Giving the Osprey More Firepower

[ClearedHot]

After investing $20 billion over 25 years and losing 30 lives in the development of the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey, the U.S. military might like to think that its long-awaited combat debut would go relatively smoothly. But even as 10 Marine V-22s have just arrived in Iraq, the Air Force - which is buying V-22s for special operations missions - has decided the gun on the marine's version isn't good enough for an aircraft expressly designed to ferry troops into hot landing zones.

The Marines now flying the $120 million aircraft have insisted that the small gun slung from the aircraft's opened rear ramp is adequate for war. That's a claim disputed by retired Marine general James Jones, who ordered a beefed-up, forward-firing gun for the V-22 when he was serving as the Corps' top officer from 1999 to 2003. The requirement evaporated after Jones stepped down as commandant, but the Air Force, which is buying 50 V-22s for the Special Ops command, seems to agree with Jones.

"It is critical that the CV-22 possess a self-defense capability that will provide maximum protection from threats in the vicinity of the landing zone," the Special Op Command says in a recent message to contractors seeking an improved gun. Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" - in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun. The special-ops V-22 is slated to enter service in 2009.

This dispute is just the latest chapter in a troubled program begun in 1981 to provide a troop transport for all four military services; the Army dropped out two years later for cost reasons, and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, also citing cost, failed to kill it over objections from Congress - and the Marines. The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Co., was deemed ideal for carrying troops because it can take off and land like a helicopter, then tilt its engines and rotors forward to fly like a turboprop airplane. After three fatal crashes, numerous delays and compromises that some inside the military believe endanger those on board, the 10 V-22s are finally based at al Asad air base in western Iraq (the Marines have clamped down on all information about their operations, but expect a formal Iraqi unveiling of the V-22s soon).

At least one contractor agrees with the Air Force that the interim gun aboard the V-22 is wanting. BAE Systems has been investing in the development of a remotely-aimed gun that could be slung from the V-22's belly and installed starting in about a year, BAE officials say. The gun, which could range in size from 7.62 mm (the size of the current gun) to .50-cal. (the size Jones wanted) would protrude from the V-22's belly, just forward of the swiveling gun. A V-22 crew member located in the passenger compartment would fire the gun, based on the video images displayed, with a hand-held controller. A Pentagon official says this design, while perhaps adequate for special-ops V-22s, wouldn't replace the need for a final weapon for the Marine V-22 that would be integrated into the aircraft's internal electronic and computer systems. The Pentagon is seeking $82 million to develop a permanent gun, on top of the $45 million it already spent trying to meet Jones' requirement for one.

V-22 pilots like Marine Lieutenant Colonel Anthony "Buddy" Bianca know their aircraft is heading off to war with inadequate firepower. "It says right there in the ORD" -- the Operational Requirements Document specifying what the aircraft must be able to do -- that "the aircraft is supposed to have 360 degrees field of fire with a defensive weapon," says Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22 over the past eight years. "I don't care if its a turret, you stick it out of a window or you patch it on with bubblegum, but we've got to find a way to do that." Bianca, 40, told TIME that the current rear gun is "not the answer," and that Marines are planning on installing a better gun eventually. He pauses when asked if he thinks the V-22 should be sent to Iraq with the small, ramp-mounted gun as its only weapon. "That question," he says, "is not mine to say."

But as has always been the case in war, the more junior the officer, the less concerned he is about the weapon he is bringing to the fight. The gun doesn't faze Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney from Albany, Georgia, who has spent nearly 200 hours flying the V-22 over the past year. McKinney, 30, and his fellow "Thunder Chickens" of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from Jacksonville, N.C., are now in Iraq. "I think the weapon," he said as he readied for the deployment, "is very sufficient."

Bianca recalls why Jones' original scheme for a bigger gun was scrapped. "It was primarily cost, to be honest with you," he said. "I was in the room when (the contractors) were basically told that `this was our price-tag limits to develop this weapon' and they came back with a price tag and were told, `Well guys, you just designed yourself out of a weapons system.'" The gun's ultimate cost - $1.5 million a copy - ended up being too expensive in the Pentagon's eyes. That price - barely more than 1% of the V-22's current cost - ultimately doomed it, and sent the aircraft to Iraq sporting a weapon some Marines deride as a "peashooter."

[Guest Matt Damon]

Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" - in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun.

Maybe I am not really up to speed but don't current SAR/AFSOC choppers also not have a forward firing gun? I read an article a lot like this in 'Time' magizine a few weeks ago about the Marines, but it was very biased. I don't think that many of these writers understand that if anyone is trying to introduce new technology with revolutionary concepts that it will have its growing pains and will be very expensive i.e. F-22. I am sure that the AF will make it work, I am not so confident about the Marine's attitude toward the aircraft.

[ClearedHot]

Maybe I am not really up to speed but don't current SAR/AFSOC choppers also not have a forward firing gun? I read an article a lot like this in 'Time' magizine a few weeks ago about the Marines, but it was very biased. I don't think that many of these writers understand that if anyone is trying to introduce new technology with revolutionary concepts that it will have its growing pains and will be very expensive i.e. F-22. I am sure that the AF will make it work, I am not so confident about the Marine's attitude toward the aircraft.

You are correct, current CSAR/AFSOC "choppers" don't have a forward firing gun. HOWEVER, they do have side firing guns in addition to the tailgun that allow some ability to suppress targets in front of the aircraft.

As I understand it, for a variety of reasons side guns will not work on the Osprey, One of the most obvious is the two gianormous rotors that you would have to shoot through.

