"Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun"

[Mike[_7_]]

Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/

Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT

Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
aircraft.

There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
job.

A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
said.

The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
Marines use for now.

Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
plodding acquisition process.

"SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
Marine Corps."

The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
considering deploying his aircraft earlier.

In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.

"We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
special operations requirements.

But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
the best plan.

"There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
done might be the answer."

Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
requirements.

"There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
said.

"It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
commonality as possible."

"I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."

BAE jumping the gun

Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.

"We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
develop the capability," Freise said.

While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.

"We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
significantly lower than other solutions."

So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
suite.

A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.

According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.

"The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
Freise said.

[BradGuth]

On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> aircraft.
>
> There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> job.
>
> A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> said.
>
> The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> Marines use for now.
>
> Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> plodding acquisition process.
>
> "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> Marine Corps."
>
> The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> special operations requirements.
>
> But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> the best plan.
>
> "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> done might be the answer."
>
> Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> requirements.
>
> "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> said.
>
> "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> commonality as possible."
>
> "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> BAE jumping the gun
>
> Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> suite.
>
> A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> Freise said.

If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -

[BradGuth]

On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> aircraft.
>
> There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> job.
>
> A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> said.
>
> The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> Marines use for now.
>
> Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> plodding acquisition process.
>
> "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> Marine Corps."
>
> The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> special operations requirements.
>
> But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> the best plan.
>
> "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> done might be the answer."
>
> Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> requirements.
>
> "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> said.
>
> "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> commonality as possible."
>
> "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> BAE jumping the gun
>
> Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> suite.
>
> A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> Freise said.

Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?

If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
- Brad Guth -

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> >http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> > Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> > Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> > machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> > defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> > aircraft.
>
> > There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> > one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> > job.
>
> > A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> > gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> > said.
>
> > The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> > research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> > defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> > Marines use for now.
>
> > Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> > finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> > plodding acquisition process.
>
> > "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> > Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> > Marine Corps."
>
> > The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> > largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> > which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> > Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> > While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> > 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> > considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> > In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> > defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> > of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> > "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> > said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> > special operations requirements.
>
> > But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> > said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> > possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> > integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> > the best plan.
>
> > "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> > integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> > acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> > done might be the answer."
>
> > Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> > Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> > same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> > requirements.
>
> > "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> > said.
>
> > "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> > versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> > commonality as possible."
>
> > "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> > Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> > committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> > aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> > BAE jumping the gun
>
> > Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> > Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> > weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> > aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> > president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> > "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> > develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> > While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> > charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> > to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> > "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> > protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> > rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> > Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> > significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> > So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> > Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> > currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> > gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> > gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> > suite.
>
> > A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> > is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> > According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> > "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> > integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> > Freise said.
>
> Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
> hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?
>
> If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
> off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
> stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
> - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad all humans on planet earth are human. What are you saying
including our own kind? Deep breath in, hold hold hold, now exhale.
C'mon now it was working for a while. remember "each day I get better
and better in every way" it will happen, stick to it guy..........Doc

[BradGuth]

On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> aircraft.
>
> There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> job.
>
> A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> said.
>
> The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> Marines use for now.
>
> Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> plodding acquisition process.
>
> "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> Marine Corps."
>
> The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> special operations requirements.
>
> But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> the best plan.
>
> "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> done might be the answer."
>
> Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> requirements.
>
> "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> said.
>
> "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> commonality as possible."
>
> "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> BAE jumping the gun
>
> Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> suite.
>
> A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> Freise said.

My God! (are we good at killing innocent hummans, or what?)
- Brad Guth -

[David Lesher]

Mike > writes:

>Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun

>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/

>Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT

>Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
>aircraft.


Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
short of payload...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Vince]

David Lesher wrote:
> Mike > writes:
>
>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
>> aircraft.
>
>
> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
> short of payload...
>

and balance

its a side to side prop-rotor configuration

hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens

Vince

[Henry J Cobb]

Vince wrote:
> David Lesher wrote:
>> Mike > writes:
>>
>>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>>
>>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>>
>>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>>
>>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>>> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>>> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
>>> aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
>> short of payload...
>>
>
> and balance
>
> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>
> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens

It's belly, not chin mounted.

