Re: Helicopter gun at LONG range

[Gordon]

Can I ask why..? Just curious as to where this info is heading.

Such work has been done, in some cases, in front of me.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[John Hairell]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:20:34 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

>Has anyone used a helicopter cannon at LONG standoff range. By long range I mean
>a range where the gun must shoot significantly above the straight line to the target
>rather like a howitzer.

To do something like that you'd have to angle the cannon up through
the blades.

>
>My vision is a helicopter standing off for safety and firing at an area. I'm assuming
>if an AH-64 unloaded it's magazine at me from 10 miles away I would experience
>a hail of shells all around me that would chew up every soft target including
>any anti-air batteries.

The current cannon doesn't have the range, and it would take a pretty
big cannon to fire 10 miles. And why use helicopter-borne cannon fire
when you can call in longer-ranged arty?

>It would take some sensor to measure range accurately (laser rangefinder) and some
>software to compute tragetories, but these things need not be heavy or very expensive.
>
>Has anyone ever even experimented or studied such an idea?
>

There is a solution for this problem: it's called a "missile". ;-)

John Hairell )

[John Mullen]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:20:34 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
> > wrote:
>
> >Has anyone used a helicopter cannon at LONG standoff range. By long
range I mean
> >a range where the gun must shoot significantly above the straight line to
the target
> >rather like a howitzer.
>
> To do something like that you'd have to angle the cannon up through
> the blades.

Not necessarily a problem I would have thought?

> >
> >My vision is a helicopter standing off for safety and firing at an area.
I'm assuming
> >if an AH-64 unloaded it's magazine at me from 10 miles away I would
experience
> >a hail of shells all around me that would chew up every soft target
including
> >any anti-air batteries.
>
> The current cannon doesn't have the range, and it would take a pretty
> big cannon to fire 10 miles. And why use helicopter-borne cannon fire
> when you can call in longer-ranged arty?

Wouldn't recoil be quite a major problem as well?

> >It would take some sensor to measure range accurately (laser rangefinder)
and some
> >software to compute tragetories, but these things need not be heavy or
very expensive.
> >
> >Has anyone ever even experimented or studied such an idea?
> >
>
> There is a solution for this problem: it's called a "missile". ;-)

Yep.

John

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Gordon" > wrote in message ...
> Can I ask why..? Just curious as to where this info is heading.
>
> Such work has been done, in some cases, in front of me.

I've been reading about the A-10 and it seems most attack profiles
lead it to fly over (or near) the target. A more survivable approach
would be to stand off, but that reduces accuracy.

Eventually these thoughts lead to the idea of a stand-off attack.
Since the A-10 requires it's gun to follow the nose, I was considering
platforms that could aim the gun separately from the vehicle. This leads
one to a helicopter, or to an A-10 with a helicopter turret mounted on
the nose.

Which lead to my question....

I would love to hear about the work in front of you. I'm not asking
you to violate your oaths and offer military secrets, but instead just tell
me what you can tell me.

Does it work?

What are the main obsticles to overcome?

-Thanks

[Charles Talleyrand]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:20:34 -0400, "Charles Talleyrand"
> > wrote:
>
> >Has anyone used a helicopter cannon at LONG standoff range. By long range I mean
> >a range where the gun must shoot significantly above the straight line to the target
> >rather like a howitzer.
>
> To do something like that you'd have to angle the cannon up through
> the blades.

I don't think the angle need exceed 45 degrees, and that should clear the
blades with ease. If not, please select a lower angle.


>
> >
> >My vision is a helicopter standing off for safety and firing at an area. I'm assuming
> >if an AH-64 unloaded it's magazine at me from 10 miles away I would experience
> >a hail of shells all around me that would chew up every soft target including
> >any anti-air batteries.
>
> The current cannon doesn't have the range, and it would take a pretty
> big cannon to fire 10 miles. And why use helicopter-borne cannon fire
> when you can call in longer-ranged arty?

I don't know any numers, but recall that the helicopter is firing from above
the horizon and might have a forward velocity, both of which might help.
If ten miles is extreme, what would seem reasonable.

Remember that the gun can fire two miles without a substancial arc,
so the range with upward firing must be substancial.

> There is a solution for this problem: it's called a "missile". ;-)

Missiles often cost more than the target.

Also, simply having the option might help the attack even if this is
not the first option for every attack. Options almost always help.

[Bill Silvey]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message


> Missiles often cost more than the target.

This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears. Yes,
yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of chinese T-55
knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait for a different
asset to attack with a more economical munition and hope you - or people on
the ground - don't die waiting?

