User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 5:50:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I recall as well. Reliability, weight/complexity, and the problems with SA and the motion sickness inducing video feed aside, part of the issue is the gun. If you can only engage targets within about 1000m in a fast moving aircraft like MV-22 and the turret has to be retracted before the bird can safely land, then you really dont have too much in the way of an engagement window before the system has to be tucked back up in the belly just doing the "back of the napkin" math. I seem to remember they were pulled off to free up weight since they just werent that useful, but I'd love to hear from some of the Marines that actually used the system if any post here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: IIRC, the units that got them and tested them in combat removed them because they just weren't useful. Witha V-22, which is fast, you can just fly away. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 6:23:32 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not a gunship. That's just defensive armament so it can get in and get out, same as door guns on a SH60 or CH47. It's especially needed on Osprey given that it can out range its support. Cobra's or other rotary wing A/C may not have the range to provide top cover while the Osprey's are shitting Marines out the back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 6:35:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Why not quad rotor designs? Wouldn’t that seem inherently more stable?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 6:59:23 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not quad rotor designs? Wouldn’t that seem inherently more stable? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:07:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gun is cool airframe is a pos |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:14:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember the gunship concept they had in the early 80's. The brochure had the gunship providing cover while the v22 dropped off troops at a hot LZ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:17:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See Army's Future Vertical Lift. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not quad rotor designs? Wouldn’t that seem inherently more stable? Kharn 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:28:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure the troops would too, but the whole point is the osprey can fly faster and farther. We need support that can also keep up, will need to be fixed wing or tilt rotor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 8:18:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Is this different than the last time they stuck a gun out through the Hell Hole in the late 2000s/early 2010s? They scrapped that because the situational awareness of the gun operator sitting in the back was so poor, and the pilots couldn't effectively communicate with him. They were worried about friendly fire.
Later on in 2013 they started putting helmet mounted displays on the Air Force V-22s. Those could in theory be modified to allow targeting of weapons, and Bell flight tested the rocket/missile mount hanging off the port side. The Marines were never interested because they had no intent of adding the HMDs to their fleet. Also in the last couple of years the Marines finally got some F35Bs flying, which fixed the problem of the V-22 outrunning all of its support. Supposedly someone built a new nose cover that contained a gun of some sort that could have been targeted using the HMD. I never saw it myself. Ultimately all of these ideas die because they're bad and unnecessary. -22s, -46s, -53s, and -60s all do fine with just ramp or door guns. No one ever asks why they aren't weighing down the CH-46 fleet with a giant cannon and a hundred rockets while still expecting it to be a transport. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:45:17 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These would. And be faster and much cheaper to fly. https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/0EthD0N3ufDtCboMhAP8vF2sH68=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LK63H4N7NNC7NGYVGHPRXNHZQM.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It's not a gunship. That's just defensive armament so it can get in and get out, same as door guns on a SH60 or CH47. It's especially needed on Osprey given that it can out range its support. Cobra's or other rotary wing A/C may not have the range to provide top cover while the Osprey's are shitting Marines out the back. https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/0EthD0N3ufDtCboMhAP8vF2sH68=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LK63H4N7NNC7NGYVGHPRXNHZQM.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:49:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gun is cool airframe is a pos 
Gun cool Plane cool |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:50:52 AM EDT
[#12]
Been trying this for a while, even back in the 1990's we were seeing prototypes before the MV-22 hit the fleet. Raytheon used a metal XBOX controller for theirs as that is what the generation of crew were used to using.
Is it needed? Who cares, another form of raining death I am good with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:51:44 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always get a freedom boner watching an Osprey transition - no other military in the world can match that tech. And we make it look easy. They must have a bunch in NoVA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:54:18 AM EDT
[#14]
such much fucking badass.