-HJC
Fact correcting Vince is endless fun.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> aircraft.
>
> There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> job.
>
> A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> said.
>
> The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> Marines use for now.
>
> Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> plodding acquisition process.
>
> "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> Marine Corps."
>
> The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> special operations requirements.
>
> But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> the best plan.
>
> "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> done might be the answer."
>
> Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> requirements.
>
> "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> said.
>
> "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> commonality as possible."
>
> "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> BAE jumping the gun
>
> Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> suite.
>
> A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> Freise said.




Who the hell do they think they have to fight off, Me-109s?

[BradGuth]

On Oct 16, 12:25 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 16, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> > >http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> > > Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> > > Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> > > machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> > > defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> > > aircraft.
>
> > > There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> > > one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> > > job.
>
> > > A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> > > gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> > > said.
>
> > > The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> > > research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> > > defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> > > Marines use for now.
>
> > > Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> > > finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> > > plodding acquisition process.
>
> > > "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> > > Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> > > Marine Corps."
>
> > > The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> > > largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> > > which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> > > Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> > > While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> > > 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> > > considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> > > In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> > > defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> > > of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> > > "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> > > said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> > > special operations requirements.
>
> > > But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> > > said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> > > possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> > > integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> > > the best plan.
>
> > > "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> > > integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> > > acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> > > done might be the answer."
>
> > > Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> > > Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> > > same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> > > requirements.
>
> > > "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> > > said.
>
> > > "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> > > versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> > > commonality as possible."
>
> > > "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> > > Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> > > committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> > > aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> > > BAE jumping the gun
>
> > > Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> > > Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> > > weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> > > aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> > > president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> > > "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> > > develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> > > While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> > > charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> > > to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> > > "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> > > protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> > > rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> > > Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> > > significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> > > So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> > > Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> > > currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> > > gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> > > gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> > > suite.
>
> > > A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> > > is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> > > According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> > > "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> > > integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> > > Freise said.
>
> > Is there anythig less reliable or more spendy per aircraft and per
> > hour of operation than those freaking V-22 Ospreys?
>
> > If the object is to spend the absolute most possible in order to kill
> > off as many humans as possible (including our own kind), why not just
> > stick with using VX dirty cluster bombs?
> > - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Brad all humans on planet earth are human. What are you saying
> including our own kind? Deep breath in, hold hold hold, now exhale.
> C'mon now it was working for a while. remember "each day I get better
> and better in every way" it will happen, stick to it guy..........Doc

There are multiple species of humans on Earth, with some way dumber
than others. Not all humans are Zion Yids, and not all smart Yids are
Third Reich. Go figure.
-
Brad Guth

[Vince]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> David Lesher wrote:
>>> Mike > writes:
>>>
>>>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>>>
>>>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>>>
>>>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>>>
>>>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a
>>>> turret-mounted machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought
>>>> requirement for a forward-firing defensive weapon and making it
>>>> unique among today's U.S. transport aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe
>>> already short of payload...
>>>
>>
>> and balance
>>
>> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>>
>> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens
>
> It's belly, not chin mounted.
>
> -HJC Fact correcting Vince is endless fun.

You missed my point
you cant hang it on the chin, they tried and they found that out
it was the original concept even up to 2005.

Also under consideration is a redesign of the V-22’s nose to accommodate
a chin gun, Birkholz said. “It’s all do-able,” he said. “It’s just
expensive.”
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Apr/V-22_Aims.htm

it wasn't doable

you can hang it on the belly at the center of lift,
that is where they put the cargo hook
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_V-22_Underslung_M777_lg.jpg


nothing is free

Vince

[Richard Casady]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:54 -0700, BradGuth >
wrote:

>Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
>> > > gun and more,

Don't they make [or at least have developed] a three barrel .50
Gatling that is not all that heavy. Decades ago the French had a 95
pound 20mm intended for use a door gun. It had about a six foot
barrel.

