Dan Reno,

You are correct. There are some very qualified people in previous post. There are also some very UNqualified people in previous post. If you mean to imply that I should trust Carltons G2mil.com and not Military.com I think you are incorrect. BOTH are filled inaccurate information, take the CDI article on Carltons site for example. Now if you mean to imply that those who support the V-22 have no honor than I can only assume that you are arrogant (or is that ignorant...hmm). There are arguments to be made on both sides. From reviewing past post it is obvious that you are closed minded on the subject.

Now to the facts of my particular post. I neither said anything good nor bad about the V-22. {I have not flown nor deployed with it so I can't judge it. I can say that Marines I do know who have flown the V-22 would disagree with your and Carltons assertions.} I only pointed out that you posted an item from Carltons blog that implies that the V-22 kept the 22 MEU from gaining it's SOC certification. The link posted by SASless seems to show this is not true. If you have FACTS that show otherwise please present them. Notice I said facts, not conspiracy theories.

Standing by

Whatever, USMC Helo.

From your response I'll assume that you have no facts to support your argument. Perhaps you should rescind your previous post of Carltons article?

Naa. You're right. The V22 is a piece of junk.

The V-22 Gun...
 

How the Osprey Gun Works...
[From DefenseTech]
At the Modern Day Marine Expo, Adamiak explained that the crew chief will use an X-Box-like controller to move and shoot the gun. The GAU-17 (GAU-2 for the SOCOM version) Gatling gun is slaved to a sensor that rolls down out of the Osprey belly when the gun deploys -- housing a CCD camera, IR camera and laser range finder.
The gun can track 360 degress, but there is a software-driven safety zone that makes sure rounds don't blow the rotors off. If the Osprey has to maneuver away from the target and the crew chief can't hold the gun on the bad guys manually, the system slaves the gun to the point of the last shot, slewing it as the plane moves. The fire control computer compensates for range and angle as well.
There is no capability for the pilot to control the gun, but there's an auto feature than swings the gun to the barrel forward position, 10 degrees down so the pilot can steer the Osprey onto target. But he can't fire the weapon, that'll still be up to the crew chief in the back.

Wow... that's almost as much firepower as Loach had in the 60's :ugh:

It sure does seem small (caliber and barrel length), but perhaps the accuracy brought in with the CCD camera, IR camera, laser range finder, and computer slewing capability will more than make up for that if BAE claims are accurate. I can see the logic that it's better to 'hit the target' than 'make a louder bang' with a bigger caliber.

Remember "KISS".....as in "Keep It Simple Stupid"!

How many hundred million dollars will this system cost?

Think about your Crew Chief playing with his X-Box controller peering into a computer screen and fiddling with some buttons while trying to see hostile fire, maintain his situational awareness, looking out for other dangers, and also performing his other crew duties.

Nothing....nothing....beats a good pair of eyes looking out a window peering over the barrrel of mini-gun or .50 Cal......on each side of the aircraft!

That's one thing - the second is pure firepower - that system goes on the USAF CSAR Ospreys. Last time I checked, their missions were run by two aircrafts - in Pave Hawk example one was used as a transport ship, second as a backup/gunship. Both armed with TWO miniguns. Now with MV-22 the numeber of weapons is cut in half, and from that, only one can be used after one lands to get the SF guys on board.

No matter what gizmos you use, you can't cover as many sectors with one gun, as you could with 4 (6 with now-retired Pave Lows)

All valid points. However, the V-22 does not have access points that would allow unobstructed use of a mini-gun or .50 Cal on either side of the aircraft. The wing, engine nacelles, and proprotors are all obstructing potential external targets. And if a crew member using a mini-gun or .50 cal in the heat of battle hit one of those items, it would not be a good thing. If it works as claimed, the BAE system seems to be the best answer available based on the current design configuration where the intent is to use technology to overcome the lack of unobstructed gun port access.

I have to agree with USMC Helo on the V-22. I have several friends who are flying the Osprey and they rate very highly.

I wonder whether Mr. Reno would be so judgmental of the V-22 had it been built by Sikorsky.

One advantage with the xbox controller is now the gunner isn't an obvious target, and for colder climates is out of the -50 windchill.

Matthew......set back and cup yer mitts around a cup of tea and just think for a few minutes please.

Do you for one second think the Muj aim at the gunner or the helicopter?

