Attack variant of Osprey

>>32200050
will any service adopt it?

File: 1446494924220.jpg (876KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 3000x1996px

>>32200027
yeah, it looks like this

>>32200027
For what purpose?

There is no reason you couldn't, although pylons/winglits are going to be limited due to the large tiltrotor discs. That doesn't stop the use of GPS bombs.

Probably not.

It can only mount weapons on the nose and underside, and it's too erratic in helicopter mode to aim properly.

>>32200086
I'm thinking like an apache spirited tilt rotor.

>>32200096
I agree with your first point, but disagree with the second. we have plenty of systems to stabilize the gun.

The F-35B fulfils this role for the USMC.

>>32200119
Stabilise it all you want, you still can't aim it.

There's a reason they HAVE a belly gun that they also don't use

>>32200143
So your saying when in the helicopter mode it just jumps around to much. Do you mean specifically at a hover or in forward flight?

>>32200161
There's a lot of issues I should have spelt out:

1) It's too fast in plane mode for most helicopter weapons and too slow (and incredibly vulnerable) in hover mode to operate as a gunship like that.

2) The belly subsystem weighs a ton because of all the sensors it needs, and it needs to retract so it's complicated and takes up space.

3) The control system takes up three seats.

4) The person aiming it forwards sits sideways so it's extremely nauseating to use.

>>32200217
> It's too fast in plane mode for most helicopter weapons
Wut.

>>32200027
fly low, remove heads

>>32200027
The Osprey is a transport aircraft so it's not suited for this.

A tilt rotor designed from the ground up to be an attack chopper would be viable.

>>32200217
Wat to all points, either that or you're trolling. These problems are either highly specific or just plain bizarre.

>>32200546
They're the exact issues with the Guardian weapon system which is the failed Osprey gun pod

Christ, they're specific because they've existed

>>32200027

They made you a designated kamikaze aircraft. What more do you want?

Sure. Rig a couple machine guns with synchronization gear so they don't shoot the propellers and go Red Baron on their asses.

File: 1480797325828.jpg (21KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x360px

>>32201166
While the synch gear is tried and tested tech, why put the mg's behind the props to begin with?

File: x6d2ejcdqsi8nsaneqqk.jpg (37KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 636x424px

>>32200027
Rocket pods and missiles have been tested

>>32200581
Well for one thing they're only issues if you want a theoretical attack version of an Osprey to be a dual purpose transport as well, which hasn't been a thing since the Hind.

>>32200027
Put 20mm canons in the nose domes

>>32201201
The gun had to be near the pilot in case it jammed. If you wing gun jams, there's not much you can do. If the gun is right in front of you, you can at least try to un-jam it.

its a good kamikaze

>>32200027
Like the A10 it needs air superiority to be engaged, but also can have a big psychological impact. Paint the rotors in a flashy color, and imagine it going straight to your position while firing big calibers in every direction...

>>32200027
Bell V-280 tilt rotor is a smaller craft that's in competition to replace the H-60.

>>32201863
So why do we need the synch gear then?

>>32200027
Would it be possible to just make one into what is essentially a micro AC-130? How hard would it be to mount a couple bushmaster cannons on the side?

The idea of a V-22 with a sealed ass housing a howitzer is hilarious.
>Osprey can legitimately be said to shit out death

>>32202196
We probably don't but the planes he was talking about did or they risked shooting off their props. WWI planes.

File: 1XFoMp0.png (3MB, 2872x1574px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2872x1574px

>>32202384
So you want a Blackfish?

>>32200027
Putting, say, rockets and missiles on a transport aircraft that's inherently unstable and vulnerable to SAF is fucking retarded and basically asking for Black Hawk Down 2: Tilt Rotor Boogaloo

Of fucking course they're doing it
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-v-22-osprey-finally-gets-the-missiles-and-rockets-i-1668338371

If they can make an Osprey that doesn't fucking crash especially the nice fucking house I had in Okinawa, fuckers.

OP here, I think like a cobra fuselage with V-22 type wings and props/rotors would be badass.

>>32202423
Why make a whole new aircraft though?

>>32202451
Sorry, pick the first link. That one's old.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-marines-want-turn-the-mv-22-osprey-lethal-flying-tank-16578

Of course it's the Muhreens who think this is a good idea. I expect nothing less of my service. Yut

>>32201863
I find it quite stunning how his pic didn't make it obvious he was talking about on an Osprey, not a fucking Sopwith Camel. Wow.

Just pack it with explosives and use it for kamikaze attacks

>>32202562
Jesus, this is amazing
>gravity drop rockets and guided bombs deployed from the back of the V-22

Either they want to completely eliminate the troop carrying ability or the crew chief is just gonna be chucking GBUs out the back. Awesome

>>32201290
Can confirm, boring has been doing a bunch of integration for adding them. The marines are really interested in adding dumb rockets in pods mounted against the sides of the hulls. More for a shock and awe landing under duress than an accurately targeted weapon system. Last I heard, they were in phase 2 contracts doing heavy testing. Rumors also say they might do forward mounted guns with remote control.