Casady

[Dan[_2_]]

BradGuth wrote:
<snip>
>
> There are multiple species of humans on Earth, with some way dumber
> than others. Not all humans are Zion Yids, and not all smart Yids are
> Third Reich. Go figure.
> -
> Brad Guth
>

So, how long have you been this afraid of Jews?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Giles Ayling]

Looking at the photo, they ahve alre\dy armed the Osprey with a lance - true
grass roots weaponry
"Vince" > wrote in message
...
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
>> Vince wrote:
>>> David Lesher wrote:
>>>> Mike > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>>>>
>>>>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>>>>
>>>>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>>>>> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>>>>> defensive weapon and making it
>>>>> unique among today's U.S. transport aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe
>>>> already short of payload...
>>>>
>>>
>>> and balance
>>>
>>> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>>>
>>> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens
>>
>> It's belly, not chin mounted.
>>
>> -HJC Fact correcting Vince is endless fun.
>
> You missed my point
> you cant hang it on the chin, they tried and they found that out
> it was the original concept even up to 2005.
>
> Also under consideration is a redesign of the V-22’s nose to accommodate
> a chin gun, Birkholz said. “It’s all do-able,” he said. “It’s just
> expensive.”
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Apr/V-22_Aims.htm
>
> it wasn't doable
>
> you can hang it on the belly at the center of lift,
> that is where they put the cargo hook
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_V-22_Underslung_M777_lg.jpg
>
>
> nothing is free
>
> Vince

[Dan[_2_]]

Richard Casady wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:54 -0700, BradGuth >
> wrote:
>
>> Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
>>>>> gun and more,
>
> Don't they make [or at least have developed] a three barrel .50
> Gatling that is not all that heavy. Decades ago the French had a 95
> pound 20mm intended for use a door gun. It had about a six foot
> barrel.
>
> Casady

GE makes (made?) a 50 calibre gatling gun in 3 and 6 barrels.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Casady]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:56 -0500, Dan > wrote:

>Richard Casady wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:54 -0700, BradGuth >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
>>>>>> gun and more,
>>
>> Don't they make [or at least have developed] a three barrel .50
>> Gatling that is not all that heavy. Decades ago the French had a 95
>> pound 20mm intended for use a door gun. It had about a six foot
>> barrel.
>>
>> Casady
>
> GE makes (made?) a 50 calibre gatling gun in 3 and 6 barrels.

The first USENET post I ever sent out was about a minigun, and I
couldn't find a word at the GE website. Go figure.

Casady

[Dan[_2_]]

Richard Casady wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:56 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Richard Casady wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:54 -0700, BradGuth >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
>>>>>>> gun and more,
>>> Don't they make [or at least have developed] a three barrel .50
>>> Gatling that is not all that heavy. Decades ago the French had a 95
>>> pound 20mm intended for use a door gun. It had about a six foot
>>> barrel.
>>>
>>> Casady
>> GE makes (made?) a 50 calibre gatling gun in 3 and 6 barrels.
>
> The first USENET post I ever sent out was about a minigun, and I
> couldn't find a word at the GE website. Go figure.
>
> Casady

GE, I wonder why.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Roger Conroy]

Dan wrote:
> Richard Casady wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:33:54 -0700, BradGuth >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> >>>>> gun and more,
> >
> > Don't they make [or at least have developed] a three barrel .50
> > Gatling that is not all that heavy. Decades ago the French had a 95
> > pound 20mm intended for use a door gun. It had about a six foot
> > barrel.
> >
> > Casady
>
> GE makes (made?) a 50 calibre gatling gun in 3 and 6 barrels.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Denel (South Africa) make 2 guns that could be suitable:
A 20x82mm based on the MG151 that weighs in at only 39kg
If more bang is required there's a 20x139mm F2 type gun weighing in at
79.5kg

Roger

[Tiger]

Trying to make a flying SUV into a fluky gunship seems like a bad idea.
It's hard enough flying the thing, so whos going to be playing with a gun?

[Tiger]

>
>
>
>
>Who the hell do they think they have to fight off, Me-109s?
>
>
>
>

Good question.... I think its a comfort peice more than anything. It's
the job of gunships and AV8b's to clear the LZ prior to a V22 landing.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
[snip]

>
> If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
> many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
> cluster bombs?
> - Brad Guth -
>

Cluster bombs are not very effective agaist flying aircraft.

