The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!"
The decision to abort the NEO had absolutely nothing to do with the CV-22 itself. This NEO was a zero-risk mission, once resistance was encountered, the entire mission was aborted, not just the CV-22 portion. I've planned and conducted NEOs and this is standard doctrine. Why? Because you don't want to place the people you're going in to exfil in harm's way and you don't want to give the enemy a reason to take action against them. NEOs are not combat operations, they are exactly what the term states, "Non-combatant Evacuation Operations". The people you are pulling out are primarily civilians, women, children, etc. The absolute last thing a commander wants is to place them in a crossfire. The fact that personnel aboard the CV-22s were injured made the decision even more important. Your comment that they "ran away" implies that you consider them cowards, a highly disrespectful and uneducated response by you.
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?" Come on. Get real.
Ramp-mounted weapons have been standard helicopter armament since the 1960s on a variety of platforms. This configuration is still in use today and will remain so for many years to come on every platform with a ramp, I'm quite positive of that. The ramp gun is actually a much better configuration than side-fire weapons due to the firing azimuth and field of view.
If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Maybe they were practicing to shoot backward at any "enemies" they had just passed over. But I think that's a rather silly tactic. Don't you?
Actually I know EXACTLY what they were doing that night. They were conducting gunnery practice that, once again, has been the standard tactic for side-fire and tail-fire helicopter platforms for nearly 50 years now. I've spent hundreds of hours on those very ranges conducting and instructing these very tactics, as well as many other regions of the world.
And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. And again, any gun on a V-22 will have problems if they want it to fire forward unless it's in the very vulnerable helicopter mode.
Once again, I know EXACTLY what AFSOC is investigating with respect to arming the CV-22. The problem with this quoted article is that people immediately equate the term "gunship" with the same configuration as the AC-130. A better description would be, an offensively-armed capability for the CV-22. And from recent years there are numerous examples of what could be in store. Do your research on Harvest Hawk and Combat Spear. The use of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) has been in practice now for about 15 years and has become the "vogue" option on various aircraft, once considered "un-armable" for lack of better term. Truth is there has been zero testing conducted, this is still in the concept development phase, but it is indeed a very high-profile program within the command. I'm confident the V-22 can be armed in this manner, there are several options, it's now a matter of investigating and putting in motion the most effective solution.