There is also talk about making a new v-22 with jet engine propulsion akin to a conventional helicopter.

>>32203030
Boeing* not boring, but it is super boring.

>>32203030
>More for a shock and awe landing under duress than an accurately targeted weapon system

Highly doubt some MAGTF commander who spent his career in the grunts is gonna look at that and not think "this is CAS now". Hopefully the air element commanders are instructed to never do that

>>32203030
What do you mean jet propulstion akin to a conventional helicopter? I imagine you mean using a turboshaft system instead of what i presume is turbo prop? doesn't make any sense though as far as benefits, besides maybe simplification of propulsion components.

>>32203146
I would hope so too, but phase 1 contract and feasibility studies were directed at unguided munitions. Dunno how far they've gone from there, I just get scraps of aerospace insider media and some shit off the servers.

>>32203155
I do commercial aircraft so my rotorcraft knowledge is a bit off, but I was under the impression that Chinook helicopters use small engines on the side to generate forward momentum.

>>32203155
I was under the impression that the Chinook for one had some sort of propulsion system besides just the rotors themselves, and that the sikorsky/Boeing project had some sort of thrust assist that Boeing has had a hard on to use. Forgive me for not knowing rotorcraft, I'm in commercial aircraft. What I do know, is Boeing is trying to make the next gen v22 faster in flight mode and propulsion systems are just being thrown at it to see what sticks.

>>32203253
respectfully they dont. those engines on the side are its main source of propulsion and being turboshaft engines and not turbo jet, they're exhaust propulsion is negligible. I'm a former helicopter mechanic and current rotary wing pilot

>>32203253
Fucked that post all up, sorry, I'm at work and on my phone.

>>32203253
I believe the extra propulsion on that prototype your referencing is a "pusher-prop" basically just a rear mounted propeller.

>>32203296
I wasn't aware the sikorsky/Boeing monstrosity made it to a prototype. The twin rotor one?

>>32203281
Well fuck me then, but Boeing is trying to make the next V-22 faster, can't remember what they were going for. No word from the V-22 program in the company for months though, pretty sure they're just chilling and working on contracts at this point.

>>32203253
>feasibility studies were directed at unguided munitions.

Lovely. Some O4/5 is gonna have the brain wave to have them insert the troops then remain on station for CAS if the flight time to the LZ was short enough.

>>32203350
the issue with rotary anything is retreating blade stall . At least on single rotor aircraft, I know tandom and the one where they sit on each other (very technical I know) are much less effected probably due to both their rotors working equally and opposite.
>>32203328
I think I'm thinking of the raider which is a replacement for the apache and blackhawk.

>>32203398
I don't understand any of that witchcraft, but the twin rotor had these weird square jet assists just below the round engines that I know produced thrust and they thought they would make a true helicopter faster than a v22. I know that it lost to the raider in phase 1 and that the military thought it was cringey as fuck.

>>32203379
Fucking probably, or they're going to take the remote controlled .30 cals and mount one on either side. Everything they've come up with is seemingly forward mounted so it seems more for approach than CAS

>>32203449
retreating blade stall is when the advancing blade is going very fast because its the blades velocity + the relative wind, while the retreating blade (the one going from in front of the helicopter to the rear) is losing velocity because its the blades velocity minus the wind. the faster you go the more a stall region starts to grow on the retreating blade until eventually its producing no lift and the advancing blade its creating too much lift. this cause the helicopter to nose up, then shake and eventually flip over.

>>32203465
See, I'm not 100 percent on how that would even work, unless they were meant to be fired rotors up. Other wise it's what? Get to a hot LZ, tally where ever you're taking fire from, then hope it worked or you're definitely in for a bad time trying to get in and out now. Or like 1 bird lands and unload while the rest shoot up the place, like airborne fire and maneuver? It still seems way worse that simply providing AH1 support.

>>32203508
Crazy. So would the twin rotor with the two rotors going opposite fix that? The designs for it were really neat with one shaft inside the other and both rotors cooperating completely independent of each other.

>>32200086
>limited due to the large tiltrotor discs.

So, no interrupter gear on the props then?

>>32203535
See >>32201290 this guys picture for placement.

No fucking clue why they're doing what they're doing, someone in the military opened up contracts to arm V-22 ospreys like a year and a half ago and it got a bunch of shit on it for like 6 months, then quiet for 4 months, then phase 2 was announced and airframe designs came out and seating for gunners was designed and then silence for like the past 6 months.

File: b25gdwg.jpg (27KB, 424x279px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 424x279px

>>32203581
Gotcha.

They should go full meme and stick a cut down 155 in there, pic related style. That'll get the hadjis to put their heads down real quick.

>>32202451
>Black Hawk Down 2: Tilt Rotor Boogaloo
stopmypeniscanonlygetsoerect.gif