacks against the V-22.So now we have to “re-invent” the wheel & spend billions of dollars on what we already had(& plenty of),but got rid of.
Exactly right Roy. Both the Bronco and Mohawk would be the powerful, proven complement to the Osprey. IIRC a few years ago the Marines were considering a buy-back of Broncos presently used by fire fighting outfits. Marsh Aviation in AZ rings a bell for some reason. I wonder what happened?
They can use the Boeing X-50 CR/W Dragonfly that is a hybrid helo that can match/exceed the Osprey’s speed even in airplane mode.
On the subject of COIN Aircraft what about the T-6B? Common supply chain with the T-6A and ease of transition plus relatively low cost.
Maybe in the short term,just one or two Ospreys per squadron dedicated to being an armed escort only would help the Marines.I thought maybe they were considering the BA609 Tiltrotor for armed escort,whatever happened with that proposal? Maybe even the unmanned Bell Helicopter Eagle Eye UAS could be armed & provide armed escort for the Osprey(greatly pleasing the UAV/UCAV crowd).
Exactly why do we need armed escorts attached to an Osprey flight? We can fill the sky with unattached escorts and have them on call to drop munitions. We don’t have Apaches patrolling directly above our ground troops, they play zone defense.
If there was a problem with anti-air threats, maybe you would need a dedicated escort (but the OV-10/T-6 etc wouldn’t cut it). It’s not like the Osprey is vulnerable to other helicopters (it can outfly them), or airpower (we have fighters for that).
The only direct threat to the Osprey is ground-based SAM/AAA/manpads, and the Osprey already can counter that with altitude and speed (plus Air Launched Expendables: chaff and flares). This computer-aided gun system will work just fine (better than side gunners, due to speed and altitude effects on ballistics). And if it is going into a very hostile environment, other aviation assets will be able to respond to clear the path.
I think this escort ‘question’ is a bit of a red herring.
Good… as long as the engines don’t wear out too fast.
Why do they need gunships attached to an Osprey flight? Why not? Its been proven time and again that having 360 degree supressive fire during troop embarkment/disembarkment improves aircraft and troop survival in the event of a hot LZ. As has been pointed out with the osprey, Helis can’t keep up during a fast deployment, or the osprey has to slow down, so having a gunship platform with the same capabilities as your troop transport makes sense.
Not to mention that having the capability when you need it is good, but not having the capability when you need it sucks.
“Exactly why do we need armed escorts attached to an Osprey flight? We can fill the sky with unattached escorts and have them on call to drop munitions. We don’t have Apaches patrolling directly above our ground troops, they play zone defense.“
You’re wrong there. Both the Army and Marines use their Apaches and Cobras as escorts. It’s been that way since Vietnam.
“If there was a problem with anti-air threats, maybe you would need a dedicated escort (but the OV-10/T-6 etc wouldn’t cut it). It’s not like the Osprey is vulnerable to other helicopters (it can outfly them), or airpower (we have fighters for that).“
It’s not an air-to-air threat that warrants an Osprey escort, it’s all those pesky ZPU’s and similar weapons that are notoriously able to evade detection by fast movers. Read “Not A Good Day to Die” by Sean Naylor to see how concerned were the Operation Anaconda planners over such low-tech threats.
“The only direct threat to the Osprey is ground-based SAM/AAA/manpads, and the Osprey already can counter that with altitude and speed (plus Air Launched Expendables: chaff and flares). This computer-aided gun system will work just fine (better than side gunners, due to speed and altitude effects on ballistics). And if it is going into a very hostile environment, other aviation assets will be able to respond to clear the path.“
The Osprey’s altitude and speed only defend it in transit. When it gets to the LZ, it’s low and slow just like any other helo. That’s why it needs an escort with similar performance, to keep up with the troop ships on the way to the target. Once again citing Naylor’s book, never EVER rely on non-organic assets to support you when you really need it. There were B-1’s and AC-130’s tasked to support what eventually became the Battle of Takur Gar (aka Roberts’ Ridge). But when needed most, they weren’t able to deliver for a number of reasons.
“I think this escort ‘question’ is a bit of a red herring.“
You’re wrong.
