Posted on May 16, 2016
Marines Corps V-22 Osprey Could Get 'Kamikaze' Missile
2.24K
20
11
9
9
0
The Marine Corps is getting close to selecting a weapons system and sensors for its prized tiltrotor aircraft, the services' deputy commandant of Aviation said Monday.
Speaking at the Sea Air Space expo near Washington, D.C., Lt. Gen. Jon Davis named some systems that might end up on the Osprey as Marine officials work to build out all their aviation platforms for combat, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Among options being considered: the Switchblade Tactical Missile System, a "kamikaze" unmanned aerial vehicle that has been tossed out of the back of the aircraft in testing for precision target acquisition.
"We are making every one of our platforms a sensor, a sharer and a shooter," Davis said. "We're putting long-range communications and link compatibility on V-22s, we'll put a sensor package on the V-22, and we will weaponize the V-22 as well. Why would you do that? You do that because you're going to need those platforms as you fight your way from [the continental U.S.] to wherever you've got to go."
Other systems used in experiments with the Osprey include the Viper Strike glide bomb, a laser-guided system with GPS capabilities, and the Griffin A aft-eject missile, he said.
"We're looking at really the same kind of systems we've got up on our [AH-1] Cobras and UH-1Y [Venom] and also too on our C-130 [Hercules]," Davis said.
He added that the Corps' Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One had already conducted experiments using some of these systems, noting that requirements officials would have input on the final choice of system.
The Marine Corps is also looking to add Naval Air Systems Command's ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger Pod to the Osprey. A jamming system already in use by the AV-8B Harrier and F-18 variants, the pod will boost the aircraft's ISR capabilities, Davis said.
It's not clear when Marine officials are set to make a decision on the new systems they plan to add to the aircraft. Flight Global reported in April that MAWTS-1 plans to hold a demonstration in Yuma, Arizona, with up to four competing sensor systems in late 2017.
Davis said he has heard concerns that adding weapons and sensors to the Osprey will overload the pilots, increasing their tasks and dividing their attention. But he said he has been impressed to see the younger pilots joining squadrons today embracing new technology and thriving as they employ it.
"We give them a sensor, we give them a weapons system, it won't be a problem," he said. "I've got zero concerns about that."
@@SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas , Capt Christopher Mueller , CPT (Join to see) , COL Mikel J. Burroughs , Sgt Joe LaBranche , SSgt (Join to see), TSgt Hunter Logan Capt Seid Waddell SrA Christopher Wright LTC Stephen F. PO2 Ed C. PO2 Mark Saffell MSG Tom Earley PVT James Strait Alan K. @po1 william "chip" PO1 William "Chip" Nagel Maj Kim Patterson @SGT John McConnell SGT John " Mac " McConnell
Speaking at the Sea Air Space expo near Washington, D.C., Lt. Gen. Jon Davis named some systems that might end up on the Osprey as Marine officials work to build out all their aviation platforms for combat, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Among options being considered: the Switchblade Tactical Missile System, a "kamikaze" unmanned aerial vehicle that has been tossed out of the back of the aircraft in testing for precision target acquisition.
"We are making every one of our platforms a sensor, a sharer and a shooter," Davis said. "We're putting long-range communications and link compatibility on V-22s, we'll put a sensor package on the V-22, and we will weaponize the V-22 as well. Why would you do that? You do that because you're going to need those platforms as you fight your way from [the continental U.S.] to wherever you've got to go."
Other systems used in experiments with the Osprey include the Viper Strike glide bomb, a laser-guided system with GPS capabilities, and the Griffin A aft-eject missile, he said.
"We're looking at really the same kind of systems we've got up on our [AH-1] Cobras and UH-1Y [Venom] and also too on our C-130 [Hercules]," Davis said.
He added that the Corps' Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One had already conducted experiments using some of these systems, noting that requirements officials would have input on the final choice of system.