Makes we want to give up with the firearms I can get. This... this is a fucking firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:58:11 AM EDT
[#15]
I guess no body can make every body happy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 11:07:10 AM EDT
[#16]
As has been obvious from the get-go of the -22, buy or refurb some OV-10's for escort duty, problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 11:08:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can they take off/land on an LHA? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: It's not a gunship. That's just defensive armament so it can get in and get out, same as door guns on a SH60 or CH47. It's especially needed on Osprey given that it can out range its support. Cobra's or other rotary wing A/C may not have the range to provide top cover while the Osprey's are shitting Marines out the back. https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/0EthD0N3ufDtCboMhAP8vF2sH68=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LK63H4N7NNC7NGYVGHPRXNHZQM.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 11:09:00 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As has been obvious from the get-go of the -22, buy or refurb some OV-10's for escort duty, problem solved. Skids can escort, but they're too slow. Fixed wing is fast enough, but can't operate from something like a landing ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 11:15:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Seems like they are flying really low. And they might get lit up with a 50 from someone on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 11:29:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not gonna work. Survivability concerns aside, the belly sits way to close too the ground to make a conventional turret workable. It's also what makes a cued gun setup like M230 or even something smaller like GAU-21 or GAU-19 or minigun mounted under the nose impractical. Hence the use of what is effectively an inverted RWS that folds in and out of the AC. The inverted RWS concept can work, it just needs to be the right one, with the right user interface, and the right gun, ie something that can give standoff, denisity of fire, terminal effects, and be reliable without driving the weight through the roof. DOD has Future Vertical Lift (FVL) in the works, but that program is still in it's infancy. Sikorsky and Bell have been working on prototypes for some of the requirements, but I think you are still looking at 10-20 years out before you start seeing any of those coming on line, not sure as I havent been following the programs very closely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Not gonna work. Survivability concerns aside, the belly sits way to close too the ground to make a conventional turret workable. It's also what makes a cued gun setup like M230 or even something smaller like GAU-21 or GAU-19 or minigun mounted under the nose impractical. Hence the use of what is effectively an inverted RWS that folds in and out of the AC. The inverted RWS concept can work, it just needs to be the right one, with the right user interface, and the right gun, ie something that can give standoff, denisity of fire, terminal effects, and be reliable without driving the weight through the roof. DOD has Future Vertical Lift (FVL) in the works, but that program is still in it's infancy. Sikorsky and Bell have been working on prototypes for some of the requirements, but I think you are still looking at 10-20 years out before you start seeing any of those coming on line, not sure as I havent been following the programs very closely. Quoted:
Can they get off the deck of an LHD? I was aboard the USS Saipan and we deployed with OV10s and helicopters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:33:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not quad rotor designs? Wouldn’t that seem inherently more stable? Kharn Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:35:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not gonna work. Survivability concerns aside, the belly sits way to close too the ground to make a conventional turret workable. It's also what makes a cued gun setup like M230 or even something smaller like GAU-21 or GAU-19 or minigun mounted under the nose impractical. Hence the use of what is effectively an inverted RWS that folds in and out of the AC. The inverted RWS concept can work, it just needs to be the right one, with the right user interface, and the right gun, ie something that can give standoff, denisity of fire, terminal effects, and be reliable without driving the weight through the roof. DOD has Future Vertical Lift (FVL) in the works, but that program is still in it's infancy. Sikorsky and Bell have been working on prototypes for some of the requirements, but I think you are still looking at 10-20 years out before you start seeing any of those coming on line, not sure as I havent been following the programs very closely. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:41:08 PM EDT
[#23]
That's the problem with the .50 cal, not enough penetrating power. You can tell from watching the tracers bounce right off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:59:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The whole point is to make something that can operate independently with the Osprey, and the platforms the Osprey can utilize. Skids can escort, but they're too slow. Fixed wing is fast enough, but can't operate from something like a landing ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 10:06:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the problem with the .50 cal, not enough penetrating power. You can tell from watching the tracers bounce right off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2019 10:22:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The whole point is to make something that can operate independently with the Osprey, and the platforms the Osprey can utilize. Skids can escort, but