Andrew Swallow

[Henry J Cobb]

Vince wrote:
> Also under consideration is a redesign of the V-22’s nose to accommodate
> a chin gun, Birkholz said. “It’s all do-able,” he said. “It’s just
> expensive.”
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Apr/V-22_Aims.htm
>
> it wasn't doable
>
> you can hang it on the belly at the center of lift,
> that is where they put the cargo hook
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_V-22_Underslung_M777_lg.jpg

Delete the hook. Any mission that the V-22 can use the hook for the
H-53 series can do better.

For any mission that doesn't include a sling load the V-22 flies faster,
higher and further.

-HJC

[Vince]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Also under consideration is a redesign of the V-22’s nose to accommodate
>> a chin gun, Birkholz said. “It’s all do-able,” he said. “It’s just
>> expensive.”
>> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Apr/V-22_Aims.htm
>>
>> it wasn't doable
>>
>> you can hang it on the belly at the center of lift,
>> that is where they put the cargo hook
>> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_V-22_Underslung_M777_lg.jpg
>>
>
> Delete the hook. Any mission that the V-22 can use the hook for the
> H-53 series can do better.
>
> For any mission that doesn't include a sling load the V-22 flies faster,
> higher and further.
>
> -HJC

no it doesn't

Carry 5 tons as far as you can and drop it off

Carry 10 tons as far as you can and drop it off

Carry the biggest payload you want 200 miles

Who wins?

Vince

[BradGuth]

On Oct 17, 8:13 am, Dan > wrote:
> BradGuthwrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > There are multiple species of humans on Earth, with some way dumber
> > than others. Not all humans are Zion Yids, and not all smart Yids are
> > Third Reich. Go figure.
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
> So, how long have you been this afraid of Jews?

Hitler was actually a fairly good Jewish puppet, much like our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), and I'm still afaraid of what either
of those two incest cloned *******s have accomplished. Obviously you
and others of your semitic Third Reich kind could care less about the
past, present or future, that is as long as it's semitic dominated.
- Brad Guth -

[BradGuth]

On Oct 17, 8:50 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> BradGuthwrote:
> > On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
> > many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
> > cluster bombs?
> > - Brad Guth -
>
> Cluster bombs are not very effective agaist flying aircraft.

Muslims don't have any such flying aircraft. So, what's your point?

Arnt you semitic (aka pretend atheist) folks going for the absolute
maximum of Muslim population extermination?
- Brad Guth -