[Mark1]

Not to mention this is supposed to be an improvement over the current situation. And for the cost, both monetary and in lives, it should be a BIG improvement. I think they fell short. The TIME article may have been biased but god the cover page was hilarious...if you have a roommate who flies the thing.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Mark1

[Guest Boom]

A former AC-130 gunner told me it was near impossible to mount those guns on the Osprey due to the design and "thinner" skin metal.

[ClearedHot]

A former AC-130 gunner told me it was near impossible to mount those guns on the Osprey due to the design and "thinner" skin metal.

I am not anything close to an Osprey expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...

As I understand the CV-22 in order to get the capability that was originally laid out in the requirement, it was designed to a load factor of 1.05 rather than the traditional 1.5 most other aircraft are designed to. Therefore, it will be far more difficult to strap-on (sts) other gear like side mounted guns.

[Guest Curt22]

A former AC-130 gunner told me it was near impossible to mount those guns on the Osprey due to the design and "thinner" skin metal.

A former Gunship Gunner told you....Listening to a Gunner??? That was your FIRST mistake! LOL

The MV/CV-22 airframe is constructed almost entirely from composite materia, so much for the "thin skin metal."

However, window weapons are near useless due the "gianormous" rotors as another pointed out, leaving the ramp and cockpit controlled nose mounted weapon as the remaining viable options.

AFSOC never gave up on the nose gun requirement, but had to put the idea on the back burner and work off the redesigned, regression and CV systems testing first to keep some semblance of a schedule....decades late, but still some kind of schedule.

[C17Driver]

Maybe they could use a variant of this...

[HerkDerka]

Thanks for posting the "F-130" pic. I've been searching for that pic for a while.

HD

Edited November 2, 2007 by HerkDerka

[brickhistory]

Thanks for posting the "F-130" pic. I've been searching for that pic for a while.

HD

I believe that is, technically speaking, the F/A-130 since you can drop sh!t out the back.................

[Guest Johann]

I believe that is, technically speaking, the F/A-130 since you can drop sh!t out the back.................

Shouldn't it then be "F/C-130"?

[flyerpapa]

Shouldn't it then be "F/C-130"?

F/B-130 !

[Guest CavGuy]

There is a concept on the drawing board right now to mount a FLIR in one "hell hole" and a gun in the other. Not sure of specifics such as caliber, rate of fire, etc. But, it will be controlled by the crew chief with a Nintendo-looking controller. Won't be of much use while on the ground though.

[JarheadBoom]

There is a concept on the drawing board right now to mount a FLIR in one "hell hole" and a gun in the other. Not sure of specifics such as caliber, rate of fire, etc. But, it will be controlled by the crew chief with a Nintendo-looking controller. Won't be of much use while on the ground though.

You're speaking of putting a gun & a FLIR in the Osprey's cargo hook hellholes?

They'd have to be retractable; the Osprey doesn't have much ground clearance for low-hanging sh*t. I can just imagine how many guns & FLIRs would be crunched/buried, and how many Ospreys would have structural damage to their bellies, from landing with those items deployed. Plus, it would be a nightmare to de-rig that sh*t when the crew got a pop-up frag to do an external lift.

[Cell Dweller]

The newest proposal for the V-22 gun has so far only made it to a technology demonstrator, according to Aviation Week. BAE has shown how a gatling can be slaved and stabilized with a sensor and controlled by an operator. They say that the system can handle up to a .50 caliber gun, but they have not specified configuration or user interface. It is still at a minimum a few years before the Osprey could field a turreted gun.

[bomber1]

Looks like they're one step closer. Pretty cool system. It's kind of like a badass play station game.

http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/p...te_guardian.pdf

[Guest regularjoe]

It would seem it is already installed on at least one aircraft

Aparently it is an offshoot system based on the Guardian system and being installed as the GAU-2B; it is going to be in 7.62mm.

I would have thought that given the size of the aircraft they might have opted for a larger caliber weapon but guess not; maybe this allows better commonality with other M134's used in 60/53's

From BAE Systems -

The U. S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which awarded the contract to integrate and test the weapon mission kit on the CV-22, is currently performing ground testing, with flight testing to follow. SOCOM oversaw the successful installation of the system hardware aboard the aircraft in January at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

“BAE Systems installed the weapon hardware to confirm the system’s suitability to CV-22 and its mission,” said Clark Freise, vice president of defense avionics for BAE Systems. “We will work with SOCOM to complete the development of this system and to demonstrate its effectiveness in protecting these aircraft and the Special Operations forces they carry.”

Using a GAU-2B mini-gun mounted to the belly of the aircraft, the weapon is designed to provide 360 degrees of accurate, sustained suppressive fire throughout the CV-22’s flight envelope. The weapon is based on BAE Systems’ Remote Guardian System™, a company-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability for the V-22 and other special-mission rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. BAE Systems designed the hardware and precision control systems without access to aircraft drawings or solid models, relying in part on its knowledge of the CV-22 as provider of the platform’s flight control system.

[Guest dtfl]

You are correct, current CSAR/AFSOC "choppers" don't have a forward firing gun. HOWEVER, they do have side firing guns in addition to the tailgun that allow some ability to suppress targets in front of the aircraft.

As I understand it, for a variety of reasons side guns will not work on the Osprey, One of the most obvious is the two gianormous rotors that you would have to shoot through.

Im not a Cv22 expert either, but stayed in the same Holiday Inn you did......during the SATAF I asked about the side firing weapon and was told that the worry was, if the gun and bracket could not be swung into the AC, you could no raise or lower the wing/rotors.

Also - there is some consternation with having a forward firing (ie OFFENSIVE) weapon on the AC. The MH 53/60..etc side firing and ramp weapons are defensive.

[busdriver]

Calling a certain weapon defensive versus offensive is the same as arguing the B-52 is a strategic versus tactical platform.