V-22 Osprey Undergunned?
C&P:
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."
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."
0
-
Every time I hear the Osprey mentioned, my stomach turns....
I'm not an aircraft engineer, but as an ex-grunt I think its a death-trap0 -
Put a 20mm on that thing 0 -
The V-22 sounds good on paper, but as is so often the case, paper and reality are two different things. In my opinion it should have been kept as a test platform until the technology matured. 0 -
The V-22 is the replacement for the CH-46 Sea Knight. The Sea Knight is unarmed. Just because ONE General wanted to "John Wayne" it does not make it a good idea. Sanitizing LZs is the job of the Cobra and the Super Hornet.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Every time I hear the Osprey mentioned, my stomach turns....
I'm not an aircraft engineer, but as an ex-grunt I think its a death-trap
I see them at Quantico. These things are fast as hell compared to helocopters. You can hear a helocopter a long way off, whereas the Osprey is there and gone quickly. It is very expensive, but it's lightyears ahead of other VSTL troop transports.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The V-22 is the replacement for the CH-46 Sea Knight. The Sea Knight is unarmed. Just because ONE General wanted to "John Wayne" it does not make it a good idea. Sanitizing LZs is the job of the Cobra and the Super Hornet.I've seen M2/M3's mounted on the rear.
Gunships and fighter/bombers are useful for LZ prep, but you might not always be able to utilize this capability. They're also useless when helicopters are entering/exiting an area that turns out to be (or becomes) "warm". When receiving fire, nothing beats the ability to shoot back.0 -
The V-22 is a lot faster in and out of an LZ, but I see your point. guns mounted on the ramp would not be a problem, as long as they are small and light (no M-2), But putting a chain gun up front wastes payload, space, etc.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The V-22 is the replacement for the CH-46 Sea Knight. The Sea Knight is unarmed. Just because ONE General wanted to "John Wayne" it does not make it a good idea. Sanitizing LZs is the job of the Cobra and the Super Hornet.
+10 -
I witnessed the trials of the Osprey while at NAS Moffet (Next to NASA/Ames). It was a far out machine. I never felt it would be outgunned as it always was supposed to carry either a Harrier or a F/A-18.[:p] 0 -
It's also can't auto-rotate if the engine is disabled. If the engine goes even at low altitudes, everybody dies. 0 -
Mixed blessing. Best if you went into a suppressed LZ than a hot one. That means "fast movers" are needed to arrive at the drop area before the osprey. Helo's won't be able to keep up.
I wouldn't in any way let any osprey into a known hot LZ.
So, lets let the osprey orbit away from the LZ till the gunships catch up? Have the ospreys depart later than the choppers? Negats!! Defeats the osprey's reason for existing, which is speed to the LZ.
It's speed/vulnarability, in my opinion really limit tactical operations. They have to be teamed with jet aircraft to utilize their speed potential. Joe
Only validation? Long distance troop deployment from a rear area into a "cold" drop zone where there's no airfield. Joe0 -
This thing is an abomination that will eventually kill more Marines than the combined forces of the entire World!
It's noisy as hell, we hear these things coming miles away, throbbing their way across the sky, it takes way too long to transition to vertical flight, takes another forever to land "like a helo", and has no windows to see/shoot out of! It's also subject to "rotor ring" turbulence, and when one engine revs to take up supposed slack; the whole thing turns over like a flapjack and then crashes and BURNS killing everyone inside.
There's absolutely NO reason this piece of crap should be in combat!
I see them ambling across the sky in Albuquerque almost every day, and I keep an eye on 'em, so I know which direction NOT to go.
There's no crew protection, no "cargo" protection, no way to silence those 18' props, no way to land it speedily without using at least a half-mile of clean, dry road, and NOW they want to put a gun on it?!0 -
The Blackhawk started flying in the early 70s and killed many. It was still killing crews in the mid 80s after it had been widely deployed through the Army. It was known as the lawn dart.
The Apache also had hellish gremlins in the 80s.
My point is after the bugs are worked out of the technology they can be a good machine. I think the idea is a good one they should continue development. As far as eliminating deaths during testing of experimental aircraft I hope they can find a way.
As for the original post-what in the hell are the Marines thinking? Of course it needs guns!!!0 -
its a CARGO craft.[:I]
show me an armed C-2.[8]
doesnt need guns.[:I]
the fact that it has one, is plenty.0 -
Trouble is, the "cargo" is troops!
Might as well call ahead to let the bad guys know we're calling, "Time Out!" in order to let this thing land and let our soldiers out BEFORE they start shooting at it!0 -
I'd take the Osprey over the Chinhooks I used to ride around in. (The main reason: because the engines aren't right above your head, like in a helicopter) When I was in Korea we lost 16 Helicopters in one year and only 1 of those was from Enemy Fire. 0 -
The V-22 should be made an unmanned assault vehicle for the US Marine Corps.
It could be modified to drop a chain gun from it's belly and hold a position anywhere's on the battlefield to provide fire support. It could then convert to conventional flight to move across the battle field and drop munitions or drop air to surface missiles that would support the warfighter.
It's current role is stupid. It is not capable to fly from the US to a combat zone due to icing problems. It should be a UAV platform. Got Marines in Afghanistan that are hungry? It'll bring them food and provide it's own fire support for transport operations. Just fill it up when she lands.
A MC-130 will put Marines wherever they need to be on this globe.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Old Fool
The V-22 is the replacement for the CH-46 Sea Knight. The Sea Knight is unarmed. Just because ONE General wanted to "John Wayne" it does not make it a good idea. Sanitizing LZs is the job of the Cobra and the Super Hornet.
When did they take the guns off the 46s?
The 53 outruns all the other supporting helos as well (cobras, etc).
I never had to ride an Osprey, but I probably will if we go back to Afghanistan.
They're a lot quieter (rotors fwd) than either the 53 or the 46.
They can carry a lot more cargo than the 46 ever could.
They can't carry it nearly as fast as they should when it's externally slung (think HMMWV at 200 knots [:0] ).
Some of my buddies are flying them now.
Marine ingenuity being what it is, I'd be surprised if the crew chiefs hadn't already figured a way to add some external weapons on those things. I've seen some amazing 7-ton gun trucks that didn't leave Oshkosh that way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
It's also can't auto-rotate if the engine is disabled. If the engine goes even at low altitudes, everybody dies.
It has two engines, and can operate on one.
0 -
The 46 never had a fixed gun position or turret. I agree that Marine crew chiefs are wonderfully resourceful men who have installed everything on anything [:D]. As I understand it this gen wanted to mount a chain gun under the nose [V]
0 -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/military/july-dec07/osprey_07-182.html
I found this site quite interesting. A pro and con to each question.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
21 comments