USMC V-22 Osprey's Get Teeth.

Doubtless, but no-one has posted anything on it here on ARSE.

Japan is buying at least 17 Bell-Boeing MV-22Bs, the same tilt-rotor aircraft flown by the U.S.M.C. and is the first non-U.S. customer for the V-22. The first two delivered on the 8th of this month.

The Bell-Boeing Joint Program Office is now working on a $4 billion multiyear contract to build 39 CMV-22B aircraft for the U.S. Navy, 14 MV-22B aircraft for the Marine Corps, one CV-22B for the Air Force and four MV-22Bs for Japan.


Meanwhile some idle fun watching how versatile its been in service. For something that was highly doubted in the beginning its definitely become well respected as it matured.

I started a thread the other week buddy


cheers
 
Last edited:
Six years ago an MV-22B fired an APWKS rocket at Yuma range


cheers

12DF7B6F-6EFD-42F3-AE83-8CE91F196402.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I guess the most up to date comparison would be an Osprey and a Chinook flying together into the same 'hot' LZ.

Which would survive best ?
Which level of Call of Duty are we playing - makes all the difference.
 
Digging through the archives:

- The original JFX was to be armed with a GAU-19 12.7mm rotary in an undernose turret, but this was dropped in 1985 due to budget and weight distribution issues.

- In 1988 the USMC requested that Bell-Boeing study an inflight-reloadable gun system with at least 750 rounds as a priority; they really didn't like an unarmed Osprey. Everything from 7.62 to 30mm was studied with the GAU-19 or the 25mm GAU-12 being the most likely choices. However this stalled when the contractors came back with an estimate of $100 million for the work...

- In 2000-2002 the Marines had another look at a turreted gun but again cost defeated them, as did concerns over muzzle blast damage to the nose IIR turret; which might explain why they've had to go for a 7.62 weapon this time.

- In 2007 BAE Systems developed a belly-mounted 7.62 GAU-17 remote mount that fitted into the cargo hook wells, which was adopted by the USAF and five units were trialed by the USMC in Afghanistan, but the Marines said it was too heavy. Which is odd since they're now installing pretty much the same thing... in the nose.

BAE_Interim_Gun_System.JPG


"Marines, however, acknowledged that operating the belly gun system can cause nausea for the crew chief using it, since he must stare at the screen while the aircraft maneuvers. Another major drawback is that the belly gun is heavy, weighing in at 800 pounds."
 
Why can't they be replaced by a pair of compact turbofan engines of equivalent thrust?
Because then it would be a Harrier, and we know they’re not fond of recirculating crap from unprepared strips.
 
Back in the day, late 80s / 90s in the late Bill Gunston and Mike SpI know book on Military Rotorcraft showed potentially what V-22 weapon systems would look like

cheers
6339577E-5668-41CF-AC53-8B5BBF510EF1.jpeg
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
Six years ago an MV-22B fired an APWKS rocket at Yuma range


cheers

View attachment 475501
Does the picture of the V-22 induce in anyone, even a slight feeling of unhappiness?

At the sight of its big 3-bladed propellers. Don't they look a little bit out-dated and incongruous in a modern military aircraft? And convey the sense that the V-22 is something of a lash-up Heath-Robinson affair.

Like what happened when the MOD tried to turn the old Comet airliner into a modern military AWACS, by installing radar in an ugly under-fuselage bulge at the front, and welding a thin triangular sheet-metal extension to the fin at the back.

The resultant aircraft was such an offense to the eye, that it got consigned to the dustbin of aviation history.

And that's the kind of feeling I get about the V-22. Of course I'm only viewing it as a civilian. Perhaps, to more perceptive military eyes, the V-22 may stand out as an obviously first-class, highly effective combat aircraft.

But, but - does it really look like one?
 
With the V-280, weapons are a KUR, not an afterthought when the prototype surprised everyone by working

iu-4.jpeg
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
I got cabbed around in these in Afghan. Great fun :)
 

mcphee1948

War Hero
The Fairey Rotodyne didn't get accepted because it was badly designed, from an aesthetic viewpoint. It just looked too ugly for anyone to take it seriously.

Same as cars. They have to look appealing. Why did the Ford Edsel not get accepted? Because no-one could stand the sight of it.

This shows that in both the automotive and aeronautical spheres, a vehicle must look "right" if it's to succeed.

With one obvious exception - the VW Beetle. That was very ugly. But also very cheap. Hence the key to its success.
 

Safer, as fast better payload. and quieter.

Test pilot might tend to disagree

'From two miles away it would stop a conversation. I mean, the noise of those little jets on the tips of the rotor was just indescribable. So what have we got? The noisiest hovering vehicle the world has yet come up with and you're going to stick it in the middle of a city?'
 
Does the picture of the V-22 induce in anyone, even a slight feeling of unhappiness?

At the sight of its big 3-bladed propellers. Don't they look a little bit out-dated and incongruous in a modern military aircraft? And convey the sense that the V-22 is something of a lash-up Heath-Robinson affair.

Like what happened when the MOD tried to turn the old Comet airliner into a modern military AWACS, by installing radar in an ugly under-fuselage bulge at the front, and welding a thin triangular sheet-metal extension to the fin at the back.

The resultant aircraft was such an offense to the eye, that it got consigned to the dustbin of aviation history.

And that's the kind of feeling I get about the V-22. Of course I'm only viewing it as a civilian. Perhaps, to more perceptive military eyes, the V-22 may stand out as an obviously first-class, highly effective combat aircraft.

But, but - does it really look like one?
By turning to a new bird the americans were able to scale back their ch46s and ch53s…the latter famous for soaking pax with engine fluids..
the ch53 still serves on in a new variant..
 
Rotodyne, quieter, you're having a laugh.
I get what you are saying but at cancellation these were the figures;

There had been a noise-reduction programme in process which had managed to reduce the noise level from 113 dB to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 ft (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train,

New designs incorporating jet tip nozzles have done a lot better. Couldnt find figures for Osprey but it's significantly more than a tube train when taking off or in the hover.
 

Mattb

LE
Does the picture of the V-22 induce in anyone, even a slight feeling of unhappiness?

At the sight of its big 3-bladed propellers. Don't they look a little bit out-dated and incongruous in a modern military aircraft? And convey the sense that the V-22 is something of a lash-up Heath-Robinson affair.
Do the big three-bladed rotors on a Chinook also look dated?

Back in the day, late 80s / 90s in the late Bill Gunston and Mike SpI know book on Military Rotorcraft showed potentially what V-22 weapon systems would look like

cheers
View attachment 475629
The underwing pylons are an interesting concept - guessing the nacelles need to be upwards to fire (or does it have a WWI-style interuptor gear)?
 
Top