Gunship Ospreys

Would pilots of supporting gunship ospreys be considered "Aces" for shooting down enemy drones and/or copters. These would be airborne kills. Or would they be told , they aren't jets, watch over the ground troops. Leaving personnel pride at hitting small and fast moving targets.
 
Helicopters count as kills for ace status, I think, so shooting one down would get you closer to Ace status. Drones... open question. No precedent has been set, as far as I'm aware. Is it enough that the target simply be small and fast moving? If so, does shooting down a missile or satellite count as a kill? Or does it have to be controlled by a human that's in the craft that gets shot down?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Helicopters count as kills for ace status, I think, so shooting one down would get you closer to Ace status. Drones... open question. No precedent has been set, as far as I'm aware. Is it enough that the target simply be small and fast moving? If so, does shooting down a missile or satellite count as a kill? Or does it have to be controlled by a human that's in the craft that gets shot down?
Satellites apparently count (or would have with the USAF's program). But I don't think missiles do. Drones, who knows. Some are almost as big as a 737. Others are the size of your head.
 
Thank you for your replies. I think the US Marines are trying hardest for the gunships. According to the articles I have read, weapon load-outs are for ground support. Machine guns, Hydra and Improved Hydra missiles. US Air Force may get some as escorts for their Special Ops birds.
Knocking down recon drones and copters helps to blind the enemy. Would training and doctrine allow for handling of jets? After all, you are supposed to be sneaking in. The bigger the air group, the easier to see you. Then again, Air Force pilots want all of the air kills. means they still have a fighter mission.
 
If we're talking about Osprey's engaging fighter jets, I am reminded of a quote from the Aliens Colonial Marine Technical Manual.

"Listen up, kiddies, these are righteous words I speak. Do not, I repeat, do NOT get into a dogfight with one of these babies, 'cuz you will BURN! ... If an enemy air threat appears, there are two sensible reactions: Run, which is good; or Hide, which is almost as good. Anyone who tries to fight back is a dumb conehead who will burn in Marine hell for wasting a perfectly good dropship. Any questions?"

Put bluntly, the Osprey does not appear to have the performance or weaponry to tangle with enemy fighters. Or probably ground-attack aircraft, for that matter, or perhaps even an aggressive attack helicopter. If you're not convinced, take a look at their performance stats: an Osprey tops out at well over 100kph less than a Mustang left over from WW2, which (all things being equal) means the Mustang has the advantage. But all other things are not equal, especially since most fighter jets have performance considerably better than a P-51. I suspect the Osprey pilots are going to have a hard time making ace.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Would training and doctrine allow for handling of jets? After all, you are supposed to be sneaking in. The bigger the air group, the easier to see you. Then again, Air Force pilots want all of the air kills. means they still have a fighter mission.
Put simply, no. They don't have the speed or maneuverability to take on fast jets. Even a 60 year old A-4 Skyhawk could mop the floor with an Osprey. Basically, if it's a jet and it has a cannon, it's gonna win. The only way an Osprey shoots down fast movers is from ambush and only if it's equipped with Sidewinders. And even then, you could put the Osprey into a years long WWIII scenario, and it's kill count will probably be in single digits.
 
That there ehas never been a working plan to arm them this way should tell you something. It would make more sense to arm the CH53 as a gunship. At least it has proved able to maneuver, barrel rolls, corkscrew rolls, tight turns, steep climbs ect... The USMC proposals have a variety of reasons behind them, but I cant see any as winning arguments. The Osprey has capacity for a medium lift bird, and good range. Can get in & out of a LZ fast, but thats about it. Maybe some future variable geometry bird will be suitable as a multi role platform, but Ospery does not look like it.
 
Put simply, no. They don't have the speed or maneuverability to take on fast jets. Even a 60 year old A-4 Skyhawk could mop the floor with an Osprey. Basically, if it's a jet and it has a cannon, it's gonna win. The only way an Osprey shoots down fast movers is from ambush and only if it's equipped with Sidewinders. And even then, you could put the Osprey into a years long WWIII scenario, and it's kill count will probably be in single digits.

This is like the 1980s proposal to arm the USN ASW aircraft with a Sidewinder. It makes sense only as a last ditch defense measure. If a interceptor gets past the CAP & is on approach you turn towards them & let fly with the sidewinder & pray.
 

SsgtC

Banned
This is like the 1980s proposal to arm the USN ASW aircraft with a Sidewinder. It makes sense only as a last ditch defense measure. If a interceptor gets past the CAP & is on approach you turn towards them & let fly with the sidewinder & pray.
Basically. It could be useful for getting back out after an insertion as well. For example, the Osprey is on the ground doing whatever it needs to, fast jets fly past that don't realize it's there, the Osprey can send a Sidewinder up its ass, then haul ass through the hole it just blew in the BARCAP
 
I'm thinking the real threat will be from a swarm of semiautonomous drones. Sent out to attack anything with the wrong IFF signal.

There also suppression of the enemy ground based air defense.
 
So, no chance for Osprey pilots becoming "Aces". They have to be quiet and sneaky. I knew jets and ground arms were threats. I think Ospreys should be kept as haulers behind a thick wall of war fighters.
 
That there ehas never been a working plan to arm them this way should tell you something. It would make more sense to arm the CH53 as a gunship. At least it has proved able to maneuver, barrel rolls, corkscrew rolls, tight turns, steep climbs ect... The USMC proposals have a variety of reasons behind them, but I cant see any as winning arguments. The Osprey has capacity for a medium lift bird, and good range. Can get in & out of a LZ fast, but thats about it. Maybe some future variable geometry bird will be suitable as a multi role platform, but Ospery does not look like it.
No it makes a lot more sense for a V-22 platform as a gunship than a CH-53. To avoid the issues with the UH-1 where the gunships could not keep with the the troop transports that led to the AH-1, which can keep up with CH-53 but not V-22. You want a gunship escort that can cruise at 450 kph and a 700km combat radius, which means a tiltrotor, and for parts commonality a variant of the Osprey makes the most sense, though on the level of AH-1 to UH-1. It's not ideal or even very good as a gunship taken in isolation, but a bad gunship that is here now is better than a great gunship that was bingo fuel 200km back or is still an hour away
 
Is it a heavier than air vehicle? Does it fly? Is it one of ‘theirs’ ? Whether it manned or not, is immaterial. What you have is an enemy, heavier than air flying machine. If you shoot it down, it’s a mission kill. End of story.
 
The size of the Rotor's/Propellers on the Osprey would make it quite difficult to locate the armaments if they are to be used while in both configurations.

It sort of only leave the front and bottom of the fuselage as options, and the bottom of the fuselage, they would need to be very careful with release angles.
 
The US Air Force Broncs could carry 3/4 paratroops in the back of the cabin or a three barrel 20MM cannon setup. US Marines want that system as a belly-gun. Again, for support of Marines on the ground.
 
Top