Pictures on right from top to bottom: A V-22 (note: the engines pose a problem for defensive gun placement), a UH-1 Huey with a mini-gun, and an artist's rendition of a H-60 Blackhawk with guns mounted.
We haven’t blogged much on the V-22 Osprey program, even though it's a program that the Pentagon is ostensibly threatening with the budgetary scalpel. Relatively little attention has been paid in the media to this program when compared to the many thousands of words expended on the F/A-22 and C-130J systems online and in print. So here’s what shall hopefully become the first semi-regular blog on this expensive deathtrap.
The Osprey still has no defensive gun system. This is a serious flaw for a troop transport craft meant to take our soldiers into the thick of battle. Without a gun, the V-22 can’t suppress ground fire. So all the hype about the tilt-rotor being less vulnerable because it can “fly like airplane” is mostly meaningless since it still has to transition to a helicopter and fly low and slow to do its core mission. Fact: Most helicopters are shot-down in combat landing zones. Our combat helicopters with guns are downed by ground fire often enough as it is, imagine what would happen if we replace armed helicopters with the Osprey.
Putting guns on the Osprey is so difficult because of inherent problems in the craft’s design. Traditional helicopter designs have their rotor blades on top. This makes placement of a gun on the sides of the helicopter easy. However, the Osprey has its engines on its sides, in the way of fire directed from the sides of the craft. Also, guns can't be mounted on the sides of the Osprey because the nacelles rotate from the vertical to horizontal position. A gun turret mounted on the bottom is a possibility, but is troublesome because it would require redesign of Osprey’s undercarriage (costing more to develop) and also poses weight problems. Increasing the V-22’s weight means lower performance such as speed, cargo and lift capacity, and reduced maximum range without refueling.
By the way, in 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney said “You’ve [Congress] directed me to buy the V-22, a program I don’t need.…My problem with the program’s always been primarily one of affordability.” The estimated cost of the program has shot up from about $30 billion for 913 aircraft in 1986 to $48 billion for 458 aircraft in 2004. The price per copy cost has gone from around $32 million in ‘86 to $105 million a copy in 2004 [all amounts in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars, information from the September 2004 Defense Department Selected Acquisition Report].
MORE: On January 31, 2005, InsideDefense reported on developing plans for a gun mounted from the rear of the Osprey. However, the gun may be too expensive even for the Marine Corp's taste:
By this summer, officials will likely finish trade studies that are examining two options for equipping the rear ramp of the Osprey with a gun.
"...The key is whether we can afford it,” said Marine Corps Col. Keith Birkholz, the head of aviation weapons systems in the service’s aviation requirements directorate.
I would like to remember everyone here that this is a innovative design. The V-22 itself might be doomed to fail, but the research made to make it what it is today and tommorrow WILL be of use in making future Tiltrotor aircrafts and potentially spawn cross-referenced designs in the future.
Don't be so short sighted. Research costs money, you can't avoid that.
Posted by: Sebastien | Dec 26, 2007 at 09:20 PM
"The Osprey still has no defensive gun system."
Incorrect. As announced in September 2000 all production V-22s will in fact be equipped with a GDAS 50 caliber GAU-19/A gatling gun mounted in a chin turret.
"So all the hype about the tilt-rotor being less vulnerable because it can “fly like airplane” is mostly meaningless since it still has to transition to a helicopter and fly low and slow to do its core mission."
0-220 Knots and 220-0 knots in 12 seconds means that the Osprey has a quicker egress/ingress landing zone rate than any rotary winged platform in the inventory. Couple that with greatly reduced acoustic and IR signatures and greater ballistic integrity and the Osprey is less vulnerable to ground fire than the CH-46s and CH-53s that it will replace.
Never let the facts get in the way of disseminating bogus information.
Posted by: A.A. Cunningham | Mar 13, 2005 at 02:23 PM
Sam,
In addition to my last post I think I should point this out. According to Global Security:
"The V-22 Osprey is a tiltrotor vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL), multi-mission air-craft developed to fill multi-Service combat operational requirements. The MV-22 will replace the current Marine Corps assault helicopters in the medium lift category (CH-46E and CH-53D), contributing to the dominant maneuver of the Marine landing force, as well as supporting focused logistics in the days following commencement of an amphibious operation."
I don't think it's laughable to want a gun on an assault transport helicopter taking troops into an amphibious landing zone.
-Guns are good.
Posted by: Guns are good | Feb 26, 2005 at 12:07 PM
Sam,
First of all, I think POGO is saying that news coverage on weapons cuts has focused on the C-130J and F-22. Some has been paid to the V-22, but compared to the other two, very little.
No one said it is meant to be a gunship, nor that the V-22 should loiter around the battlefied. But there's a reason many Hueys and Blackhawks often ave machine guns mounted on their side doors. It's nice to suppress ground fire and keep the heads down of guys running around with MANPADS trying to kill you. It can help reduce the immediate danger when your guys get on and off the helicopters. I don't know of any "official" studies on whether guns on the Hueys in Vietnam reduced shootdowns or helped saved lives of trooping embarking and disembarking. But it seems intuitive that it would.
Your argument that the V-22 spends most of its time in airplane mode was addressed in POGO's post. So what if it flys fast and high 90% of the time, but in the 10% it doesn't--it's just as, if not more vulnerable than helicopters when they're most at risk. Follow?
And finally, although it's not certain whether a gun will eventually find its way onto the Osprey, the POGO post's ending makes it clear that the MARINES WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A GUN on it.
Guns are Good.
Posted by: Guns are good | Feb 26, 2005 at 11:40 AM
Plenty of media attention has been paid to the V-22. How many 60 Minutes programs have been made about the F/A-22 or C-130J? The Osprey is not designed to take troops into "the thick of battle." It is not a gunship designed to attack enemy positions. It is designed to take troops safely around or over enemy air defenses to a location the enemy is not prepared to defend. Let the armed helicopters take troops into hot LZs and see how the battle goes.
If the V-22 were armed, it would only be for emergency situations. Armaments add weight, reduce carrying capacity, slow it down. Your article doesn't mention any of these disadvantages or arming it. "Our combat helicopters with guns are downed by ground fire often enough as it is, imagine what would happen if we replace armed helicopters with the Osprey." LOL What evidence do you have that arming helicopters would reduce the number shot down in the first place? The V-22 is supposed to spend most of its time in Airplane mode, not in helicopter mode. It can transition very quickly into helicopter mode to land load and unload and take off. It is not designed to hang around the battlefield and dodge MANPADS, machineguns, and RPGs. Leave that job to the Apache and see how long it lasts.
Posted by: Sam | Feb 26, 2005 at 10:52 AM
The V-22 is also being procured for the Air Force and that is another crazy situation. The AF guys drop Special Forces teams behind lines etc. The V-22 for that role is a heavyweight in electronics, with lots of see in the dark, navigate quietly and precisely. But when the troops tried to rappel down a rope the prop wash almost beats them to death. The test report was slipped down behind some file cabinet somewhere I'll bet. Oh and the props light up a radar much father away than a regular aircraft.
Another neat "feature" of the V-22 is that it has driven the development of narrow vehicles, specifically designed to get inside the cramped V-22! The alternative aircraft is a standard well proven Sikorsky helicopter with lots of room, lots of pilots with the ability to fly it and an avionics suite that already exists. The issue is long range and added tanks could provide that only when needed. Wiring some newly manufactured helos would be lots cheaper that buying V-22s!!
Posted by: George H | Feb 15, 2005 at 07:19 PM