Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MV-22 Osprey Ditches Belly Gun...  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9290 times:

I said the same thing long before they ever got the gun out to the aircraft: it won't work well enough to outweigh it's negatives. It's too heavy, it's a pain in the ass, and it's just too difficult to "realistically" be a viable resource.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/marine_belly_gun_062810w/

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

While it has to be a good idea to find ways to add some destructive punch to the Osprey, that gun is just not as simple as possible and necessary, it seems. It speaks volumes that it gets left behind a lot in the field. Decision making time: NEXT!

I guess the rectractable mechanism was deemed necessary for aerodynamic reasons. A little complicated for an "interim" weapon.

Also, why not slave the weapon to the guys up front? You'd think the Apache approach was probably the smart thing to do from the outset! See http://tri.army.mil/lc/CS/Csa/apihadss.htm

Alternative destructive punch is available in the new guided and versatile Hydra rockets and equivalents sprouting all over the war industry. I'd say adapt those asap and see what the troops do with them.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70#Precision_guided_Hydra_70


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8951 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8863 times:

Marines refusing a minigun? Bizarre...


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinedragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8790 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 1):
I guess the rectractable mechanism was deemed necessary for aerodynamic reasons. A little complicated for an "interim" weapon.

Actually the retraction is required for ground clearance during landing, which was always my argument against the thing. The time you need a defensive weapon most in a helicopter is when you are landing and taking off (and while on deck) in a landing zone, which makes this gun about worthless since it has to be retracted during these phases of flight.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8783 times:

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 3):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 1):
I guess the rectractable mechanism was deemed necessary for aerodynamic reasons. A little complicated for an "interim" weapon.

Actually the retraction is required for ground clearance during landing


Of course.   

Would a dedicated Osprey "gunship" make sense?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7808 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8768 times:

Also what happens if it fails to retract?.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7627 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8712 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 5):
Also what happens if it fails to retract?.

It will be retracted, forceable  

I said before the a/c was deployed that the grunts would find a way to arm the a/c since the designers never seemed to believe that the a/c would require self defense equipment, so far not so good.
Based on design the only thing that seems viable as a wepon which could be engaged during the landing phase are some sort for fixed forward firing equipment, guns or rockets. I do not like the gun on the ramp, especially if troops are to offloaded. They have enough to worry about from the hostiles on the ground to also now consider safe routes of egress from the props and teh field of fire.
Resolve that the Osprey in Marine use will be unarmed and work at getting more punch in the Cobra gunships.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8140 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 1):
While it has to be a good idea to find ways to add some destructive punch to the Osprey, that gun is just not as simple as possible and necessary, it seems. It speaks volumes that it gets left behind a lot in the field. Decision making time: NEXT!

It was doomed from the beginning, a waste of time and money as far as I'm concerned because it never passed the smell test.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 1):
Also, why not slave the weapon to the guys up front? You'd think the Apache approach was probably the smart thing to do from the outset!

No room with the FLIR and aerial refueling probe.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Marines refusing a minigun? Bizarre...

Contrary perhaps to popular misconception, Marines are not stupid - if your gun impedes you from doing your mission, yes, even your gun can be expendable.

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 3):
Actually the retraction is required for ground clearance during landing, which was always my argument against the thing. The time you need a defensive weapon most in a helicopter is when you are landing and taking off (and while on deck) in a landing zone, which makes this gun about worthless since it has to be retracted during these phases of flight.

And this has happened at least once in AFG from what I have read. As a former 6322 (Phrog avionics,) the mini-gun was never going to work because it was not functional enough, for all the reasons already mentioned. If it's not practical, it's not viable. KISS is more than just another acronym, it's what often keeps you alive in a high risk environment.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 4):
Would a dedicated Osprey "gunship" make sense?

Hell no, not at twice the price of what a new AH-1Z could be had for. A $75m half-assed tilt-rotored gunship is about as useful as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Resolve that the Osprey in Marine use will be unarmed and work at getting more punch in the Cobra gunships.

The solution is to cut the Osprey buy in half, use it in numbers more akin to the sh¡tters, and supplement the bulk of Marine Air with a traditional medium lift helicopter such as the H-71.


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8058 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 7):
the smell test.

We need to get back to grooming more people with the expertise, experience and authority ( EE2A    ) to force decisions based on their "smelling" ability - which is the well (and sometimes painfully) honed ability to prioritize and decide (with a measure of understanding), I think. Any thoughts on that?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 7):

No room with the FLIR and aerial refueling probe.

My incompletely expressed thought was to slave targetting for smart Hydras (or somesuch) to the helmets, so no gun up front. It may be the most doable solution? Hence also the cheapest... the kind of 70% ACTION we need more of (because you get vital feedback).

In my experience (designing prototypes), when you hit a wall, drop everything and build something that provides feedback. ANY feedback, to be perfectly honest and bloody minded about it. Best way to make progress, and hence, get things done over time (because very often, results are unexpected, but now crudely verified).

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 7):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 4):
Would a dedicated Osprey "gunship" make sense?

Hell no, not at twice the price of what a new AH-1Z could be had for. A $75m half-assed tilt-rotored gunship is about as useful as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

But the AH-1Z would slow the entire mission down. Hmmm. How about a couple of Broncos with the underslung turret?

See: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10-nog.jpg
Keesje's a fan of those too, I know.


User currently offlinedragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
But the AH-1Z would slow the entire mission down.

Simple matter of mission planning. In theory Ospreys do not need an escort in transit to the LZ since they fly high and fast (relative terms really). So it is just a matter of the Cobra/Huey gunships meeting the Ospreys at the LZ to provide cover for the actual insertion/extraction.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineTravelAVNut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7956 times:

So if this was the "interim" defensive weapon, what will be the final weapon?


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 8):
How about a couple of Broncos with the underslung turret?

They have the "KISS" solution but choose to ignore it.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...C-27J-Baby-Spooky-05001/#more-5001


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasile Alexandru Muresan - Romanian Spotters


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Max Bryansky - Russian AviaPhoto Team
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Iwelumo - Global Aviation Images


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dean West
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Md Faridz


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Augustas Didzgalvis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Beltyukov

Quoting TravelAVNut (Reply 10):
So if this was the "interim" defensive weapon, what will be the final weapon?

They were trying this.....



.....but could end up with RO/RO kits.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...0J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/#more-5409

.....just not on the Ospreys.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic MV-22 Osprey Ditches Belly Gun...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
MV-22 Osprey Dual Flameout Emergency Procedures posted Fri Jan 5 2007 00:46:06 by 2H4
Israel Considers V-22 Osprey Buy posted Sat Jun 18 2011 16:51:54 by LAXintl
V-22 Osprey Over Puerto Rico? posted Sat Jan 23 2010 09:17:06 by Planedudea380
Suitability Of V-22 Osprey For CG SAR Missions posted Thu Aug 13 2009 08:29:18 by BOACVC10
V-22 Osprey IN Hollywood Movie posted Tue Jul 21 2009 07:56:36 by Andrewastroboy
Just Saw V-22 Osprey, Near DCA posted Thu May 7 2009 06:36:41 by Contrails
Military Channel Special On V-22 Osprey Tonight posted Mon Apr 7 2008 03:47:52 by CTR
Operational Questions On The MV-22 posted Sun Oct 14 2007 13:53:21 by CX747
V-22 Osprey - Best Alternatives To It? posted Sun Sep 30 2007 21:15:11 by Flighty
Marines Temporarily Ground MV-22 Fleet posted Fri Feb 9 2007 19:45:16 by DfwRevolution

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format