[Dan[_2_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:50 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>> BradGuthwrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
>>> many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
>>> cluster bombs?
>>> - Brad Guth -
>> Cluster bombs are not very effective agaist flying aircraft.
>
> Muslims don't have any such flying aircraft. So, what's your point?
>
>
They don't? How about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 16, 4:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> >http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> > Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> > Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> > machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> > defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> > aircraft.
>
> > There's little agreement on when such a gun might arrive, but at least
> > one major defense company is spending its own money to compete for the
> > job.
>
> > A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor's two-decade
> > gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials
> > said.
>
> > The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for
> > research, development and testing of an "all-quadrant," or 360-degree,
> > defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the
> > Marines use for now.
>
> > Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for
> > finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the
> > plodding acquisition process.
>
> > "SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround," Darcy said. "But Air Force
> > Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the
> > Marine Corps."
>
> > The squadron of 10 Marine-owned Ospreys now in Iraq will be used
> > largely to transport troops, equipment and supplies. The Air Force,
> > which handles the tilt-rotor program for U.S. Special Operations
> > Command, is buying the plane for long-range special ops missions.
> > While the Air Force's CV-22s are not slated to hit the desert until
> > 2009, the service's Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley is
> > considering deploying his aircraft earlier.
>
> > In September, SOCom announced the search for an "interim all-quadrant
> > defensive weapon system" for its CV-22 tilt-rotors, with the intention
> > of flight-testing such a weapon within 120 days of the contract award.
>
> > "We both have a requirement for some sort of defensive weapon system,"
> > said Air Force Lt Col. Chet Treloar, deputy director for mobility and
> > special operations requirements.
>
> > But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he
> > said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as
> > possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully
> > integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is
> > the best plan.
>
> > "There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent
> > integration," said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force
> > acquisition office. "The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job
> > done might be the answer."
>
> > Pittman, Treloar and Darcy said the requirements are joint Marine-Air
> > Force requirements and the expectation is that everyone will get the
> > same weapon. But they added that nothing has been decided except the
> > requirements.
>
> > "There's no competition yet and there's been no selection yet," Darcy
> > said.
>
> > "It's possible that the solution may be different" for different
> > versions of the V-22, Pittman said. "But we push for as much
> > commonality as possible."
>
> > "I don't think we're there yet" as to what the final solution will be,
> > Treloar said. "But the Air Force and the Navy and the Marine Corps are
> > committed to keeping the troops safe. They want to deploy this
> > aircraft tin a way that is as safe and effective as possible."
>
> > BAE jumping the gun
>
> > Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the
> > Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable
> > weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted
> > aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice
> > president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.
>
> > "We've been investing for two years and created our own program to
> > develop the capability," Freise said.
>
> > While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would
> > charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal
> > to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.
>
> > "We spent a lot of money on it," he said. "We found a hole in their
> > protection, we're covering it for now, and we'll get it back. We'd
> > rather not say how much we've invested. We have shared with the Marine
> > Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is
> > significantly lower than other solutions."
>
> > So far, the Remote Guardian has been tested only while mounted on a
> > Humvee, but Freise said it has fired various U.S. weapons and is
> > currently cleared to handle 300 knots and four times the force of
> > gravity. Guns can include a 7.62mm Gatling gun, a .50-caliber machine
> > gun and more, he said. He said it has an easily upgradeable sensor
> > suite.
>
> > A concern with any 360-degree system, especially a remote-firing one,
> > is taking a shot at your own propeller or landing gear.
>
> > According to BAE, that is not a risk with Remote Guardian.
>
> > "The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft. We
> > integrated the safety keys into the design from the very beginning,"
> > Freise said.
>
> My God! (are we good at killing innocent hummans, or what?)
> - Brad Guth

People trying to kill you are not innocent. If you actually look at
things, you'll see the idea of avoiding killing civilians is a great
concern to the US, even to where more US troops get put at risk tuhan
might otherwise. Civilians are targeted by the enemy, who would also
kill you if they could.

Modern turreted guns on aircraft, with modern sighting and
stabilizers, can be directed with good precision. Hardy a cluster
bomb, or the terrorist's market place bomb or bombs like were used to
attack Benazir Bhutto's convoy in Pakistan recently. That is
indiscriminate killing, and where you should focus your attention
sometime.

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
> David Lesher wrote:
> > Mike > writes:
>
> >> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>
> >>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>
> >> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>
> >> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
> >> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
> >> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
> >> aircraft.
>
> > Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
> > short of payload...
>
> and balance
>
> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>
> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens

There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
ammo.)

Wonder what they will hang on there? A .50 or twin .50 could work.
7.62 minigun?

> Vince-

[David E. Powell]

On Oct 21, 2:27 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:50 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > BradGuthwrote:
> > > On Oct 16, 6:51 am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > If the object is to spend the most possible in order to kill off as
> > > many humans as possible, why not just stick with using VX dirty
> > > cluster bombs?
> > > - Brad Guth -
>
> > Cluster bombs are not very effective agaist flying aircraft.
>
> Muslims don't have any such flying aircraft. So, what's your point?

Google Mi-24 Hind, or in Iran, Cobra Gunship.

(Drivel snipped.)

[Vince]

David E. Powell wrote:
> On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>> David Lesher wrote:
>>> Mike > writes:
>>>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>>>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>>>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>>>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>>>> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>>>> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
>>>> aircraft.
>>> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe already
>>> short of payload...
>> and balance
>>
>> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>>
>> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens
>
> There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
> counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
> B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.
>
> Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
> ammo.)

