"Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun"

Vince wrote:
Also under consideration is a redesign of the V-22’s nose to accommodate
a chin gun, Birkholz said. “It’s all do-able,” he said. “It’s just
expensive.”
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../V-22_Aims.htm

it wasn't doable

you can hang it on the belly at the center of lift,
that is where they put the cargo hook
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ng_M777_lg.jpg

Delete the hook. Any mission that the V-22 can use the hook for the
H-53 series can do better.

For any mission that doesn't include a sling load the V-22 flies faster,
higher and further.

-HJC

On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince wrote:
David Lesher wrote:
Mike writes:

Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/

Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT

Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
aircraft.

Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
short of payload...

and balance

its a side to side prop-rotor configuration

hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens

There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
ammo.)

Wonder what they will hang on there? A .50 or twin .50 could work.
7.62 minigun?

Vince-

David E. Powell wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince wrote:
David Lesher wrote:
Mike writes:
Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
aircraft.
Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
short of payload...
and balance

its a side to side prop-rotor configuration

hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens

There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
ammo.)

IIRC that was the weight of the 30 mm turret + ammo + structural
reinforcement and all control equipment

Vince

Vince wrote:

David E. Powell wrote:

On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince wrote:

David Lesher wrote:

Mike writes:

Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
aircraft.

Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe
already
short of payload...

and balance

its a side to side prop-rotor configuration

hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens


There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
ammo.)


IIRC that was the weight of the 30 mm turret + ammo + structural
reinforcement and all control equipment

Vince

Just have the Marines go retro to WW1 and fire their pistols out the
cockpits... :-\

In message om, David
E. Powell writes
There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

There's the problem: the more weight you hang on the airframe, the less
payload you have (which is the point of a transport helicopter).

Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
ammo.)

When you put it in a remotely-operated weapon station, the weight goes
right up.

"The basic Mini-Gun is 0.80 m long and weighs 18.8 kg. A typical pintle
installation with one gun and 5,000 rounds of ammunition weighs about
500 kg", to quote Jane's Air-Launched Weapons on the GAU-2A/M134 7.62 mm
Mini-Gun and Armament System - that's for a manually pointed mount.

Wonder what they will hang on there? A .50 or twin .50 could work.
7.62 minigun?

7.62 is okay for suppressive fire against infantry, but if the V-22 is
supposed to be doing any sort of self-escort then it really needs more
range and hitting power (it may have enemy helicopters to cope with, and
certainly wants to engage light vehicles). Something like a M3M .50"
would be a decent compromise between terminal effect and weight.

Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).

As with most engineering problems, it's not that the problem is
insoluble... just that it ends up more expensive in time, money and
capability than it first looks.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Oct 21, 7:47 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

7.62 is okay for suppressive fire against infantry, but if the V-22 is
supposed to be doing any sort of self-escort then it really needs more
range and hitting power (it may have enemy helicopters to cope with, and
certainly wants to engage light vehicles). Something like a M3M .50"
would be a decent compromise between terminal effect and weight.


The once suggested system was the GDAS GAU-19 3 barrel .50 cal
gattling gun. Weighing 456 lbs.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On 2007-10-21 07:47:55 -0700, "Paul J. Adam" said:

Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).

Actually, it seems to me that the V-22 could have a real advantage in
this respect. Contemporary remotely-targeted gun systems can slew, aim
and burst-fire far, far faster than a single gunner can provide it with
targets. And the heavy part of the system is the gun, ammo and
physical aiming hardware, not the targeting vision systems and
associated avionics. So why not take a COTS gun, add another 6
vision/targeting channels and let the troopies in the back pick out
bogies for the gun to shred? A full-360 ventral TV/IR vision system
wouldn't add much weight, and the individual soldier aiming apparatus
need not be more than a headset LCD sight and a joystick plugged into
the targetting data bus. Assign one of the senior NCO's to monitor all
the troopie targeting pippers with an override switch in order to
prevent friendly-fire mistakes or ammo wastage.

Expense might be a prohibitive factor, but probably not weight. Do
wonders for the morale of the ground pounders making the assault,
though.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike wrote:
Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/

Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT

Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
aircraft.

There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
job.

A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
said.

The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
Marines use for now.

Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
plodding acquisition process.

"SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
Marine Corps."

The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
considering deploying his aircraft earlier.

In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.

"We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
special operations requirements.

But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
the best plan.

"There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
done might be the answer."

Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
requirements.

"There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
said.

"It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
commonality as possible."

"I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."

BAE jumping the gun

Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.

"We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
develop the capability," Freise said.

While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.

"We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
significantly lower than other solutions."

So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
suite.

A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.

According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.

"The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
Freise said.




Who the hell do they think they have to fight off, Me-109s?

Who the hell do they think they have to fight off, Me-109s?





Good question.... I think its a comfort peice more than anything. It's
the job of gunships and AV8b's to clear the LZ prior to a V22 landing.

Trying to make a flying SUV into a fluky gunship seems like a bad idea.
It's hard enough flying the thing, so whos going to be playing with a gun?