they're too slow. Fixed wing is fast enough, but can't operate from something like a landing ship. Just like helicopters... most of the time, Osprey is going to operate from a facility that could easily handle LAAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 10:41:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What percentage of V-22 missions would really happen from the ship? I figure it can’t be much, and those missions would be high-priority enough that F-35B can escort. Just like helicopters... most of the time, Osprey is going to operate from a facility that could easily handle LAAR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The whole point is to make something that can operate independently with the Osprey, and the platforms the Osprey can utilize. Skids can escort, but they're too slow. Fixed wing is fast enough, but can't operate from something like a landing ship. Just like helicopters... most of the time, Osprey is going to operate from a facility that could easily handle LAAR. A Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) basically lives on a ship, and missions originate from the ship. The Aviation Combat Element (ACE) is built around a core squadron of 12 MV-22s. Most MEUs, when deployed, deploy onboard ships. Occasionally, there will be some reason a MEU doesn't float. In 2004-2005, I was deployed with the MEU to Iraq and never saw a ship. I did most of my deployment at FOB Kalsu. Marines spend a lot of time onboard ships, and that includes the Osprey. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 10:59:02 PM EDT
[#28]
The ball turret idea would be awesome
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 11:04:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Had a maintenance/fun flight up to that range on one of our MH-53J helos. We stopped and picked up the range master or whatever they call the guy that runs it. Then we proceeded to shoot the miniguns and the .50 at some ships and stationary targets throughout the marsh. Fun flight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 11:32:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYJML71QQbo
50cal gun runs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEbPsWd3Wm8 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 11:38:05 PM EDT
[#31]
I will take, “What is shit that will never be used in combat” for $300 Alex
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2019 11:42:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to a friend who is a retired Chief Master Sergeant, every attempt to mount a gun on the Osprey has been a giant failure. Cool toy, but possesses the foolishness of both plane *and* helicopter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:18:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not quad rotor designs? Wouldn't that seem inherently more stable? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:19:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think there's any need more for stability, and you're adding weight and complication to do something that can be done with two rotors. We actually did some QTR wind tunnel testing in 2006, but that was for JHL, which is more like a C-130. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/60883/quad-tilt-wind-1113033.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:25:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's the hovering capability of the Osprey? Can it perform fast rope or recovery (ladder, SPIES, baskets) the same as a uh-60? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:30:13 AM EDT
[#36]
I wonder if it would be easier to fix it to one side, like a mini AC-130.
Re: Broncos, I know they talked about bringing them back, but I don't think it happened. Having the Osprey do its own escort means less spare parts, training, maintenance, etc, by keeping one T/M/S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:36:37 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lame...and double lame for video posting fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 12:51:03 AM EDT
[#38]
There is not a .50 cal in the whole damn video. 30 cal mini gun and 30 cal door gun. Hello old people get your mind and your eyeballs checked!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 1:33:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're awesome. I get to see them all the time, at least twice a month. They must have a bunch in NoVA |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 1:35:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is not a .50 cal in the whole damn video. 30 cal mini gun and 30 cal door gun. Hello old people get your mind and your eyeballs checked! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 1:41:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When operating from a MEU Would it be fair to say the F35 is pointless as an escort ( Its stealth but the Osprey is not) and that the Cobra works somewhat ( Is able to provide support but is too slow for the osprey) . They have effectively out engineered themselves with the osprey and put it in a weird operational gap that did not exist before. It can get there quick but not stealthy nor can it be escorted by existing platforms . The Navy and Marines brass are probably going to develop some escort just for this "concept" of SVTOL attack. We have never needed the Harrier nor the F35 to operate from the amphib warfare ship. Helicopters would do just fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure the troops would too, but the whole point is the osprey can fly faster and farther. We need support that can also keep up, will need to be fixed wing or tilt rotor. "We have never needed the Harrier nor the F35 to operate from the amphib warfare ship." Laughs in OEF/OIF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 1:49:52 AM EDT
[#42]