IIRC that was the weight of the 30 mm turret + ammo + structural
reinforcement and all control equipment

Vince

[Paul J. Adam]

In message m>, David
E. Powell > writes
>There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
>counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
>B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.

There's the problem: the more weight you hang on the airframe, the less
payload you have (which is the point of a transport helicopter).

>Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
>ammo.)

When you put it in a remotely-operated weapon station, the weight goes
right up.

"The basic Mini-Gun is 0.80 m long and weighs 18.8 kg. A typical pintle
installation with one gun and 5,000 rounds of ammunition weighs about
500 kg", to quote Jane's Air-Launched Weapons on the GAU-2A/M134 7.62 mm
Mini-Gun and Armament System - that's for a manually pointed mount.

>Wonder what they will hang on there? A .50 or twin .50 could work.
>7.62 minigun?

7.62 is okay for suppressive fire against infantry, but if the V-22 is
supposed to be doing any sort of self-escort then it really needs more
range and hitting power (it may have enemy helicopters to cope with, and
certainly wants to engage light vehicles). Something like a M3M .50"
would be a decent compromise between terminal effect and weight.

Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).

As with most engineering problems, it's not that the problem is
insoluble... just that it ends up more expensive in time, money and
capability than it first looks.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[BlackBeard]

On Oct 21, 7:47 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> 7.62 is okay for suppressive fire against infantry, but if the V-22 is
> supposed to be doing any sort of self-escort then it really needs more
> range and hitting power (it may have enemy helicopters to cope with, and
> certainly wants to engage light vehicles). Something like a M3M .50"
> would be a decent compromise between terminal effect and weight.


The once suggested system was the GDAS GAU-19 3 barrel .50 cal
gattling gun. Weighing 456 lbs.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Vince]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:47 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>
>> 7.62 is okay for suppressive fire against infantry, but if the V-22
>> is supposed to be doing any sort of self-escort then it really
>> needs more range and hitting power (it may have enemy helicopters
>> to cope with, and certainly wants to engage light vehicles).
>> Something like a M3M .50" would be a decent compromise between
>> terminal effect and weight.
>
>
> The once suggested system was the GDAS GAU-19 3 barrel .50 cal
> gattling gun. Weighing 456 lbs.
>
> http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf

>

no ammo no sights and no allowance for strengthening frame or

System Weight
– System (empty weight) < 460
– Portable Magazine < 37 lbs

Vince

[Tiger]

Vince wrote:

> David E. Powell wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 7:35 pm, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>> David Lesher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun
>>>>> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
>>>>> Posted : Thursday Oct 11, 2007 15:11:37 EDT
>>>>> Air Force and Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys may get a turret-mounted
>>>>> machine gun, fulfilling a long-sought requirement for a forward-firing
>>>>> defensive weapon and making it unique among today's U.S. transport
>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Strange no one is discussing how much such weighs; in an airframe
>>>> already
>>>> short of payload...
>>>
>>> and balance
>>>
>>> its a side to side prop-rotor configuration
>>>
>>> hang a thousand pounds on the chin and see what happens
>>
>>
>> There could weight to play with in the tail, or a way to
>> counterbalance by moving some equipment inside. They modified the
>> B-17 OK, but they had a lot more relative weight to play with.
>>
>> Also, a turreted MG doesnt have to weaigh 1000 lbs. (Even including
>> ammo.)
>
>
> IIRC that was the weight of the 30 mm turret + ammo + structural
> reinforcement and all control equipment
>
> Vince

Just have the Marines go retro to WW1 and fire their pistols out the
cockpits... :-\

[Bill Baker]

On 2007-10-21 07:47:55 -0700, "Paul J. Adam" > said:

> Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
> night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
> you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).

