"Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun"

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.

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.

If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -

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.

Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?

If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -

On Oct 16, 7:36 am, BradGuth wrote:
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.

Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?

If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad all humans on planet earth are human. What are you saying
including our own kind? Deep breath in, hold hold hold, now exhale.
C'mon now it was working for a while. remember "each day I get better
and better in every way" it will happen, stick to it guy..........Doc

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.

My God! (are we good at killing innocent hummans, or what?)
- Brad Guth -

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...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

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

Vince

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

It's belly, not chin mounted.

-HJC
Fact correcting Vince is endless fun.

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?

On Oct 16, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:36 am, BradGuth wrote:





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.

Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?

If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad all humans on planet earth are human. What are you saying
including our own kind? Deep breath in, hold hold hold, now exhale.
C'mon now it was working for a while. remember "each day I get better
and better in every way" it will happen, stick to it guy..........Doc

There are multiple species of humans on Earth, with some way dumber
than others. Not all humans are Zion Yids, and not all smart Yids are
Third Reich. Go figure.
-
Brad Guth