Gunship Osprey
Thread Starter
Gunship Osprey
Just out of the Singapore Airshow, AFSOC looking at gunship V-22 and the US Marines interested also.
Singapore Airshow 2014: AFSOC explores gunship-variant Osprey, marines show interest - IHS Jane's 360
Singapore Airshow 2014: AFSOC explores gunship-variant Osprey, marines show interest - IHS Jane's 360
Expensive and not at all adaptable to the gunship role....but what the heck....it was sold as being "all things for everybody" wasn't it?
Compare the size and shape of the Osprey to say....the Apache or Super Cobra...the agility....and one begins to think it might just not be the best choice for running and gunning as done by true Gunships.
If you try the AC-130 concept....then a Chinook or 53 makes a better choice.
The US Army tried the Armed Chinook back in the mid-60's and gave it up as a bad deal. Huey's were cheaper.
Compare the size and shape of the Osprey to say....the Apache or Super Cobra...the agility....and one begins to think it might just not be the best choice for running and gunning as done by true Gunships.
If you try the AC-130 concept....then a Chinook or 53 makes a better choice.
The US Army tried the Armed Chinook back in the mid-60's and gave it up as a bad deal. Huey's were cheaper.
Compare the size and shape of the Osprey to say....the Apache or Super
Cobra...the agility....and one begins to think it might just not be the best
choice for running and gunning as done by true Gunships.
If you try the
AC-130 concept....then a Chinook or 53 makes a better choice.
Compare the speed and range of the V-22 to the Apache or Super Cobra (or Chinook of 53) and it begins to make sense. Compare the V-22's operational flexibility to that of the AC-130 and it makes even more sense....
Edited to add: As I read it, this isn't instead of Apache, Super Cobra, or AC-130, but in addition to them. It's horses for courses....
'tis old news, they were talking about a chin mounted helmet display gun system 14 years ago at Farnborough 2000.
A armed version for both MV and CV variants were proposed for the budgets
Cheers
A armed version for both MV and CV variants were proposed for the budgets
Cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 13th Feb 2014 at 15:27.
Close Chopper, but no cigar. They have already armed the Osprey with the belly-mounted Interim Gun Solution (which is now a permanent solution), as well as ramp and door-mounted machine guns.
The difference is that these are defensive weapons, whereas the gunship story appears to be about giving the Osprey an offensive capability for the first time.
Edited to add: You seem to have updated your post since my response. Those cuttings don't really help as I can't read them, and the headers of 'telescopic boom', 'critical mission requirement', and 'full time engineer', dont really give too much away on the subject of a proposed gunship role.
Of course, assuming that you're correct and this was first proposed in 2000, you don't think it might be worth reporting the colonel's comments given that nothing has happened in this regard in the last 14 years?
The difference is that these are defensive weapons, whereas the gunship story appears to be about giving the Osprey an offensive capability for the first time.
Edited to add: You seem to have updated your post since my response. Those cuttings don't really help as I can't read them, and the headers of 'telescopic boom', 'critical mission requirement', and 'full time engineer', dont really give too much away on the subject of a proposed gunship role.
Of course, assuming that you're correct and this was first proposed in 2000, you don't think it might be worth reporting the colonel's comments given that nothing has happened in this regard in the last 14 years?
Ah, also in the late Bill Gunston's Modern Military Helicopters (pub by Salamandar ) both editions, the grpahic layout of the V-22 with an array of armaments that are options considered such as the chain gun to Stingers to Maverick and Harpoon
Cheers
Cheers
In case you missed it:
Edited to add: You seem to have updated your post since my response. Those cuttings don't really help as I can't read them, and the headers of 'telescopic boom', 'critical mission requirement', and 'full time engineer', dont really give too much away on the subject of a proposed gunship role.
Of course, assuming that you're correct and this was first proposed in 2000, you don't think it might be worth reporting the colonel's comments given that nothing has happened in this regard in the last 14 years?
Edited to add: You seem to have updated your post since my response. Those cuttings don't really help as I can't read them, and the headers of 'telescopic boom', 'critical mission requirement', and 'full time engineer', dont really give too much away on the subject of a proposed gunship role.
Of course, assuming that you're correct and this was first proposed in 2000, you don't think it might be worth reporting the colonel's comments given that nothing has happened in this regard in the last 14 years?
Apologies, that was taken from the Flightglobal Archives,
2000 | 1 - 0543 | Flight Archive
01/08/00 to 07/08/00
Well what has happened in the last 14 years? There have not been any fitting and firing trials of any guided or unguided munitions for the V-22 AFAIK? No Stingers or Maverick or Harpoon let alone Hellfire?
Cheers
2000 | 1 - 0543 | Flight Archive
01/08/00 to 07/08/00
Well what has happened in the last 14 years? There have not been any fitting and firing trials of any guided or unguided munitions for the V-22 AFAIK? No Stingers or Maverick or Harpoon let alone Hellfire?
Cheers
Well what has happened in the last 14 years? There have not been any fitting
and firing trials of any guided or unguided munitions for the V-22 AFAIK? No
Stingers or Maverick or Harpoon let alone Hellfire?
Is that really old news, and not worth reporting, or are you just trying to be clever?
No I'm not trying to be clever nor profess to be. I was just mentioning that they talked about the similar thing back in 2000 that was mentioned in the Flightglobal article back then.
In one of my handbooks from Bell Boeing, I been given ( Farnborough in 2000 and 2002 Cierva Lecture where Troy Gaffey gave a presentation and 2004 and 2006 Farnborough) there was artists impression of armed version with laser (?) and armed ASW variant.
