• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

MH-60S with a M197 20mm cannon!

Gatordev said:
I don't mean to argue your overall point, but as an FYI, the HITRON mission's (and Navy helos that do the same mission) ROE is night and day from what you would do against an actual small-boat threat. Part of it is actually kind of amusing if they decide to shoot back.
Click to expand...
I figured as much, but I was just using it as an example of crew served weapons vs. moving boat. In case Otto thought that crew served weapons vs. moving land target was that much different. My point was mainly that there is no magical cure-all weapon that will take out a small boat without training and proficiency. And that even a less-than-optimal weapon for the job can be incredibly lethal when they are proficient.
Yeah, not so much on the Active-Component side.
Click to expand...
And to put it in perspective, our NCEA is less than the Active side...
 
If the worry with Hellfire is overkill for a small boat, why no interest in APKWS or DAWS instead of this thing?
I would think a weapon that doesn't require you to go do a gun run against a formation of 20+ 7.62mm/12.7mm weapons shooting back would be preferred.
 
phrogpilot73 said:
Umm, yeah. You do. Your aircraft has the HF, plus crew served weapons. The UH-1N/Y has 2.75" rockets and crew served weapons. And they're pretty damn good at shooting, to include moving targets. And the USCG saw a lot of success shooting moving boats with the introduction of the HITRON squadrons, using crew served weapons. Not having a weapon is not the problem.


Therein lies the crux of the problem. Don't know what your NCEA looks like, but ours is enough that it's not unusual to have so many rounds for a shoot that not only do we get guys qualed/proficient, but that pilots have an opportunity to get behind the gun and see how hard it really is. And we're an assault support platform. The shooters get even more.
Click to expand...


Sure, you're technically correct. Let's shoot a ~$100K hellfire (all theoretical 8 of them) at each $5k small boat that is moving toward the strike group. Wait, you blew the better part of a million dollars on guided ordnance and there are still 100 more rust buckets floating toward the CSG with RPGs and C4? Damn, bro. Bad day.

You may be right about the UH-1N/Y. I don't fly it so I couldn't tell ya. But having seen the M240 and the GAU21, they aren't going to be very effective. Maybe the GAU, but it takes up so much damn room in the cabin, it is a mission package hog, and often times its really cool for the whole "CHUG CHUG JAM" of its effective life cycle.

But I don't know. I could be wrong. You tell me about my airframe. I'm sure you know better than all those folks who I've heard from about it from our deputy commodore up to CNAF.
 
insanebikerboy said:
Unless the Navy gets serious with this weapon and gives an appropriate amount of NCEA for training, that's all this thing is gonna be too. Shooting at a small, fast as shit moving boat, from a moving helo, is going to require a ton of practice and ammo.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. But it's the right tool for the job, which the HF and Crew served weapons are not.
 
OttoWrote8 said:
You may be right about the UH-1N/Y. I don't fly it so I couldn't tell ya. But having seen the M240 and the GAU21, they aren't going to be very effective. Maybe the GAU, but it takes up so much damn room in the cabin, it is a mission package hog, and often times its really cool for the whole "CHUG CHUG JAM" of its effective life cycle.

But I don't know. I could be wrong. You tell me about my airframe. I'm sure you know better than all those folks who I've heard from about it from our deputy commodore up to CNAF.
Click to expand...
I'm not telling you about your airframe. I'm just arguing that strapping another piece of equipment on an aircraft with no ordnance to train with isn't going to magically solve your problem. I MIGHT know a thing or two about training, and managing a squadron's training program.

It's amazing that the M240 and GAU-21 are so severly limited against a $5K "floating rust bucket". Funny. That's the same weapons that are strapped aboard a UH-1N/Y Huey for CAS missions (occasionally the GAU-17). And your comment about "CHUG CHUG JAM" = proves my point about training. Two words: Headspace & Timing. The GAU-21 is mechanically IDENTICAL to the M2 that the grunts use and the XM-218 that those of us in the assault support world use. It's been in service since 1933 and is ridiculously reliable. Provided the crew is trained.