Well, justbill, let’s break this down:
“Both the Army and Marines use their Apaches and Cobras as escorts. It’s been that way since Vietnam.“
We will still use Cobras and Apaches as escorts but they don’t have to be attached. They can fly the route beforehand, enter their attack points and stack up along key points of the route. But they don’t have to be attached as part of the flight package. JDAMs work as well as rockets (better actually), so having a direct escort isn’t necessary if you have overhead support.
“t’s not an air-to-air threat that warrants an Osprey escort, it’s all those pesky ZPU’s and similar weapons that are notoriously able to evade detection by fast movers. “
Those weapons are precisely the ones that are minimized by the Osprey’s speed and altitude. Helicopters travel slow and low, and can be in a kill zone long enough to be vulnerable (and to small arms too). The Osprey can avoid the effective envelope of those weapons.
“The Osprey’s altitude and speed only defend it in transit. When it gets to the LZ, it’s low and slow just like any other helo. That’s why it needs an escort with similar performance, to keep up with the troop ships on the way to the target.“
No. The escorts can be placed on station. That in fact is how even attached escorts work: they stay with the package until they enter the area, then they leave the package to provide support both for the package and the disembarking ground troops in APs (Attack Positions). And the Osprey doesn’t really go slow and low, it can drop down and jump right back up: it is very powerful.
Using Cobras and Apaches together with this gun and airpower, you don’t need a gunship on steroids to trail it. And before you get all ‘read-this’, read-that on me, I do have some teensy-weensy little experience with Marine Corps aviation. And asserting “you’re wrong”, while cute, doesn’t mean jack to anyone. Argue the facts, chief.
Brad,
First off, I’m not being cutsy when I say you’re wrong. If you’re not willing to study military history germane to the subject, that’s your problem.
If you are as experienced in USMC aviation as you say, you should easily understand why the Osprey is most vulnerable when slowing enough to offload troops. Just like a helo. From what I’ve read the ZPU family and ZU-23 are effective to about 5000 feet. While it is a Ferrari compared to a CH-46, an Osprey will spend quite a while in that envelope prior to debarking its troops.
“The escorts can be placed on station. That in fact is how even attached escorts work: they stay with the package until they enter the area, then they leave the package to provide support both for the package and the disembarking ground troops in APs (Attack Positions).“
You do understand this doesn’t support your argument, don’t you? An escort has to have the performance to “…stay with the package…” in the first place. Neither Apaches nor Cobras can do that. A fixed-wing turboprop can.
justbill, the ZPUs, if effective to 5000 ft, will be hard pressed to hit a target that is half-mile away and above the cloud cover (say another 2500 ft); just elementary trig. Add in speed and the lead time makes an effective shot very difficult, even on a whole package.
And the vulnerabilities of helos/tiltrotors AT INSERTION is a whole other animal than needing an attached escort. An escort that is attached to the package. How clear is that?
If the point of vulnerability is at insertion, escort/defend them at insertion. If the Osprey can evade most threats before insertion, it doesn’t need an attached escort.
There are great reasons to bring back an Skyraider or OV-10, etc, etc, and I would love to see an armed tiltrotor gunship, but needing a chaperone isn’t the huge barrier you fellows seem to be making out of it.
Btw, the belly gun with fire control system, given all aspect capability, with up to 10–12 Ospreys (ie a dozen guns, or six GAUs per side) in a strike package is itself a powerful capability. 3000 rds per minute, 7.62mm (http://www.dillonaero.com/content/p/9/pid/1/catid/1/Standard_M134D),
it will likely be shoot ZPUs before ZPUs hit them, further out and more accurately.
just bill,
“First off, I’m not being cutsy when I say you’re wrong. If you’re not willing to study military history germane to the subject, that’s your problem. “
Indeed you are not being cutsy. You are being uncivil. What was does not always have to be regarding history.
Umm, this might be a dumb question, but does this new gun system work ‘all-aspect’ when the gear is down? If you’re slowing down on final approach to an LZ, I assume the gear is down and blocking a pretty big chunk of that 360 degrees. Granted, the mighty MH-53 had some blind spots for it’s three guns, but not like what I’m seeing with this system…
“Umm, this might be a dumb question, but does this new gun system work ‘all-aspect’ when the gear is down?“
uh-oh.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/traumahawk/1857290738/
No, it probably wouldn’t. The gun would presumeably have a fail-safe to stop firing in significant arcs around the helicopter. These blindspots are common to many aircraft, of course (the H-46 being fairly limited).