Nonsense. If it kills the target, it paid for itself. There's no point in
trying to play accountant as well as CP/G. Missile expensive? You bet!
But guess what? There's a plant in California that'll make *all of them you
want*. Heck, I can promise you a Hellfire costs more than most cars - yet a
Hellfire was used to destroy a car-full of al-Qeda terrorists a year or so
back. Should the UAV pilot have waved off and not killed 'em?

> Also, simply having the option might help the attack even if this is
> not the first option for every attack. Options almost always help.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Les Matheson]

Perfect weapon system exists, the AC-130H or U. 40 and 105MM guns on target
for a long time.

Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> > Can I ask why..? Just curious as to where this info is heading.
> >
> > Such work has been done, in some cases, in front of me.
>
> I've been reading about the A-10 and it seems most attack profiles
> lead it to fly over (or near) the target. A more survivable approach
> would be to stand off, but that reduces accuracy.
>
> Eventually these thoughts lead to the idea of a stand-off attack.
> Since the A-10 requires it's gun to follow the nose, I was considering
> platforms that could aim the gun separately from the vehicle. This leads
> one to a helicopter, or to an A-10 with a helicopter turret mounted on
> the nose.
>
> Which lead to my question....
>
> I would love to hear about the work in front of you. I'm not asking
> you to violate your oaths and offer military secrets, but instead just
tell
> me what you can tell me.
>
> Does it work?
>
> What are the main obsticles to overcome?
>
> -Thanks
>
>

[Tony Williams]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Has anyone used a helicopter cannon at LONG standoff range. By long range I mean
> a range where the gun must shoot significantly above the straight line to the target
> rather like a howitzer.
>
> My vision is a helicopter standing off for safety and firing at an area. I'm assuming
> if an AH-64 unloaded it's magazine at me from 10 miles away I would experience
> a hail of shells all around me that would chew up every soft target including
> any anti-air batteries.
>
> It would take some sensor to measure range accurately (laser rangefinder) and some
> software to compute tragetories, but these things need not be heavy or very expensive.
>
> Has anyone ever even experimented or studied such an idea?

The ultimate range limitation given current helicopter installations
would be the maximum elevation permitted by the turret. The AH-64's
gun is limited to only 11 degrees (the French THL turret manages up to
30 degrees, the AH-1's M197 20 degrees).

The ballistic charactistics of the projectiles is also an issue. At
extreme range short aircraft cannon shells like the western 20mm and
30mm may lose stability and start tumbling. The Russian 30mm is much
better; the shells are much heavier and will carry further, but their
mountings don't have the elevation.

Then there's the stability of a helicopter as a gun platform. I
suspect that dispersion at long range would be considerable.

All-in-all, probably a non-starter for any practical purposes.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Missiles often cost more than the target.
>
> This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears. Yes,
> yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of chinese T-55
> knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait for a different
> asset to attack with a more economical munition and hope you - or people
on
> the ground - don't die waiting?
>

Indeed comparing cash values like that is nonsense.
The real issue is that a maverick is a hell of a lot cheaper than
the airplane and pilot you need to hazard to put him in
gun range.

Keith

[Bill Silvey]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message

> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Missiles often cost more than the target.
>>
>> This is a poor warfighting methodology that will only lead to tears.
>> Yes, yes. A single Hellfire costs more than a half-company of
>> chinese T-55 knockoffs. So you do what then - don't shoot it? Wait
>> for a different asset to attack with a more economical munition and
>> hope you - or people on the ground - don't die waiting?
>>
>
> Indeed comparing cash values like that is nonsense.
> The real issue is that a maverick is a hell of a lot cheaper than
> the airplane and pilot you need to hazard to put him in
> gun range.
>
> Keith

Further example: I don't think the pentagon was counting pennies when they
first used LGBs in Vietnam to drop a bridge that had withstood conventional
bombardment for the better part of a decade...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message om...

> Further example: I don't think the pentagon was counting pennies when they
> first used LGBs in Vietnam to drop a bridge that had withstood conventional
> bombardment for the better part of a decade...
>

It's probably the case that the air force found one guided bomb much cheaper than
many failed conventional missions. Sometimes expensive weapons
are the cheapest solutions.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message om...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Missiles often cost more than the target.
>
> Nonsense. If it kills the target, it paid for itself. There's no point in
> trying to play accountant as well as CP/G.

I believe this argument when taken to extremes will have negative result.
If every target deserves the most expensive munition then many targets
will have no munitions. And of course excessive cheapness taken to
extremes will also have negative results. Cannot we both agree that
somewhere in the middle is the correct answer?


