Helicopter gun at LONG range

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."

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 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

"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

"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.

"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.

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

"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/

"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

"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.