Thanks to the little birdy that sent me this link.
via Defense News.
We're talking about USAF Special Operations transporting SEALs to a landing zone in a country where fighting is happening.
I FIND THAT ASTOUNDING!
What kind of mindset has developed where worse case planning isn't taking place and intel is trusted to be 100%?
But back to the CV-22/MV-22.
Marine Corps Aviation has been working on a forward firing gun for the thing for more than a decade. General Jones was pissed that it didn't have one and said this in a Time article (he was retired at the time)...
My guess? Ten years from now they'll still be looking for a solution.
via Defense News.
In response to two of its CV-22 Ospreys being shot up over Juba, South Sudan, in December, critically injuring two service members, the US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has added optional armor to the flooring of the aircraft and may also incorporate forward-firing weapons.Ignore the issue with the armoring and adding of forward firing guns to the CV-22. Think about this passage...
AFSOC commander Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold told reporters on Monday that armor panels developed for the bird could add 800 pounds of weight if the full “blanket” is used, but crews have the option to use the armor sheeting or not.
The two CV-22s were so vulnerable in the attack because the crews didn’t expect the area around the mission to be “hot,” so were surprised by the 119 rounds fired at the aircraft.
The optional armor, which is being fielded now, can be put on in pieces to protect only certain parts of the aircraft, but any extra armor will create tradeoffs, Heithold said, either in how many troops can be carried or how far the aircraft can fly before refueling is necessary.
AFSOC is also working with industry to develop a forward-firing gun, he said.
The two CV-22s were so vulnerable in the attack because the crews didn’t expect the area around the mission to be “hot,” so were surprised by the 119 rounds fired at the aircraft.We're not talking about the Air National Guard flying a refueling missions behind the forward edge of the battle space.
We're talking about USAF Special Operations transporting SEALs to a landing zone in a country where fighting is happening.
I FIND THAT ASTOUNDING!
What kind of mindset has developed where worse case planning isn't taking place and intel is trusted to be 100%?
But back to the CV-22/MV-22.
Marine Corps Aviation has been working on a forward firing gun for the thing for more than a decade. General Jones was pissed that it didn't have one and said this in a Time article (he was retired at the time)...
Retired Gen. James Jones, former commandant of the Marine Corps, told Time he'd always wanted the Osprey to have a forward-mounted gun, a .50-cal. under the nose - something he never pulled off as the Corps' top Marine.Yet it still hasn't happened. I'm looking for the quote but one Commandant even said we weren't gonna get it unless it had a forward firing gun.
Jones believes all assault support aircraft should have forward-facing weaponry, according to the article. He described it to Time as a fundamental belief stemming from his Vietnam War experience: Biggest and baddest is best.
My guess? Ten years from now they'll still be looking for a solution.
It's amazing, it's like vietnam war when US Army figured that it could be a good idea to arm UH 1.
ReplyDeleteIt's fun how the US have no memory, or how the pentagon learn nothing from history...
If there were no danger, there will be no need of soldier, even worse if we need SOF..
What is becoming US army ?
The Osprey simply can't handle opposed landings. It's too big, too slow/predictable on approach, cannot land in tight formations, has no armor (plastic body), and has no forward or side facing weapons to deter enemies with.
ReplyDeleteThey can't add an effective forward-facing gun to the thing because it was never designed to hold one. It has a zero weight margin, and putting one in the nose screws up its center of balance. Best they can do is mount one that pops out through the floor in the passenger bay, and fires remotely. But that means 4-5 fewer passengers. Put the armored floor-tiles in too, and you'll be lucky to fit half a squad inside.
There are plenty of lessons that should have been learned with this turkey, but we're making the same mistakes all over again with the F35.
One Fireteam per V-22, now that is as modern as the F-35!
DeleteI recall end of service life CH-46 having to be limited to six Marines as being the excuse for the V-22.
Defense News has an article saying Rolls Royce has increased the power of the V-22 engines by 17 percent. http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014309150006
ReplyDeleteShouldn't that give the Osprey plenty of weight margin to add the 800 lbs of armor to the floor plus whatever forward mounted machine gun would weigh?
have you seen a squad of Marines that are 95th percentile? let me tell ya, its a sight to behold and they're all beasts.
Deletenow move that over to SOCOM where you're looking at entire battalions that fit that criteria and then add in the weight of gear that they bring along just for raids.
put in a bit more armor and that 17 percent increase will just get the plane back to its original carry capacity much less account for increases in other areas like natural weight gain that all airplanes go through.
Any weight you add to the nose has to be counterbalanced by weight added the the rear to keep the center of gravity where it needs to be.
DeleteThe MV-22 is heavy as an empty aircraft and while it has a massive amount of power, the engines are the same as the C-130, the prop-rotors are not nearly as effecient as a CH-53 main rotor.
Between the high empty weight, fuel fraction, adding on weapons and armor means leaving troops behind. It becomes a perfect parody of "Pentagon Wars" with the General's adding more stuff onto the Bradley. It does not matter if General Jones wanted a forward firing gun, physics says that you cannot have one.
Regarding COG: that's why they tried the belly mounted gun, but the system is complicated and heavy, and it's limited field of fire makes it almost useless - thus rarely mounted.
DeleteSolomon, the forward firing gun is a mildly interesting sidelight. The important point in the story is the lack of anticipation of danger and appropriate planning, as you pointed out. I echo your sentiment that it's astounding. Way to cut to the heart of the matter. I've seen more and more operations that were executed with woefully inadequate contigency planning. My interpretation is that decades of police actions have caused us to forget how to plan and execute combat ops. This dates back to the Somalia-Blackhawk incident which was an absolutely inexcusable example of poor planning. Those responsible should have been cashiered and, sadly, that trend of poor planning continues unabated today.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
It's simple, if they'd anticipated danger they wouldn't have gone on the mission. Because the Osprey can't handle combat. The contingency plan is basically RUN!!!
DeleteYou can plan the ops out all you like, but if your transport platform isn't capable enough to handle an opposed landing, or offer support firepower, you're a sitting duck. Which is a failure of doctrine and it's implementation in aircraft development.
Ok Sol, where is the forward firing guns on the CH-46 and CH-53?? The General did not seem to have problem with the lack of a gun.
ReplyDelete