Thanks to Jed for reminding me of this!
Question. Did you know that Commandant Conway pushed to not put the MV-22 into production until they solved the lack of firepower problem that continues to plague the platform to this very day?
Well it seems like Airbus Defense has come up with a rather elegant solution that could POSSIBLY be applied to the MV-22.
In their C-295 mini-gunship they've added forward sponsons to carry ordnance. On the MV-22 they would be rather small and might only be able to carry two hellfires on one side and a pod mounted forward firing machine gun on the other but it should be investigated.
Question. Did you know that Commandant Conway pushed to not put the MV-22 into production until they solved the lack of firepower problem that continues to plague the platform to this very day?
Well it seems like Airbus Defense has come up with a rather elegant solution that could POSSIBLY be applied to the MV-22.
In their C-295 mini-gunship they've added forward sponsons to carry ordnance. On the MV-22 they would be rather small and might only be able to carry two hellfires on one side and a pod mounted forward firing machine gun on the other but it should be investigated.
Would they clear the prop rotor arc?
ReplyDeletethey'd be in front of the props...almost but not quite cheek mounted. the only real worry would probably be spent casings from the pod mounted cannon hitting the props but you could use a deflector or whatever they're called to direct them in such a way as they shouldn't be a problem.
DeleteI can see them getting the M230 chain gun installed on the MV-22 as well. It would give them Gunship capability as well.
ReplyDeletethey showed a AH-1Z type nose setup on several of the prototypes but i don't think they ever tried it on a real life example.
DeleteThe aircraft isn't a C-295 but a CN-235. CN-235 is smaller than C-295.
ReplyDeleteVideo: http://blogdepasm.blogspot.com.es/2014/05/video-del-atk-ac235-gunship-en-sofex.html
Brochure: http://www.atk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/AC-235_JLG_Data_Sheet_Final.pdf
I like the people and organizations are comming out with solutions to give this platform some firepower. But i hope you dont end up using MV-22 Firepower as a substitute for more powerfull existing platforms. This hould not be a first response platform for a true gunship role. Also, I like Solomons Commandant Convay remark. Any military platform, no matter how peacefull in nature or far removed from combat should have organic weapon carrying ability from the design stage onwards and not as an afterthought.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, AFSOC is adding armor to its CV-22s, in addition to looking for firepower:
ReplyDelete"After three of AFSOC’s Ospreys were shot up over Juba, South Sudan in December, resulting in the injuries of four Marines on board, the command realized that the birds needed better armor.
DiSebastian said that “we’re looking to put armor protection on those aircraft in under 140 days” and they’re about a third of the way through that."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140522/DEFREG02/305220038/1001/DEFSECT