Comments on: The Osprey Gun

By: OspreyVet

OspreyVet — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:06:07 +0000

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!

By: Al Rose

Al Rose — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:40:12 +0000

There is no equivalent “auto-rotation” emergency descent capability on the V22 as compared with most rotary wing aircraft.

By: AirForceHopeful

AirForceHopeful — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:02:18 +0000

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.

By: MIDN 3/c

MIDN 3/c — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:39:59 +0000

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)…

By: Riceball

Riceball — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:13:37 +0000

“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.

By: bespoke

bespoke — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:36:01 +0000

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.

By: Riceball

Riceball — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:05:21 +0000

“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?

By: Cal

Cal — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:05:03 +0000

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?

By: JEFF

JEFF — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:36:18 +0000

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.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:34:49 +0000

I spent most of my time talking to the communications guys and crawling around the various JLTV prototypes.