Originally Posted by
FH1100 Pilot
I The V-22 proponents always want to have it both ways. If I say the "rebels" were shooting the V-22's with "small arms," the V-22 apologists immediately claim that the rebels were well-armed with tanks and RPGs.
No, they don't.
An actual witness to the fiasco reported in this very thread that, "...Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns."
Why don't you believe the actual witness?
After-action reports indicate that the V-22s were hit with 40-50 rounds of 12mm/.50 caliber. Now, a .50 caliber round would be considered a "large caliber" but let's admit that it can still be fired from pistol, eh?
FH, that 's a stupid statement, pistol is a red herring. I have fired large caliber pistols. They shoot nothing like the round out of Ma Deuce.
To classify machine gun fire like 7.62 or .50 cal as 'small arms' is valid when using USAF/Joint doctrinal defnitions of anti aircraft fire ... which you don't appear to be doing. You are trying to play games.
Small arms fire, as opposed to artillery, not "small like a pistol" as you insinuate up there.
If even *one* of those rebels had an RPG and knew how to use it, we'd be singing a different song about that mission.
Maybe. Depends on if he's a good shot. RPG's are unguided munitions. You can miss with them, and you can hit with them.
FH, since about 50 years ago in Viet Nam, it has been a very well known problem that slow moving aircraft in the LZ are very susceptible to small arms fire: rifles, machine guns, etc, per above.
A few thousand helicopters went down in Viet Nam.
I will share with you an interesting point learned over there: over 600 fast moving jets went down due to AAA, some of which were from small arms, some of larger caliber (57 mm, for example).
Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?"
FH, your military tends to fly in two ship, or larger, formations. It isn't too difficult for someone who knows something about the military and its operations to consider tactics that dictate who covers and who hits the LZ, when, and so forth. That said, I am not sold on a ramp gun being the best way to peel that onion. EDIT: I will defer to mcpaves superior understanding and experience on that.
And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship.
You may be right. I'll provisionally bet the over on you being right.
EDIT: that does not foreclose arming the V-22, however. See mcpave's post below mine.
It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that.
Nope. Those are not the reasons for the gunship option being of questionable value.
Admit it, it's no Apache.
Agree completely. It wasn't meant to be.
If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130.
Not many, and subject to very tight tasking limitations and availability. When I was over on the other side of the world, the AC-130 assets were what is called "low density, high demand." Everyone wanted one overhead, but there were limits on being everywhere at once.
When going into hostile territory, the Osprey is a sitting duck.
See above. When going into and out of an LZ, any rotary wing/hovering aircaft is VERY vulnerable to being hit by ground fire. This problem is not unique to the Osprey.
Your spin and condemnation hurt your case, they don't help it.
Edit: mcpave, thanks for the pointers to those two programs. We learn something new every day.