> Missile expensive? You bet!
> But guess what? There's a plant in California that'll make *all of them you
> want*.

Hm. I was under the impression that the Pentagon had a limited budget,
and could not in fact afford all the missiles it wanted.

> Heck, I can promise you a Hellfire costs more than most cars - yet a
> Hellfire was used to destroy a car-full of al-Qeda terrorists a year or so
> back. Should the UAV pilot have waved off and not killed 'em?

Of course not. The correct comparision is not the cost of the missile
vs. the cost of the car. The correct comparision is the cost of the missile
vs the lives of the "car-full" of terrorists and the damage they would
likely do us.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message m...
> The ultimate range limitation given current helicopter installations
> would be the maximum elevation permitted by the turret. The AH-64's
> gun is limited to only 11 degrees (the French THL turret manages up to
> 30 degrees, the AH-1's M197 20 degrees).

Hmm. Good point. A new helicopter might have different limits, but we'll
be using the existing fleet for a long time.

> The ballistic charactistics of the projectiles is also an issue. At
> extreme range short aircraft cannon shells like the western 20mm and
> 30mm may lose stability and start tumbling. The Russian 30mm is much
> better; the shells are much heavier and will carry further, but their
> mountings don't have the elevation.

I don't know enough to understand this. Is tumbling bad? I understood for
something like a personal rifle it was a good thing in that it maximzed damage.


>
> Then there's the stability of a helicopter as a gun platform. I
> suspect that dispersion at long range would be considerable.


Sure. But if it's good enough at 1000 meters to hit a truck, then at 10,000
meters it should hit an area with a diameter of 10 trucks. That's a small
area given enough rounds on target. Of course I'm going beyond my area of
expertise here.



> All-in-all, probably a non-starter for any practical purposes.
>
> Tony Williams
> Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Les Matheson]

Not l-o-n-g range, but 10,000 ft plus slant range at altitude. Stand off is
a mile to mile and a half.

You get precision weaponry and a killing projectile (105mm) on most targets.

If you need something bigger, just lase it from orbit and let the bombers
hit it.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)




"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:kqj_a.14642$ug.9879@lakeread01...
> > Perfect weapon system exists, the AC-130H or U. 40 and 105MM guns on
target
> > for a long time.
>
> Can and does an AC-130 fire at LONG range in an arced trajectory? And if
it works for
> an AC-130, might it also work for an AH-64?
>
>

[Gordon]

>
>I don't know enough to understand this. Is tumbling bad? I understood for
>something like a personal rifle it was a good thing in that it maximzed
>damage.

If you want to penetrate an armored vehicle, a tumbling, unstabilized round is
useless.

[Thomas Schoene]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message

>
> I don't know enough to understand this. Is tumbling bad? I
> understood for something like a personal rifle it was a good
> thing in that it maximzed damage.

A round that tumbles in flight is bad. Some Small arms rounds tumble when
they enter flesh, which increases their wounding potential. But if this
happens before hitting a target, the rounds are liable to go anywhere but
where you aim them. If they do hit something, they will have very poor
penetration.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Jeb Hoge]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...

> I'm not arguing it's the end-all and be-all of warfare. I'm not even
> sure the limited opportunities are worth the cost of software and
> training. But maybe ???
>
> Mostly I'm asking if there are any technical problems and if they could
> be overcome.

Technical problems would be locating the target and determining the
bearing/range/azimuth for the cannon to land the rounds in the area.
The only way a helo can do that is to see the target long enough to
bounce a laser rangefinder off it, and if they're going to that much
trouble of terrain masking and popping up to spot it, they're already
in place for *direct* cannon fire onto the target area, so no need to
back off and try for less-effective indirect. And in a worst-case
scenario where the target is hot enough to make a cannon attack
hazardous, then the best thing for the crew to do is radio in
coordinates and turn tail. Let someone with a better setup make the
shot.

[Tiger]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> Has anyone used a helicopter cannon at LONG standoff range. By long range I mean
> a range where the gun must shoot significantly above the straight line to the target
> rather like a howitzer.
>
> My vision is a helicopter standing off for safety and firing at an area. I'm assuming
> if an AH-64 unloaded it's magazine at me from 10 miles away I would experience
> a hail of shells all around me that would chew up every soft target including
> any anti-air batteries.
>
> It would take some sensor to measure range accurately (laser rangefinder) and some
> software to compute tragetories, but these things need not be heavy or very expensive.
>
> Has anyone ever even experimented or studied such an idea?

First the gun can't shoot 10 miles. Second, You can't tell friend of foe from that far
out. If you want to reach out an touch some one, you call on a fire mission. Not a
Apache, wasting ammo.