The other question is how low to the ground is that cannon. It is directly underneath the fuselage and difficult to see either for pilots or crew. I cannot count how many times planes have gone out and come back with holes in the bottom (often small), where pilots set down on a rock, small tree, or surveying stake, whatever, that they simply could not see.
If they have to retract that cannon on landing, which almost seems likely, that appears to be one hell of a problem. Note that the pic shown of the cannon does NOT show the landing gear down for comparison.
Perhaps its not meant to be used during landing? As much as it might be a good way to get boots on the ground, landing ALL your aircraft at once may not be a good idea. Instead keep half the Ospreys orbiting with guns deployed while the other half set down and unload, then once those are back in the air, set down the other half and unload. Or “fast rope” your troops out like they did in Mogadishu…then you have that gun handy in a 270 arc (giving you a 90 degree safe zone for your fast ropers. The other side would be covered by another osprey doing the same thing.
There are ways to make it work…but there has to be better options for a defensive/offensive rig that can keep up with the Ospreys when deploying. After all, if you don’t have your gunships pre stationed, your ospreys are going to out run their airsupport on the way to a target, and some times you don’t have the time to wait for them to catch up (speed is the key with some mission profiles).
It appears to me that the V-22 is an UNDERPOWERED sitting duck when it goes into any attempt to drop off or pick up troops. As is usual with EVERY aircraft we have ever purchased, it’s underpowered and needs to be “up-graded” and bigger engines. (Show me an A/C system by any service that didn’t use that ploy to sell the initial system!) In a word, the bitch won’t fly with a combat load and god help it if it looses ANY power during such an operation.
Attempting to hang ANY FORM OF WEAPON SYSTEM, either the proposed BAE one or an M-28 style turret, is nothing but TALK without the Power to make the thing be able to fly!! Guns are heavy and Ammo is worse. Perhaps someone might consider the product offered by that Ausi stack fire weapon system. At least it would be light weight and offer a huge amount of firepower.
SO, we’re back to the same old same old. Unless this thing can be re-engined, which it can, it’s just a good idea that won’t work without a huge additional investment. It’s fast. It flies high; where MISSILES FLY TOO; IT FLIES FAST; ZSU-#? CAN SHOOT IT DOWN and it spends a lot of MONEY making people RICH in the good old Military Industrial Complex! PERFECT!! THE IDEAL WEAPONS SYSTEM! A WORKING BOONDOGGLE THAT IS HIGHLY PROFITABLE!!! WHAT COULD BE BETTER!
Face it: The thing needs gun cover and if the current helicopters won’t do, you’re going to need A-10’s; recall and Arm the OV-10/A-37 or whatever. We used the OV-10 BRONCO” IN VIET NAM, AND IT WAS GREAT!! Good TOT, Good Ordnance Load and the pilot could see what he was doing both before and after the drop! (Unlike a fast mover!)
BUT, isn’t it about time to GIVE THE LOW ALTITUDE, FIXED WING ATTACK PART TO THE ARMY TOO! Like it or not, the Marines are going to be working with those guys, as will the AF people who are on the ground.
It’s time the AF GAVE UP some of it’s TURF (And bloated budget) and went forward into the Space, Intel & UAV stuff that it is and will continue to be so well suited for. It’s time for the AF to move on and mature, rather than sit and cry over loosing some “TURF” that it can easily abandon for the good of our nations defense.
IF, HOWEVER, as someone mentioned, they DO want to ad a under belly weapon system, and you are concerned with crushing it on landing because you want it to be available to fire while on the ground or very close to it, lenghten the landing gear vertical support. Go look at a Heron sometime. Long legs work in some situations.
JD
Modify existing C130s with 21st century STOL technology that would meet the Marines specifications. That aircraft is stronger, faster, carries a far larger payload, has a superior survivability rate in combat and can be more heavily armed and armored than the V-22, and is far less complicated to fly and maintain. Not to mention that development costs would be far less expensive than continuing with the V-22 program. Properly engineered, with an ultra low stall speed, it could take off or land within a 100 foot roll. When the V-22s stability computers fail, its just an unflyable lump of deadly falling metal.