We had this argument one time in a land far away about having anything but Olive Drab flight helmets. There were those that said the Bad Guys would now have an aiming point in the cockpit instead of just aiming at the glass and plastic parts of the helicopter nose.

When Muj pops an RPG at a Chinook, 53, 22 or a Humvee....he is aiming at the vehicle and not the guys.

If you are close enough....as setting on the ground or very close to the ground and slow....they are still aiming at the big bit and not just between a pair of blue eyes.

Last time I had it done to me....when folks pop off rounds at you with an automatic weapon they went for the Full Monte and might as well had a water hose for all the single aiming they were doing.

This BAE concept is the best answer to a bad question perhaps.....but as in the mortar wagon the USMC spent Billions on......it is putting a band aid over a cancer.

These 22's get a lot of praise from the Marines....but we don't see them in Afghanistan doing the work of the Chinooks and 53's. They may have their uses in Spec Ops but as a mainstay replacement for the 46 they are a miserable failure.

21st Century said:Umm, just *how* many little 7.62 rounds does this new gun have available? Judging by the size of the box in the video, not bloody many! And at 3,000 rounds per minute, the operator won't be able to hold his finger on the button for long. Will it be able to be reloaded in flight? How much does this assembly weigh? Looks heavy.

tottigol: Well of course they do! Has anyone EVER met a pilot who really, truly thought his a/c was a piece of sh!t...a pilot who truly thought he was assigned to a bad plane that was unsuitable for the job? Heh. No, most pilots think "their" ship is the bestest, most wonderful aircraft ever built. This is especially true for the V-22 crews. You cannot expect anyone associated with the program to be objective. Just. Not. Possible.

SASless:How appropriate! Couldn't have said it better meself.

SASless said, Interesting. Normally I get accused of thinking too much.

I'm not talking about what they're aiming at, I'm talking about what is exposed. Not saying this is the best solution, just pointing out that its not all bad.

Have you flown in the door gunner position when its -30C?

Dangerous assumption. What if you get an enemy that is a good shot, and chooses to aim at a high value flesh target presented broadside? If you can make your people more protected, I say do so.

Matt......do you have any concept of what kind of armor aircraft do not have?

Shy of a round hitting something like a gear box....they usually go right the way through both sides of the aircraft.

Even 7.62 size rounds make a lot noise as they whiz through.....and .50 Caliber really make a racket when they hit something hard like a main piece of structure. As to RPG's.....they leave huge gaping holes on the way out

This would work in APC or a tank, not really in helicopter, as they are soft skinned, and armor if available (to heavy for Osprey) have many weak spots, and hiding gunner away from the weapon is not cover, but merely a concealment - he will get hit if someone spray the machine with RPK anyway. If we're talking about "good shots".. they will not choose a gunner, but a pilot instead, as they can take the whole thing down with one shot - and cause a lot of damage and confusion. It all have been discussed over and over again.

IIRC arctic ops are conducted with the gun ports covered until they need to be used, on all of the aircrafts, I guess gunners can handle that much, especially with a shot of adrenaline, as this is the most critical point of their mission.

The fact is - Osprey was not designed as a gun platform, and its direct defense capabilities are very poor, and that single, remote turret don't solve that problem.
Osprey as it is today, maybe is a nice machine to fly, but definitely it is not suited for a fight.

BTW - the problem of accidental shooting at own plane by gunners was already dealt with during World War II... 70 years ago.

SASless said, Yes I do. Very recent and relevant. You?

This thread seems to be still comparing the V-22 with a helicopter..which it is not.In Iraq the infidels had a shock when they realised that ,having pitched their camp outside the range of a CH-46 and expecting ample warning (noise and speed) of any attack,they found the V-22 could take off on missions in IFR conditions ,cover four times the distance at an altitude well out of range of ground fire ,sweep in a high speed relatively silently and be offloading Marines before they had woken up.
You don't need lots of guns and armour in that scenario!

I think we're all comparing it to the CH-46 which it was billed to replace. Gee, it certainly did surprise the 'infidels' with its fantastic abilities. I bet the 'infidels' are scrambling around right now moving their camps farther away and investigating what weapon could reach this fast flyer way up in there in the clouds. And just wait until the 'infidels' get a taste of that GAU-17! WOW! What a Godsend!