via Aviation Today.
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey successfully demonstrated its forward-firing capability at the United States Army Proving Ground in Yuma, Ariz. Initial design work for the forward fire capability began in mid-2013.
Monday, December 08, 2014
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Demonstrates Forward-Firing Capability
Thanks for the link William!
via Aviation Today.
via Aviation Today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Can it do that in level flight, or only with the rotors at an angle? Can it do it with the rotors up as it would landing in a hot LZ?
ReplyDeletedoctrine confusion. the USMC has put into service a rotary winged airplane that outdistances its escort helicopters in both speed and range, is a bit too slow for its fast movers and is developing a concept that would have small units operating at distance away from supporting fires.
Deletethe Marines need a time out to clean up all these conflicting operating concepts and needs to have a serious slap in the face by reality.
This. You nailed it Sol.
DeleteFor all of it's gee-wiz technology, this aircraft simply doesn't fit anywhere into a proper force doctrine. Nor can it be retrofitted with the systems it needs to operate alone.
You can imagine its limited in payload by center of gravity
ReplyDeleteLet's see here: Belly gun, check. Nemesis turrets, check. More antenna than god gave an ant farm, check. Rocket Artillery Heavy Hog wannabe, check.
ReplyDeleteAll that crap = More Drag and More Weight.
None of it doing what the Osprey is _supposed to achieve_ which is rapid STOM delivery beyond the beach.
Here's a couple thoughts:
1. Get your people on a vehicle while the CH-53K brings, internally, to full depth. Let them -drive- to the sound of gunfire and keep your 100 million dollar V-22 well and truly out of Harm's Way. What, is AirMech so hated that you won't put an M240/M27 combot on a Gator with a gunshield and some seat armor to help Marines on the ground?
2. If you are bound and determined to pull this kind of activity, at least do yourself a favor and do not make it a rail-forward weapons system because that means you have a round which can only be fired with the Osprey's nose pointed within 30` of the target, at or below the horizon.
Instead rig something like the MCALS or the Griffin ejector on the Harvest Hawk and kick 10-20-30 small-smart munitions out the back of a dedicated gunship that can then close the ramp and regain full flying speed.
Unpowered, a Griffin B falls straight down into your engagement zone and provided you have a 360` lower hemisphere FLIR turret coverage, you can do wagon wheel CAS from 5-10,000ft and 2-4nm downrange, well outside ZPU-2 slants and pushing for most shoulder-fired SAM.
Powered, as AGM-175A, and you can make the missile loft and go 5-10nm downrange using the Netfires datalink in a palletized rack to talk to the missile the way we used to talk to FOG-M: getting a better picture of target displacements at the objective (not LZ!), from low level.
One is a low guided, high ballistic, threat solution for insurgency conditions, especially where you are hot'n'high and need to keep speed on the airframe to stay out of the stall. The other is the reverse as something you would use to sterilize targets in support of a UBL type special warfare operator insertion, when Fixed Wing support flatly isn't available.
The Osprey is not an attack helicopter. It has vastly less armor, agility and protective suite options. However; it has a much larger payload volume which means that there is nothing that prevents it from assuming a followon modernized equivalent to the 'Guns-a-Gogo' mission concept (ACH-47A in Vietnam).
Is this not BAe just trying to justify spending (more) money on the aircraft before the S-97 raider gets it's first flight in the next few weeks and the money goes on buying that as the escort aircraft (they do quote 250 knots airspeed). Not that I'm accusing BAe of skulduggery of course!!!
ReplyDeleteBell and Boeing built the Osprey not BAE. Sikorsky's building the CH53K King Stallion and the S97 Raider. pound for pound though Raider even once completed is a scout. max weapons load would be maybe a Gau 19 on one side and two ATGMs or a rocket pod on the other. It's a good option for OH6 and Oh58 replacement.For a True escort for Osprey you have to wait till the Army's JMR program gets rolling and production but thats probably not till after 2025.