Actually, it seems to me that the V-22 could have a real advantage in
this respect. Contemporary remotely-targeted gun systems can slew, aim
and burst-fire far, far faster than a single gunner can provide it with
targets. And the heavy part of the system is the gun, ammo and
physical aiming hardware, not the targeting vision systems and
associated avionics. So why not take a COTS gun, add another 6
vision/targeting channels and let the troopies in the back pick out
bogies for the gun to shred? A full-360 ventral TV/IR vision system
wouldn't add much weight, and the individual soldier aiming apparatus
need not be more than a headset LCD sight and a joystick plugged into
the targetting data bus. Assign one of the senior NCO's to monitor all
the troopie targeting pippers with an override switch in order to
prevent friendly-fire mistakes or ammo wastage.

Expense might be a prohibitive factor, but probably not weight. Do
wonders for the morale of the ground pounders making the assault,
though.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Vince]

Bill Baker wrote:
> On 2007-10-21 07:47:55 -0700, "Paul J. Adam" >
> said:
>
>> Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
>> night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
>> you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the V-22 could have a real advantage in
> this respect. Contemporary remotely-targeted gun systems can slew, aim
> and burst-fire far, far faster than a single gunner can provide it with
> targets. And the heavy part of the system is the gun, ammo and physical
> aiming hardware, not the targeting vision systems and associated
> avionics. So why not take a COTS gun, add another 6 vision/targeting
> channels and let the troopies in the back pick out bogies for the gun to
> shred? A full-360 ventral TV/IR vision system wouldn't add much weight,
> and the individual soldier aiming apparatus need not be more than a
> headset LCD sight and a joystick plugged into the targetting data bus.
> Assign one of the senior NCO's to monitor all the troopie targeting
> pippers with an override switch in order to prevent friendly-fire
> mistakes or ammo wastage.
>
> Expense might be a prohibitive factor, but probably not weight. Do
> wonders for the morale of the ground pounders making the assault, though.

of course you make the V-22 light up like fireworks for any AAA.

Vince

[Dave[_6_]]

Bill Baker > wrote in :

> On 2007-10-21 07:47:55 -0700, "Paul J. Adam" >
> said:
>
>> Don't forget the sighting system, too - if the V-22s are going in at
>> night then you need to match the sight to the weapon and its range (so
>> you can identify targets in time to effectively engage them).
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the V-22 could have a real advantage in
> this respect. Contemporary remotely-targeted gun systems can slew, aim
> and burst-fire far, far faster than a single gunner can provide it with
> targets. And the heavy part of the system is the gun, ammo and
> physical aiming hardware, not the targeting vision systems and
> associated avionics. So why not take a COTS gun, add another 6
> vision/targeting channels and let the troopies in the back pick out
> bogies for the gun to shred? A full-360 ventral TV/IR vision system
> wouldn't add much weight, and the individual soldier aiming apparatus
> need not be more than a headset LCD sight and a joystick plugged into
> the targetting data bus. Assign one of the senior NCO's to monitor all
> the troopie targeting pippers with an override switch in order to
> prevent friendly-fire mistakes or ammo wastage.
>
> Expense might be a prohibitive factor, but probably not weight. Do
> wonders for the morale of the ground pounders making the assault,
> though.

Au contraire, mon ami.

Check out the Huey NTIS system some time. The targeting hardware is quite a
bit heavier than the gun. Changing out the gun requires a couple of strong
Marines. Changing the targeting hardware, in toto, requires a hoist. No
"four guys on a hernia bar" stuff allowed.

Dave in San Diego

[Bill Baker]

On 2007-10-27 22:19:22 -0700, Dave > said:

> Au contraire, mon ami.
>
> Check out the Huey NTIS system some time. The targeting hardware is quite a
> bit heavier than the gun. Changing out the gun requires a couple of strong
> Marines. Changing the targeting hardware, in toto, requires a hoist. No
> "four guys on a hernia bar" stuff allowed.

Huh. I'm surprised, but I'll take your word for it since NTIS seems to
be a current-technology system. I wouldn't have thought it'd take a
hoist to lift any subsystem out of a Huey other than the engine pack or
transmission. Besides, if I'm reading the Bell website right it seems
that that targeting system is way, way more complex than what I'm
suggesting. I'm just talking about fixed, passive, relatively
non-enhanced (i.e., no sensor cooling, no heavy optics) VL/IR
sensors...not-so-stupid CCD minicams, essentially.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----