- ******************
- Dissenters Stifled: 1
- ******************
-
LiveLeak channel
-
I'm Batman
-
Visit Harvey to meet
the whole family!
-Links
- DISCLAIMER: Please read before court-martialing this man
- Department of Defense
- Scottish Tanker Hooligans
- Defend America
- BlackFive
- SandGram
- One Marine's View
- Neptunus Lex
- Doc in the Box
- Straight White Guy
- Drunken Wisdom
- Grim's Hall
- Bloodletting
- The Castle Argghhh!
- Mad Mikey
- Deuddersun
- Random Nuclear Strikes
- Intel Sources
- Hot Air
- MEMRI
- The Jawa Report
- Counterterrorism Blog
- Jihad Watch
- Mark Steyn
- Hugh Hewitt
- Laura Ingraham
- Treasury Department
- Bad Example
- National Archives
- His Holiness, The Crowe
- Preserve and Honor
- Bill Whittle
- John Cox
- Cox & Forkum
- International Allies
- The Dissident Frogman
- Theo Spark
- Weapon of Mass Destruction
- The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
- USO
- IMAO
- Military Motivator
- 1st Motion Picture Unit
- My Bro
- Big Hollywood
- Young Americans
- Gunner Palace
- Obsession
- Grouchy
- Varga Girls (Why We Fight)
- Jennifer's History and Stuff
- Barmy Mama
- Rachel Lucas
- Villainous Company
- And Rightly So!
- Practical Penumbra
- Euphoric Reality
- Sondra K
- Annika's Journal
- Everyday Stranger
- Angelweave
- Samantha Speaks
- Liberty Port
- "Section Eights"
- The Flying Space Monkey
- BlameBush
- WuzzaDem
- Strong Bad Email
- Maddox
- Blog R & R
- I Love Jet Noise
- Blogamine
- dogtulosba
- MIA
- Wetwired
- Armor Geddon
Archives
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
Mar 19, 2008
Today's lesson in "pointless"
Brought to you by... (sigh)... the United States Marine Corps...MV-22 Ospreys headed to Iraq will soon be outfitted with a forward-firing gun, a top program official said.The only saving grace to the thing is that it's removable. I cannot for the life of me see a VMM squadron using these things at the cost of load and cargo space when it serves no practical function whatsoever. God help 'em when and if a gun gets bolted on permanently. Sadly, this is the resurrected Frankenstein monster of two Commandants ago, Gen Jones, who said that the need for a forward firing gun was a "fundamental belief stemming from his Vietnam War experience." As I wondered at the time, and still wonder now, just what Vietnam was he fighting in where assault (read: troop carrier) helos had forward mounted guns? As soon as you strapped guns and rockets to a helo, you typically couldn't haul troops anymore and had turned the thing into an attack helo. In fact, what mass production troop carrying helo has EVER had a forward mounted gun? (Side note: Don't anybody dare bring up the Soviet MI-24 Hind or any of it's variants. Yes, by letter of the law, it could carry troops - eight, I think - and had a forward mounted gun. But for all practical purposes it was a ground attack platform and a damn good one. It didn't just have the gun. It had rockets, missiles, sharp sticks, etc, etc. Does anybody here think that the Osprey is fit for that role?) As the Marines use assault helos now - the role that the Osprey has stepped into - they do not go anywhere where there might be trouble without an armed escort. There should never be such a thing as a "hot LZ" if you can help it. Those escorts should come in and clear the zone before the assault birds show up. Considering that NO OTHER ASSAULT HELO in our inventory - in over a half a century of helicopter aviation - has had a forward firing gun, and the need for one has never been great enough to strap one on and then make it carry troops too, why in the hell are we now going in that direction with the Osprey? Just because it flies like a plane up high doesn't change the fact that on approach to the LZ, it is - in fact - a helicopter. And the whole argument that it needs the gun to "keep heads down" as it leaves the LZ is preposterous. You know what a helo does when it's receiving fire from one side of an LZ? It gets up and leaves in the other direction. Now, I'm no rocket surgeon, but I'll just bet that an Osprey pilot (who used to be a helo pilot, nine times out of ten) is going to do - what a shock - the exact same thing! Now, do I think that a gun for the Air Force version makes some sense? Yes, I do. "Why", you may ask? Ahhh. The difference lies in the mission set. Whereas the Air Force wants to send their CV-22 in as a Spec Ops insertion platform all by itself, the Marine Corps wants to use the MV-22 as an infantry assault aircraft that will typically have that entire protective package attached to it that I spoke of before. Could we send the thing in alone and unafraid? Of course we could. But if we were sending it in all by itself, it would be somewhere where there was a low threat and therefore the gun would be unneeded in the first place. Of course, the Air Force wouldn't want to drop off the "special kids" into a hot LZ either, but they would want to maintain the smallest signature possible, and therefore would be looking at that forward mounted gun as a self-escort last resort. If the Marine Corps was going to do the same thing, sure, put a gun on there - why not? But that was never the intention. Do I think adding a gun to the Osprey is as big a mistake as taking the gun OFF Vietnam era fighter aircraft? Absolutely not. But I think it's wasteful, largely pointless, and simply one more thing for an aircrew to have to screw with during the high workload environment of putting a large aircraft into a landing zone - often a tight landing zone, at night, in some level of brownout. The Osprey has a shakey enough reputation as it is. Do we really need to be talking about strapping on new gear (and possibly new mission sets that gear allows for) before it's even finished it's first deployment? I mean, it's not like the program has been rushed along. Why start now? |