"Osprey may get turret-mounted machine gun"

In message om, 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


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

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...

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

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... :-\

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 =----

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

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

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 =----