Went to the 2008 Modern Day Marine expo today down at Quantico and got a ton of good material I’ll be shooting your way over the next couple days.
First, I attended a breakfast meeting with the folks from BAE Systems. There was an interesting brief on the Remote Guardian System, that underbelly Gatling gun the company is developing for the MV and CV-22.
I’ve posted a video of Biz Dev director Dave Adamiak explaining the components and I’ll post another soon after that shows the system in use on a simulator. I did press Dave on the issue of the Corps’ reluctance to use powered defensive weapons on their rotorcraft for fear that a loss of power would leave the aircraft vulnerable. That’s why for years the Corps had rejected rotary cannon on their helos in favor of the trusted, Marine-proof “Ma Deuce.“
Dave, rightly I think, admitted the Corps was leery but explained that there is no better solution based on the Osprey’s design. The tail gun will probably stay, he said, since the Guardian has to be retracted when the V-22 lands.
He said BAE has flown the Guardian on an AFSOC CV-22 and all is going well there. Clearly the Osprey needs a defensive weapon, but will this complex system prove itself Marine-proof enough to be cost–effective in the long run?
– Christian
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
You’re here at Quantico? Lol, we probably walked past each other a dozen times today. (I was probably the only Army captain in the entire complex).
I spent most of my time talking to the communications guys and crawling around the various JLTV prototypes.
Becuase the belly gun must be retracted for landings do you think they will use more fast rope insertions? I don’t know which trade off would be better, hovering with a gun or landing without one? Seems hovering would make a nice big target but the target can shoot back unlike if you actually landed it.
Wouldn’t loss of power in an aircraft like the Osprey result in much more serious issues than the gun ceasing to function? Things like, I don’t know, crashing the aircraft?
“Wouldn’t loss of power in an aircraft like the Osprey result in much more serious issues than the gun ceasing to function? Things like, I don’t know, crashing the aircraft?”
My thoughts exactly. But there’s always the possibility that the Osprey can always glide or maybe auto-rotate, not likely but it’s always possible. It it is possible then it would be handy to working guns in case the power outage happens over enemy territory.
I’m curious, why such a large and complex system? Why wouldn’t door guns work? Marine 46s and 53s mount door guns so width and operating out of a door opening can’t be an issue and Air Force and Army choppers mount mini-guns in their doors so door mounting mini-guns can’t be an issue. So why the belly mounted automated system then?
There are no suitable doors on the Osprey for door guns. The front doors are too close to the rotors and I’m assuming guns on the rear doors would too easily hit the engines when the rotors are rotated up for hovering.
“There are no suitable doors on the Osprey for door guns. The front doors are too close to the rotors and I’m assuming guns on the rear doors would too easily hit the engines when the rotors are rotated up for hovering.”
Hmm, you do have a point there, forgot about those big ‘ole wing mounted engines and their giant props. Accidentally hitting them would be an issue with door guns wouldn’t it? Even the best trained gunner will likely forget about not aiming in the direction of the engines/props in the heat of battle wouldn’t they? I guess belly mounting is the only real practical option aside from a chin turret.
Loss of power in rotary aircraft is survivable by both crew and aircraft; in fact they do it on a regular basis during helo training. It has to do with pitch manipulation of the blades and timing it with descent and distance to ground. Granted, a V-22 isn’t a helo, but I would guess they’d have a similar procedure for that aircraft (at least when it’s in hover mode)…
I think there might be a reason for that Sir.
Granted, I do prefer the muli-barrel cannon, but the Ma-Duce does the job effectively. I love the fact that the Air Force is actually considering the use of the Osprey.
There is no equivalent “auto-rotation” emergency descent capability on the V22 as compared with most rotary wing aircraft.
The MV/CV-22 has an incredibly low glide-to-speed ratio, and while it can not auto-rotate, does have the ability to glide at relatively low airspeeds (although the ability to control the glide rate is poor if there is a loss of power). The CH-46 and CH-53 crews have the ability to use door guns because their propulsion/lift machinery is located directly overhead, and the weapons mounts can be fixed to allow good coverage in their fields of fire without risking damaging their own aircraft. With door and tail-mounted crew-served weaponry, most rotary-wing aircraft can have a formidable defensive configuration. The Osprey does not have these luxuries. The engine nacelles on the Osprey are massive relative to the size of the aircraft, and would block the majority of a field of fire IF a door-mounted weapon could be fixed. However, the interior configuration of the MV-22 (I am unfamiliar with the layout of the CV-22, but I am sure it is similar) precludes the use of a door mount. While in hover mode or while transitioning to “fixed” flight mode, a door gunner MAY be an option, but at any speed a gunner in the forward door would prevent the aircrew from using one of their best defensive options: SPEED. Because of these limitations, the only real options are a nose-mounted, remotely controlled turret operated by one of the pilots (similar to the AH-1W/Z), or a belly mounted system. The tail gunner will most likely remain an essential component of the Osprey’s combat aircrew, as coverage of a landing zone and protection of Marines (or SOF operators) who are dropping their defenses to board the aircraft will always remain a priority. My only concern with a full-blown, Gatling-style system belly-mounted on the Osprey would be the potential for failure of the retracting mechanism for the system. I would imagine the system to use some type of hydraulic system to retract the weapon during landing and take-off. The Osprey has shown vulnerable in the past to hydraulic system failure (the complexity of a hydraulic system that controls nacelle rotation and many other systems, while still allowing the aircraft to be folded up like a transformer for ship-board use, can not be understated). If the aircraft experiences a hydraulic system failure, would the aircraft be able to land with the weapons system retracted without risking further damage to the aircraft? I would be partial to a development of the GPU-2/A system in dual pods (one on each side of the aircraft), because of its lighter weight (recognizing the AH-1 pilots have had issues with this system jamming). Perhaps the GAU-4 would be a better option, because of it’s higher reliability and gas-powered operation compared to the hydraulic/electric system driving the typical M61. Whatever the solution, a forward-facing defensive (perhaps offensive) capability for the Osprey would be a benefit to an aircraft that is already changing the way the Marines fly. Semper Fi!