The Marine Corps is also looking to add Naval Air Systems Command's ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger Pod to the Osprey. A jamming system already in use by the AV-8B Harrier and F-18 variants, the pod will boost the aircraft's ISR capabilities, Davis said.
It's not clear when Marine officials are set to make a decision on the new systems they plan to add to the aircraft. Flight Global reported in April that MAWTS-1 plans to hold a demonstration in Yuma, Arizona, with up to four competing sensor systems in late 2017.
Davis said he has heard concerns that adding weapons and sensors to the Osprey will overload the pilots, increasing their tasks and dividing their attention. But he said he has been impressed to see the younger pilots joining squadrons today embracing new technology and thriving as they employ it.
"We give them a sensor, we give them a weapons system, it won't be a problem," he said. "I've got zero concerns about that."
@@SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas , Capt Christopher Mueller , CPT (Join to see) , COL Mikel J. Burroughs , Sgt Joe LaBranche , SSgt (Join to see), TSgt Hunter Logan Capt Seid Waddell SrA Christopher Wright LTC Stephen F. PO2 Ed C. PO2 Mark Saffell MSG Tom Earley PVT James Strait Alan K. @po1 william "chip" PO1 William "Chip" Nagel Maj Kim Patterson @SGT John McConnell SGT John " Mac " McConnell
Marines Corps V-22 Osprey Could Get 'Kamikaze' Missile
Posted from military.com
Military History
Drones
Equipment
Technology
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
The sinews of war are infinite money -- Marcus Tullius Cicero.
When the Osprey was being considered, all the Marine Corps wanted was a fast, long range, lightly armed, medium lift, LOW COST, tactical troop transport. The other necessary capabilities would be provided by other aviation platforms in the flight. But congress and lobbyists set the Marines straight and told the Marines what the Marines were not aware they wanted.
Weapons make a particular spot on the ground a bad place to be, for a very limited time. They cannot hold the ground. How many different delivery systems do we need for precision munitions? What capability will this add that cannot be provided by Fixed wing tactical aircraft, guided missiles, or artillery pieces. What is the price tag on these birds now? The Allies didn't win WWII in Europe because of superior weapons and tactics. They won because the Germans could not resist the economic mass of adequate weapons and tactics.
At some point the economics of warfare must kick in. What is the cost per kill for ISIS and AlQaeda? What is ours? The terrorists are smart enough to know that they must bleed our purse as well as our military. That doesn't mean we have to help them.
When the Osprey was being considered, all the Marine Corps wanted was a fast, long range, lightly armed, medium lift, LOW COST, tactical troop transport. The other necessary capabilities would be provided by other aviation platforms in the flight. But congress and lobbyists set the Marines straight and told the Marines what the Marines were not aware they wanted.
Weapons make a particular spot on the ground a bad place to be, for a very limited time. They cannot hold the ground. How many different delivery systems do we need for precision munitions? What capability will this add that cannot be provided by Fixed wing tactical aircraft, guided missiles, or artillery pieces. What is the price tag on these birds now? The Allies didn't win WWII in Europe because of superior weapons and tactics. They won because the Germans could not resist the economic mass of adequate weapons and tactics.
At some point the economics of warfare must kick in. What is the cost per kill for ISIS and AlQaeda? What is ours? The terrorists are smart enough to know that they must bleed our purse as well as our military. That doesn't mean we have to help them.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj John Bell - Major; When you say "The Allies didn't win WWII in Europe because of superior weapons and tactics. They won because the Germans could not resist the economic mass of adequate weapons and tactics." you highlight the difference between "Military Efficiency" and "Military Effectiveness".
[If a soldier from "Army A" has 100 rounds of ammunition and is 100% accurate, then they are militarily efficient BUT they will lose against 101 soldiers who each have 1 round of ammunition (which makes the "Army B" soldiers "militarily effective" - REGARDLESS of how "militarily inefficient" they are [and if "Army B" has 101 times the number of soldiers that "Army A" has then "Army A" is going to lose pretty nearly 100% of the time {all else being equal}]).