The osprey is a fine platform. Those who disagree have no experience with the current platform. Turds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 2:04:52 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot more than you think. A Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) basically lives on a ship, and missions originate from the ship. The Aviation Combat Element (ACE) is built around a core squadron of 12 MV-22s. Most MEUs, when deployed, deploy onboard ships. Occasionally, there will be some reason a MEU doesn't float. In 2004-2005, I was deployed with the MEU to Iraq and never saw a ship. I did most of my deployment at FOB Kalsu. Marines spend a lot of time onboard ships, and that includes the Osprey. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/148519/IMG_0160_JPG-1112925.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole point is to make something that can operate independently with the Osprey, and the platforms the Osprey can utilize. Skids can escort, but they're too slow. Fixed wing is fast enough, but can't operate from something like a landing ship. Just like helicopters... most of the time, Osprey is going to operate from a facility that could easily handle LAAR. A Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) basically lives on a ship, and missions originate from the ship. The Aviation Combat Element (ACE) is built around a core squadron of 12 MV-22s. Most MEUs, when deployed, deploy onboard ships. Occasionally, there will be some reason a MEU doesn't float. In 2004-2005, I was deployed with the MEU to Iraq and never saw a ship. I did most of my deployment at FOB Kalsu. Marines spend a lot of time onboard ships, and that includes the Osprey. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/148519/IMG_0160_JPG-1112925.jpg TONS of humanitarian missions as well. Those are launched from ship all over the world where the MEU's operate. eta- I swear MEU's are the most misunderstood thing, for the amount of publicity and open source info there is about them. I get stuff like SEAL, DEVGRU, BANNAFLAGCATEARMEDICINESECRETSQUAD having a lot of people over, under, and mis-estimating what they can or can't do because there's a lot of shit you never hear about. But you hear about EVERYTHING the MEU does. It's all over the news all the time, and they even post up thier own zany antics and stuff. Shit's all over wikipedia, and verifiable by... the ships newsletters... But you get on ARF it's all "Harriers will never hover into combat off ships" When, in reality, they were one of the first aircraft in Afghanistan in 2001 (from my ship) because they *gasp* took off from our MEU, and landed in dirt in the middle of no where on a FARP to provide CAS when other AC were still trying to get clearances through other countries airspace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 3:04:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Deploy the UAVs !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 5:37:12 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deploy the UAVs ! The Osprey in a great solution for what the design is for. I have a Cousin that is totally in with the believers with the mission that it was designed for. Without more information he said that more upgrades have to be accomplished to get more from the platform, but the aircraft has to grow. So maybe a tri or quad rotor as someone pointed out is a great design forward. Additional 25 to 30% fuselage length added, and a mission capable Gunship platform that can loiter with UAV support. The 21st century is here, and tech will be used by the enemy and the U.S. has to keep the razors edge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 8:57:24 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ball turret idea would be awesome 
That's about a foot of ground clearance, and even less than that when the suspension is compressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 9:01:22 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The osprey is a fine platform. Those who disagree have no experience with the current platform. Turds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 9:49:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Doubters of the Osprey should read "The Dream Machine"--any aircraft with a similarly tortured development history (from a program management perspective) was bound to have problems. Now the design is 30 years old, the kinks have been worked out, and after over a decade of very high operational tempo (on top of all the rough history), they are starting to standardize air frames. They have really come into their own.
Yes, they are inherently expensive and maintenance intensive, but we also have to remember what an incredible step-change it was to bring this thing off the drawing board. The rotors and wings are relatively too small; that was a deliberate decision due to the need to fit them on our amphibs. The wing pivot mechanism was a beast; again, necessitated by the elevators on the amphibs. If you want that kind of capability, then you have to pay the ticket to ride. Aside from small-batch prototypes, what other nation has fielded HUNDREDS of tilt-rotors to put 24 pissed-off Marines or SOF onto an LZ or rooftop, from hundreds of miles away, from over the ocean? Nobody!  
As for the gunship question...that was decided decades ago, and we should stop trying to cram 15lbs of shit into a 5lb bag. The Osprey is a transport, let it be a transport (or COD, as it were). I DO think a tilt rotor drone tanker, or AWACs, or EW, or bomb truck could be promising. I DON'T think a drone is appropriate for CAS (in the way it is performed by an A-10, Super Taco, or OV-10). But any of the preceding needs to be a different airframe, not a kludge job on the V-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 9:55:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Re: Broncos, I know they talked about bringing them back, but I don't think it happened. Having the Osprey do its own escort means less spare parts, training, maintenance, etc, by keeping one T/M/S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2019 11:19:22 AM EDT
[#50]
Awesome videos op.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
