It appears that the Time Magazine issue with the Marine Corps Osprey on the cover was spraying bunk. Lubbock Marine Parents whose motto is: "Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share." -Ned Dolan, has the story.
I am so glad to see this article. I am not a Time Magazine reader, but happened to see this particular issue in the library. I saw the Osprey on the cover and because one of my sons is in an Osprey squadron, I was curious about it and read it. It was extremely negative. I came home and started searching on the internet and found lots of blogs talking about the Osprey in a very negative way too. When I next talked to my son I asked him about the points that the article made. He said most of them were either outright wrong or dated. One of the blog posts I read even stated that the prop wash from the Osprey would rip a Marine's clothes right off of him and that the Osprey wasn't equipped to fly into clouds. My son has been in the Osprey while it was flying through clouds, so I knew right off that that part wasn't true. He also works with Ospreys every day and has NEVER heard of any one's clothes being ripped off. Where did that even come from? Just made up on the spot by the blog author? I didn't know enough to put together a whole blog post about it and answer all the accusations, so I was thrilled to find this article. Be sure and read that last paragraph.
There is a lot more in the article, but this bit about the forward facing gun issue interested me the most. Quoting from an Air Force Times news report:
There's also the issue of defensive weaponry. The Ospreys that press reports say are now operating in Iraq, all with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, are equipped with M240G medium machine guns pointed out the back ramp, ready to spray hundreds of 7.62mm bullets into a hot landing zone.
Retired Gen. James Jones, former commandant of the Marine Corps, told Time he'd always wanted the Osprey to have a forward-mounted gun, a .50-caliber under the nose -- something he never pulled off as the Corps' top Marine.
Jones thinks all assault support aircraft should have forward-facing weaponry, according to the article. He described it to Time as a fundamental belief stemming from his Vietnam War experience: Biggest and baddest is best. A spokesman from Jones' office said the retired general was unavailable to comment for this article.
The Time article quoted Jones as saying, "A rear-mounted gun is better than no gun at all, but I don't know how much better."
But Walters said the Osprey's rear machine gun is the same weapon system the Corps has in every assault support aircraft, none of which has guns facing forward.
Over the past five years, side gunners firing from CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan "found that most of the threat was on the ramp," Walters said.
He said Jones wasn't the only Marine to stand by a forward gun on principle.
"It's an emotional issue for a lot of people," Walters said. "I can come up with a scenario where it would be valuable, but we haven't seen it in five years of combat."
Experience is the best teacher. If you want to learn more about how Time got intimate with the pooch GRTWT.
Update: I think this quote about accuracy in the Drive By Media is particularly apt:
"Thompson left out the part where I indicated my support and hopes for VMM-263's success and resultantly I am presented as a 'critic,' " he wrote. "That's what I get for attempting a complete thought with a reporter who's reverse-engineering a story."
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5688
Comments
V22 Osprey has been under development for 25 years. The first operational squadron is just this week arriving in Iraq. The Marine Corps stands four square behind the aircraft, they (at least the policy makers) want it badly. It would fulfill the same missions as standard helicopters, air assault, med evac, front line resupply. Osprey's unique tilt rotor design gives better speed and range than helicopters at the expense of some lift capacity.
Much criticism has centered upon Osprey vulnerability to ground fire at a "hot" landing zone. However ordinary helicopters are terribly vulnerable to ground fire and the Osprey really cannot be much worse. The fuselage of Osprey and helicopters is just sheet aluminum which won't stop bullets. Ordinary rifle fire will penetrate the fuselage and kill the pilots and the embarked troops.
Osprey has not demonstrated a capacity to "auto rotate" a helicopter maneuver for landing after engine failure. Critics charge that Osprey cannot auto-rotate and thus engine failure while landing would result in a fatal crash. Engine failure is not unlikely after taking ground fire. On the other hand, Osprey has two engines, cross shafted together to keep both rotors turning should one engine quit. The single engine will surely furnish enough power to allow a survivable, if hard, landing.
A turret mounted .50 cal or 20 mm gun would be nice, and the aircrew would feel a lot better for having one. However such a gun, its ammo, firecontrol electronics and a power driven turret would take 1000 pounds from the already small cargo capacity of the Osprey. It might make sense to have the troop landing Ospreys escorted by helicopter gunships, or even better, fixed wing fighters. Have the transports concentrate upon transporting and gunships or fighters do the fire support.
There were a lot of problems with the program initially, including two crashes with loss of life. That's when the program came near to getting cancelled. But the program manager was sacked (apparently faking readiness reports) and a new manager managed (heh) to solve the problems.
I'm not aware of any mishaps since those first two.
As for an air assault with the things, they don't need guns really, They're a delivery method. Covering any LZ should be real helicopter gunships, like the Apache.
Chinooks don't have any forward firing weapons either.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
V22 Osprey has been under development for 25 years. The first operational squadron is just this week arriving in Iraq. The Marine Corps stands four square behind the aircraft, they (at least the policy makers) want it badly. It would fulfill the same missions as standard helicopters, air assault, med evac, front line resupply. Osprey's unique tilt rotor design gives better speed and range than helicopters at the expense of some lift capacity.
Much criticism has centered upon Osprey vulnerability to ground fire at a "hot" landing zone. However ordinary helicopters are terribly vulnerable to ground fire and the Osprey really cannot be much worse. The fuselage of Osprey and helicopters is just sheet aluminum which won't stop bullets. Ordinary rifle fire will penetrate the fuselage and kill the pilots and the embarked troops.
Osprey has not demonstrated a capacity to "auto rotate" a helicopter maneuver for landing after engine failure. Critics charge that Osprey cannot auto-rotate and thus engine failure while landing would result in a fatal crash. Engine failure is not unlikely after taking ground fire. On the other hand, Osprey has two engines, cross shafted together to keep both rotors turning should one engine quit. The single engine will surely furnish enough power to allow a survivable, if hard, landing.
A turret mounted .50 cal or 20 mm gun would be nice, and the aircrew would feel a lot better for having one. However such a gun, its ammo, firecontrol electronics and a power driven turret would take 1000 pounds from the already small cargo capacity of the Osprey. It might make sense to have the troop landing Ospreys escorted by helicopter gunships, or even better, fixed wing fighters. Have the transports concentrate upon transporting and gunships or fighters do the fire support.