ReplyDeleteThen You will have Boeing-Sikorsky flying off with the Defiant a Blackhawk Scaled Version of the Raider vs Bell with the Valor a Blackhawk sized Tiltrotor. both are supposed to have Attack derivatives.
Apparently Osprey were used in the botched recent Yemen raid. Accounts of distance from objective differ:
ReplyDeleteCV-22 Osprey aircraft
--more than six miles amid hills and scrub brush to a heavily fortified compound
--a little more than six miles away from a compound
--around six miles (10 km) from the compound
--they approached the al Qaeda compound on foot from two miles away.
--about a mile from the village
it really doesn't matter. if you've been out in the bush at dark then you know that any landing closer than 10 miles away will be heard. animals will alert and a competent opponent will know that something is up.
Deleteit was a cluster fuck and no one in public is saying it out loud.
If you've got 45 minutes, check out this highly professional Osprey promo video produced by MacKenzie Productions with "assaults" by the Thunder Chickens against two benign objectives. (Don't miss the ending featuring the Marine Commandant. You'll want to rush out and buy one.)
ReplyDeleteIn this promo video the Ospreys "rose to the challenge" ...two days of uncontested "combat operations" to a lonesome isolated desert compound and an empty cave. Big whoop. Zero results. What did that cost, men and materiel?
I was waiting for the promised hot LZ scene -- but they weren't THAT stupid. Nevertheless, there are plenty of facts in this video to build many arguments against the Osprey, including that they require armed helicopter escorts. The Osprey's greatest attribute is speed, with a top speed of 360 MPH, but the fastest helo makes 250.
As the Marine says at 7:43: "It's just that we don't have our established role yet."
check this out - good way to defend an island?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.popsci.com/chinas-got-pain-beam
Why doesn't the USMC form a few CAS squadrons of Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucanos to provide CAS and cover at hot LZs for CV-22 units? They have comparable performance specs. For the price of one F-35 the USMC could cover the cost.
ReplyDeletebecause the USMC is not SOCOM's cover or support force. budget dollars that aren't already programmed should be devoted to making up for shortfalls in USMC equipment, not in supporting a SOCOM that is already lavishly funded.
DeleteSOCOM has been playing this double dipping game for over a decade now. they task conventional forces with the privilige of supporting their operations instead of leaning out and paying for it out of their own budget. this is coming to a head real soon. two USN helicopter squadrons that support SOCOM are on the budget chopping block unless SOCOM ponies up the money to pay for them. my guess? SOCOM would rather see them gone than do the right thing and pay for specific units that are detailed to support only them.
Yes, the "Unified Combatant Commands" are--
DeleteAfrica Command
Central Command
European Command
Northern Command
Pacific Command
Southern Command
Special Operations Command
Strategic Command
Transportation Command
unified command means that they can request forces. awesome. you want some helos or gunts to provide perimeter security cool. if you want us to dig into budget to pay for stuff you should pay for yourself? pound sand "snake eater".
DeleteCorrect. I failed to make it clear that my "yes" was in response to Solomon's comment.
Deletesorry Don, i'm getting a bit peeved at how SOCOM has grown and grown and yet continue to pawn off so many budget issues onto conventional forces. they even have achieved command status and yet control NO theaters! i mean really? seriously! before you think that's crazy consider that they have seats at the table of all combatant commands, have seats in all the services and more.
DeleteSOCOM needs to be put back into its bottle. its grown too large and is no longer a "special" service.
TRANSCOM might be a good model, but in a greater sense the government (apparently) seems to be in a Special Forces world.
DeleteLook at Afghanistan, look at Syria/Iraq with MajGen Nagata, the leading Army snake-eater in charge of training "moderate rebels" i.e. the type of teams that operate in Afghanistan. Yemen, Libya, hostage recovery missions -- it's all snake-eaters on steroids. Conventional? Not so much.