I think adding a belly-gun is a fine idea; however, how much will the new armament decrease the payload? Does BAe have a plan to off-set the weight of the new gun by savings weight elsewhere on the bird?
So many questions, so few answers about this entire weapon system. Most notable of the questions are coming from the experienced who, one must wonder, if they got the opportunity to voice constructive pro
To the guy who thinks the Harrier should be reassigned as a V-22 armed escort, I don’t think that would work so well. Harrier is not fit to take out the sort of threats that would down this V-22 on approach. Only a helicopter would work to take out the guy on the roof with a RPG before he could hit the V-22. Harrier could drop bombs I guess but so can any other jet. I don’t see the harrier shooting bullets in hover mode, like true lies or something. Not practical. Best thing would be to sell harriers to our allies in the middle east, I think. Small, temporary military base defense aircraft, no airstrip required.
I’m thinking this V-22 is a pretty new aircraft, and we’ll see some significant developments in the next decade. I think the larger an aircraft like this becomes, the less likely it is to be struck down. If a small caliber round were to hit one of the engines it could cause some damage, the engine is not likely to explode but just light on fire and quit providing power. The other engine can take over, so it would take a hit to each engine to drop the aircraft. A hit to the propeller is more likely to cause a crash, I think. One RPG to a propeller would be a pretty serious emergency.
But this is a new generation of aircraft that is “fly-by-wire”, meaning a computer can be programmed to “fix” any situation in real-time. If one propeller loses a blade the plane could adjust, assuming the propeller maintains it’s structural integrity. I’m guessing the propellers are pretty durable. I heard they were made of fiberglass, but they probably have some metal in them.
Check out the phalanx cannon used as an anti-missile system onboard navy ships. It fires a vulcan cannon and shoots down incoming missiles, automatically targeted. This BAE guardian can go the same route. There are sniper sensors that could pick up incoming shots and this cannon could be programmed to automatically fire back within a half a second. It might be possible to shoot down shoulder-fired missiles with it, with an add-on millimeter-wave radar. Radar is getting smaller and smaller, the technology is available today to build a radar as small as a cell phone.
This ship could be LOADED with guns, it could be a very powerful threat in an urban combat sitution, with the strength of three apaches and a load of soldiers to drop. I think a good development would be ceramic armor for the engine nacelles, and a satellite link. If they put two 30mm cannons (same as apache) on each wing and some hellfire missiles, this thing would be scary as F***.
Jeff Dulin,
No, the V-22 is NOT an UNDERPOWERED sitting duck when it goes into any attempt to drop off or pick up troops. The fact is, despite what the V-22 naysayers would have you believe the V-22 can enter & leave an LZ faster than ANY helicopter. The engine issues with the V-22 ARE NOT do to it being underpowered but to the engine manufacturer not being able to adequitely/cost-effectively keep its end of the engine maintenance agreement. THAT is why the POSSIBILITY of a “new” engine is being considered!
What alternate universe are you from? Show me an A/C system by any service that DID use that ploy (initially underpowered and needs “up-graded” engines) to sell the initial system!
Lew Parker,
They LOVE the V-22 & wish they had it DECADES ago!
Sorry but there is NO WAY you are going to get a C-130 to operate from an amphibious assault ship flightdeck. That is one of the most important USMC requirements.
***
Reader Bob,
Have you spoken with any V-22 users? I thought not.
The V-22 was NOT rushed into service, not even close.
Jeff, pfcem,
When Christian was in Iraq a short while back, he posted some video of the V-22s in action. One of the videos showed a V-22 landing with the engines at a 45 degree angle. I don’t know how fast it was going, but it didn’t do the usual helicopterish slow hover and land. It swept in and stopped on a dime. If you blinked, you would have sworn it was at take off speed rather than landing.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003962.html
Pretty well sums it up.:)
The “Belly gun” is a great idea…It can cover the front, sides and rear…but the topside is the “unprotected area” I suggest that the addition of a couple of upward-firing Sidewinders slung on the sides could take care of that nicely if an overhead radar were added for observation and fire control.…