military-still-wants-belly-gun-v-22-osprey

Full article here.  According to the article, Osprey fans and supporters have been calling for a research and development project for a belly gun for the Osprey for years.  Strange.  We figured out how to mount machine guns on aircraft back in 1915, Antony Fokker did the deed.  Bolt the gun to the fuselage somewhere, cut a hole for the gun muzzle to stick out of, and the job is done.  You have to steer the aircraft to lay the gun, but that's easier and more instinctive and more reliable than some kinda steerable gun mount.  No R & D required, just go do it.  We did it back in Viet Nam, the local boys managed to mount a 30 cal Gatling gun on an F4C, and Chuck Yeager scored a number of kills with it.   It worked so well that the next version of the F4, the F4D, was built with an internal gun.
   Plus, the mission of the Osprey is to carry troops and land them behind enemy lines.  Adding guns and ammunition costs range and payload, i.e. an armed Osprey is less effective at its primary mission than an unarmed one.  If the landing zone is hot, send some armed escort fighters along with the Ospreys to dust off any bad guys stupid enough to stick their heads up.  
    

V-22 Osprey vs large Helicopters

A few numbers:
Chinook CH-47
Cost                   $38 million
Combat Radius 200 miles
Cruise Speed     160 knots
Payload             24,000 lbs

Super Stallion CH53
Cost                  $24 million
Combat Radius 621 miles
Cruise Speed     150 knots
Payload              30,000 lbs

Osprey V-22
Cost                   $72.1 million
Combat Radius  426 miles
Cruise Speed     275 knots
Payload              20,000 lbs

The Marine Corps loves the V-22.  Not sure why.  All the V-22 offers over the CH53 is much higher cruise speed.  The CH-53 has better combat radius and payload.  We could buy three CH-53 helicopters for the price of a single V-22.