It's the same lack of training that leads to negligent discharges of crew served weapons across the Elizabeth River in Norfolk. I don't think I'll live to see the fundamental shift in Navy mindset that would lead to an increased NCEA. So go ahead - blow your wad on a weapons system that looks cool, makes you feel like a bad ass, and shoot it twice in your career because of the limited NCEA. Then start saying that it's not the right system for the mission. OR change the mindset, spend the money on a realistic NCEA, get your crew proficient (proficiency = I've seen guys put first round center mass, on target and 75% of rounds on target), and all of a sudden your shitty crew served weapons will be probably much more lethal, and much more effective than you think.
 
OttoWrote8 said:
But I don't know. I could be wrong. You tell me about my airframe. I'm sure you know better than all those folks who I've heard from about it from our deputy commodore up to CNAF.
Click to expand...
Eeeek, the dreaded "depiddy commdor" card has been dropped, I must be wrong!:oops:
BzB;)
 
There are very good reasons that avenues other than HF are being pursued against FIAC. Not all of them are unclas worthy.

That being said, let's do what hscs and IBB talked about - develop some doctrine/tactics/proficiency first, lest some squadron get the weapon and be told "nope, not on my ship" by a CO or CSG commander.
 
OttoWrote8 said:
You may be right about the UH-1N/Y. I don't fly it so I couldn't tell ya. But having seen the M240 and the GAU21, they aren't going to be very effective. Maybe the GAU, but it takes up so much damn room in the cabin, it is a mission package hog, and often times its really cool for the whole "CHUG CHUG JAM" of its effective life cycle.
Click to expand...

You got this backwards. The M197 on the cobra jams up quite a bit, and probably more so than the GAU-21. They're fielding a link-less system as we speak - which should help. Reliability can be Dependent on your ordnance section and how often you go expend ordnance through your systems. Ive seen dual GAU-21s on the Yankee. No issues noted.
 
OttoWrote8 said:
Sure, you're technically correct. Let's shoot a ~$100K hellfire (all theoretical 8 of them) at each $5k small boat that is moving toward the strike group. Wait, you blew the better part of a million dollars on guided ordnance and there are still 100 more rust buckets floating toward the CSG with RPGs and C4? Damn, bro. Bad day....some more words....But I don't know. I could be wrong. You tell me about my airframe. I'm sure you know better than all those folks who I've heard from about it from our deputy commodore up to CNAF.
Click to expand...

I got a better idea... How about you go back and read through the 3 pages where an actual Gun Pilot who is employed for the exact purpose of Aerial Fires discussed with many Senior 60 guys on the shortcomings of a fixed weapons system and a poorly trained crew (face it your not Gun Pilots) and how your not going to achieve the success the Navy is throwing money hunting for...

You guys cant shoot Hellfire... From conversations with others thats training based not weapons system based shortcoming (IE manual thumb force control is a must). Its the most accurately delivered ATGM in our inventory. And there is no price on a kill. Ive seen the Air Force drop a couple million dollars worth of Ordnance on a Mountain over here just to "Preemptively Suppress" which is the new code word for Preparatory Fires. Do you think anybody is going to question shooting millions of dollars worth of Ordnance to blow up boats to defend any ship in our inventory much less a Carrier.

But please... enthusiastically applaud as the Navy and your Community specifically tries to reinvent the wheel.
 
Lawman said:
....an actual Gun Pilot who is employed for the exact purpose of Aerial Fires discussed with many Senior 60 guys on the shortcomings of a fixed weapons system and a poorly trained crew (face it your not Gun Pilots).....Ordnance on a Mountain over here just to "Preemptively Suppress" which is the new code word for Preparatory Fires. Do you think anybody is going to question shooting millions of dollars worth of Ordnance to blow up boats to defend any ship in our inventory much less a Carrier........But please... enthusiastically applaud as the Navy and your Community specifically tries to reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...

Uh oh, random Capitalization strikes Again! That is Unless we now have to capitalize 'gun pilots' like we do marines? Oops.......
 
Why not? We capitalize Fighter Pilots, Attack Pilots, and ORION PILOTS ...all caps, too...we can afford the bold, caps typeface with all that dirty per diem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top