While discussing the V-22 Osprey in the past I noted that it’s a bit light in the self-defense department.

The machine itself is a big step forward for the Corps and I know we’re all rooting for it to deliver the snuffies somewhere near the crash and clangor of battle – but not too close, since they only carry one .30 machine gun for defensive fire, and the rear ramp has to be lowered to use it. [emph added]

The immediate image I had was the mandatory requirement to land four of these babies at a time, nose in, with their rear ramps facing out in order to provide some fire suppression. This was not a happy picture. It seems some other people had the same stomach griping I did.

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.
…
A nose gun was considered early in the tilt-rotor’s two-decade gestation but was branded too costly, Air Force requirements officials said.

The fiscal 2008 supplemental request includes $82 million for research, development and testing of an “all-quadrant,” or 360-degree, defensive weapon to augment the ramp-mounted 7.62mm machine gun the Marines use for now.

Navy program spokesman James Darcy said there is no timetable for finding such a gun, and the search will be bound by finances and the plodding acquisition process.

“SOCom is looking at a faster turnaround,” Darcy said. “But Air Force Special Operations Command is flying a different mission than the Marine Corps.”

I suppose that SOCOM feels that, unlike the Marine Corps, they are sent into areas where they’re not welcome. Imagine that: the Marines not having opposed landings.

There are 10 Marine Ospreys in Iraq right now, and they’re hauling troops and trash (supplies) around on logistical missions, although I have heard reports that the biggest use of Ospreys has been to haul around VIPs rather than supplies or troops. As I said, “trash.”

SOCOM put out requests for program solutions last September seeking an “all-quadrant” defensive weapon system to be ready within 120 days of contract signing.

But for the most part, those requirements are intentionally vague, he said, leaving the door open for industry to be as innovative as possible. It is not even specified whether the system should be fully integrated into the aircraft in the future or if a drop-in solution is the best plan.

“There are advantages and disadvantages to total, permanent integration,” said Air Force Maj. Rob Pittman of the Air Force acquisition office. “The quick-and-dirty solution that gets the job done might be the answer.”

One contractor, BAE Systems, has started design work already on such a system.

[…] BAE Systems has been spending its own money to develop the Remote Guardian System, a turreted, remote-operated, retractable weapon that could be fielded in the third quarter of 2008 and fitted aboard the V-22 and other aircraft, said Clark B. Freise, vice president and general manager of defense avionics for BAE.

“We’ve been investing for two years and created our own program to develop the capability,” Freise said.

While Freise would not say how much BAE has spent or how much it would charge per weapon, he did say the price would be low enough to appeal to the Pentagon and high enough to recoup its investment.

“We spent a lot of money on it,” he said. “We found a hole in their protection, we’re covering it for now, and we’ll get it back. We’d rather not say how much we’ve invested. We have shared with the Marine Corps what we think it will cost to go into production, and it is significantly lower than other solutions.”

Before the Marine Corps gets too deeply invested in new technology (and BAE'$ $olution will be an inve$tment) it might be wise to point out that the Army feels it has already recognized and resolved this problem.

The U.S. Army plans to outfit thousands more vehicles with Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations (CROWS), which allow gunners to fire on targets from the safety of armored crew compartments.

In August, Army officials intend to choose one firm from among several competitors to receive a contract for 1,500 CROWS stations. In total, the contract could grow to as many as 6,500 CROWS, Army officials said.

“The Army is looking at the CROWS system for the up-armored Humvee, Fox [reconnaissance vehicle], RG-31 [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles] and the Abrams [tank], so right now the Army is trying to finalize the basis of issue regarding how many CROWS to order and who gets them,” said Richard Audette, deputy project manager for soldier weapons at the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

It takes one week to train soldiers.

Now, I know I get active duty readers from the Corps, and from CENTCOM and the Pentagon, and I have been hard on your bosses. It’s not that I hate officers, gentlemen. I understand they think differently, that’s all. The CROWS system has been test-driven in the sandbox, and the GIs seem to like it.

Not only can you bring along your best friend (Ma Deuce) and you don’t have to carry it! And you can fit out the installation with the Mk 19. That has got to be a popular feature.