![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long range Wx | Paul kgyy | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | December 31st 04 04:25 PM |
Dennis Fetters Mini 500 | EmailMe | Home Built | 70 | June 21st 04 09:36 PM |
SWRFI Pirep.. (long) | Dave S | Home Built | 20 | May 21st 04 03:02 PM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 6 | February 27th 04 09:11 AM |
To Steal an F-86 | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 19 | August 1st 03 02:26 AM |