[If a soldier from "Army A" has 100 rounds of ammunition and is 100% accurate, then they are militarily efficient BUT they will lose against 101 soldiers who each have 1 round of ammunition (which makes the "Army B" soldiers "militarily effective" - REGARDLESS of how "militarily inefficient" they are [and if "Army B" has 101 times the number of soldiers that "Army A" has then "Army A" is going to lose pretty nearly 100% of the time {all else being equal}]).
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
COL Ted Mc - I understand what you are saying, but you are making your point at a tactical level at the extreme edge of performance envelopes. I'm talking about a Grand Strategy level at historically verifiable performance, over a years long series of campaigns.
Some arguable points:
For the most part, the Germans enjoyed a significant qualitative advantage in Armored vehicles, Towed and Man-portable anti-armor weapons, aviation platforms, surface combatant ships and submarines. There were some notable exceptions, both the Fench and Russians had some models of Tanks and Tank destroyers that outclassed the Germans, but the numbers were insufficient to dominate the battlefield. In other areas they had either parity, or the disadvantage was negligible. Before the entry of the USSR and the US into the war, the Allies could not match the overall, qualitative, numerical, and natural resources of the Germans.
On the entry of the USSR and US into the war, the qualitative advantage remained, but the Numerical and natural resources advantage was gone. The numerical advantage was able to grind down the qualitative advantage until the German ability to put qualitatively better equipped, trained, supplied, and led units in the field could not match German losses. In addition, the Allies were able to put units in the field that were increasingly better equipped, trained, supplied, and led, in numbers that exceeded their losses.
Back to the Osprey. It was never intended as a stand alone aviation platform for missions against an even moderately sophisticated forces. I still think that the following is a perfectly valid question. What does the up-arming of the Osprey add to mission capability that other weapons delivery systems do not? What is the cost in operational capabilities of all the buzzers, bells and light sabers against the original intent of the bird, a fast, long range, lightly armed, medium lift, LOW COST, tactical troop transport.
Some arguable points:
For the most part, the Germans enjoyed a significant qualitative advantage in Armored vehicles, Towed and Man-portable anti-armor weapons, aviation platforms, surface combatant ships and submarines. There were some notable exceptions, both the Fench and Russians had some models of Tanks and Tank destroyers that outclassed the Germans, but the numbers were insufficient to dominate the battlefield. In other areas they had either parity, or the disadvantage was negligible. Before the entry of the USSR and the US into the war, the Allies could not match the overall, qualitative, numerical, and natural resources of the Germans.
On the entry of the USSR and US into the war, the qualitative advantage remained, but the Numerical and natural resources advantage was gone. The numerical advantage was able to grind down the qualitative advantage until the German ability to put qualitatively better equipped, trained, supplied, and led units in the field could not match German losses. In addition, the Allies were able to put units in the field that were increasingly better equipped, trained, supplied, and led, in numbers that exceeded their losses.
Back to the Osprey. It was never intended as a stand alone aviation platform for missions against an even moderately sophisticated forces. I still think that the following is a perfectly valid question. What does the up-arming of the Osprey add to mission capability that other weapons delivery systems do not? What is the cost in operational capabilities of all the buzzers, bells and light sabers against the original intent of the bird, a fast, long range, lightly armed, medium lift, LOW COST, tactical troop transport.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj John Bell - Major; I suspect that the big "advantage" is that the proposal makes the V-22 "sexier" (and may qualify command of a V-22 equipped unit as a "combat command" for "promotion points").
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
That is bizarre news that the USMC V-22 Osprey could get a Kamikaze missile SP5 Mark Kuzinski. I wonder if the timing of this has anything to do with POTUS Obama going to Hiroshima, Japan. I hope we don't name the Kamikaze missile a Baka bomb. :-)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google