I was not on about company sponsored tests, more about what NAVAIR or AFSOC would want.
I'm off to HAI in week and a bit, I'll grab some PR from there w.r.t and find out more about this.
Cheers
In one of my handbooks from Bell Boeing, I been given ( Farnborough in 2000 and 2002 Cierva Lecture where Troy Gaffey gave a presentation and 2004 and 2006 Farnborough) there was artists impression of armed version with laser (?) and armed ASW variant.
I was not on about company sponsored tests, more about what NAVAIR or AFSOC would want.
I'm off to HAI in week and a bit, I'll grab some PR from there w.r.t and find out more about this.
Cheers
Close Chopper, but no cigar. They have already armed the Osprey with the belly-mounted Interim Gun Solution (which is now a permanent solution), as well as ramp and door-mounted machine guns
The Interim gun solution, the belly mounted turrent in the "hell hole" seems to not be installed on many sorties. The 800+ pounds cutting into usefull weight being a factor.
IIRC the chin turret that was usually part of early Osprey literature was deemed to upset CoG too much, with the Osrey already being nose heavy.
Armed Ospreys seem to have gone though a whole series of ups and downs.
Hellfires on sponson mounted rails would be usefull load.
How about one of the pallet loads from the C-130 (not the door gun)? Miniature missiles?
Maybe the pallet load could be moved from a stored position to an in-use position to allow the use of the ramp to drop off passengers.
Maybe the pallet load could be moved from a stored position to an in-use position to allow the use of the ramp to drop off passengers.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, Sandiego89 - about the chin-mounted gun on that publicity picture - it seems to leave no place for any services to be run to the gun, in addition to any issue with balance. The region of space outside the front door that needs to be avoided when shooting is large, and depends on the tilt angle. Under the floor does seem to be the natural place for mounting a gun.
Conventional armed helicopters might be more agile, but they can't accompany an Osprey as far or as fast as it's intended to reach from offshore. Could a dedicated armed Osprey look after its companions more easily and effectively than Harriers in the USMC's plans for using it?
Is it a possible 21st century Hind, since it's already got an improved version of the rear-facing gun for Afghan use?
Conventional armed helicopters might be more agile, but they can't accompany an Osprey as far or as fast as it's intended to reach from offshore. Could a dedicated armed Osprey look after its companions more easily and effectively than Harriers in the USMC's plans for using it?
Is it a possible 21st century Hind, since it's already got an improved version of the rear-facing gun for Afghan use?
Melm.....was suggesting the current Osprey configuration of Proprotors, wings, door openings and the way they all get in the way of one another when affixing guns as being the problem.
Rotate the Rotors back into the helicopter mode and then the Engine nacelles drop down into the line of fire....and a burst of .50 cal into your own engine would not be good news.
With the Props in Airplane mode....and wing mounted weapons become a problem....unless you could set up an "Interrupter" system....but if it failed....shooting off your own rotors would be bad news too.
CG limits impose problems for nose mounted weapons....and Ramp mounted guns let you shoot up someone behind you and getting further away.
Rotate the Rotors back into the helicopter mode and then the Engine nacelles drop down into the line of fire....and a burst of .50 cal into your own engine would not be good news.
With the Props in Airplane mode....and wing mounted weapons become a problem....unless you could set up an "Interrupter" system....but if it failed....shooting off your own rotors would be bad news too.
CG limits impose problems for nose mounted weapons....and Ramp mounted guns let you shoot up someone behind you and getting further away.
Yes, apologies, my reference to a door-gun was a 'mis-speak', to coin Hilary Clinton. The issue of the rotors being a problem is covered in the story, as is the possibility of utilising C130-style pallet loads.
Given the V-22's tiltrotor configuration and nearly 12 m diameter
rotorblades, forward-firing munitions could not be carried on underwing
hardpoints. Instead, the aircraft would either have to employ ramp-mounted or cargo bay-stored canister munitions, similar to those carried by the USMC's KC-130J Harvest HAWK Hercules gunship, or sponson-mounted stub-wings.
A side-firing cannon/machine gun could be fitted, but this would involve some structural re-modelling as the V-22 does not have a paratrooper door on the left-side aircraft fuselage, and the door on the right side is located forward of the rotors, which would present safety issues for the aircraft.
Given the V-22's tiltrotor configuration and nearly 12 m diameter
rotorblades, forward-firing munitions could not be carried on underwing
hardpoints. Instead, the aircraft would either have to employ ramp-mounted or cargo bay-stored canister munitions, similar to those carried by the USMC's KC-130J Harvest HAWK Hercules gunship, or sponson-mounted stub-wings.
A side-firing cannon/machine gun could be fitted, but this would involve some structural re-modelling as the V-22 does not have a paratrooper door on the left-side aircraft fuselage, and the door on the right side is located forward of the rotors, which would present safety issues for the aircraft.
Could the V-22 be modified to include an off-set nose undercarriage - and the mighty GAU-8/A cannon from the A-10?
Enough fire power to give a 'Gunny' a serial wet dream.....
Enough fire power to give a 'Gunny' a serial wet dream.....
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with big holes in it and chunks of it missing the venerable A-10 would still come back to take another shot. Can't imagine the Osprey continuing with half that level of battle damage.
Maybe rolling a daisy cutter out the back would be a better option.
Maybe rolling a daisy cutter out the back would be a better option.
