Blackhawk Door Guns

Can you help me out with a bet on the door guns on our Blackhawks. I know some are equipped port and starboard side with a 7.62 Mag58 GPMG but I have seen some with none. Also I'm pretty sure SAS/Commandos in A-stan including our Chinooks have the M134 miniguns that the American 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment still use.

So what do we use?

We use 2x Window mounted M-134s 7.62mm and a single GMPY on the Chook's ramp and GMPY on the S-70A9s (2x) and S-70Cs (x1), with the odd Navy Squirral (x1 )thrown in.



In S-70A9, also sniper bar to support all types of SOTG Weapons from 7.62mm up to 0.50cal, sniper rifles, scoped and infrared

On the ARH, the 30mm Giat Cannon under the nose, with 70mm Hydra rockets and Hellfires Missiles under the wings

Add to that, Personal Browning 9mm Pistol, and F-88A2 Carbine or M-4 per crews.

In the Ghan, "everything in the US Arsenal", that can be fixed on USMC CV-22s to CH-53Es, USAF H/MH-60Gs, and all US Army MH Series (MH-60Ks, MH-6s and MH-47Gs).These are aircrew served, and not by the "paying" passengers

From GAU 0.50cal miniguns to 7.62mm, MAG-58s (GMPYs), and old iron such as 0.50cal M2s.

That about covers it Matie

Gordy :blink:

Thanks as always Gordy, you are a fountain of information :)

Simon

back on again after loosing password!!!
In Afganistan the Chinooks run a M 134 mini gun on each side and a Mag 58 over the ramp in Australia on ex they usualy put Mag 58's in all three positions,
the Black Hawks run a Mag 58 on each gunners window , and they have trialed the M 134 setup on them as well , photo's exist but they are extreamly rare and its not admited to , I was involved in the Mag 58 trial on Black Hawks back in 1989/90 Australia was the first operator to run the Mag 58 on the Black Hawk instead of the M-60, Australia never ran M-60's on our Black Hawks but we did stick one on during the 58 trials for a yippy shoot , crap gun compared to the 58 , lower rate of fire , less accurate , jammed! , waste of time , it was money well spent to develop the 58 mounts great gun, would consider M134 or a FN .50 only things better

True Mark

Mind you, one of the Air Gunners/Crew Chiefs in Vietnam (9Sqn RAAF) told me that their Single/Duel M-60A1s were 'tricked" to fire a little higher in the region of 700-800 rpm, up from the standard 450-550 rpms.

The original choice by the Aus Army per Squad LMG/MMG was the FN (L7A1) over the M-60 in the late 50's, but was too expensive and "ammunition wastefull" compared to our current weapons (Bren LMG/Vickers MMG).

Mind you, if you kept the ammo clear of dirt, clay, sand, vines and twigs and the weapon serviced(clean, oiled and changed barrels when hot), it didn't jam. But we both know that's near impossible in the field, unless in a fixed position on a tripod. Not to mention duel mounts in a Bushranger are clean and cool.

I digress,....you would remember the trials per the duel MAG58s on the UH-1H Bushrangers about that time, just before they were withdraw the Twin M60s? Doubling the volume of lead down range

With the high rate of fire of twin MAG58s, it would have been akin to having a M134 firing at half speed (2400rpm rather then 4800rpm thereabouts).

Still seating on a canvas seat in full view rather then hunkered down in dirt or jungle would scare the ^%$# out of me.

Lol
Gordy



Attached Image

One of the theories of door guns is you don't want it too accurate its just an area suppression weapon to keep the baddies heads down and the M-60 was good for that role , having fired both single and twin 60's on Huey's and Mag 58's on Black Hawks I don't agree with that at all, if you want area suppression just swing the gun about but when you want to hit somthing you want to hit it not just in the general area, with the 58 I could put a whole box (250 rounds) into the side of a car as we flew in at 120+ kn , with the 60 it would be in a 10 yard radius if it didn't jam, never liked the M-60 and I am suprised to see the Brits with an M-60 over the ramp on there Chinooks when even most US aircraft are fitting M-240's (Mag 58's)

Slightly off topic, back in the 90's we were doing some trials on the ARDU Blackhawk involving fuselage cracking. Strain gauges were fitted in the areas of concern, testing before flight trials involved applying various loads to the External Stores Support System normally used to carry the external tanks. The most interesting load was 4 Mk83 1000 lb bombs, wish I still had the photos.

Barneyb, when I was there for the gunnery trials we played with varions loads for a photoshoot, best one was a Rocket pod and Harpoon on one side with a Sidewinder and 500 lb on the other, bit of a laugh till the Sh.t hit the fan when the photo's got to HQ Army Aviation and Canberra, high ups not amused!!

Same happened to us even though what we were doing was legit, we needed to load up the racks and bombs were the simplest solution. Thinking back, it was actually Mk 84, 2000 lb bombs.

We were told the reason the high ups in puzzle palace were not amused is that Australia" does not have armed Black Hawks" and photo's with weapons on could give people the wrong impression!!!, its a std 14" BRU rack anything will fit !! weather it works is another mater.

Would love to see those photos!

;)

BC

Sorry that went over my head, why were they they not amused?

The M134 not only has a higher rate of fire but with just two or three round burst second it is also a psychological weapon against the enemy when they are being lit up by a mini gun.

In Blackhawk Down you have two crew chiefs on the L & R mini guns and Delta snipers to take out enemy shooter on the on roof tops are well. However the M134 requires a power source (from the as far as I know from the engines).

I don't know if the Australian Army has helicopter trained snipers?

This post has been edited by Cold Dawg on Apr 17 2013, 01:10 PM

Cold Dawg, answered in my next post. here is a detailed expanation.
The reasoning they didn't like the weapons on the wings is that they become offensive weapons under the international rules of war, for example two M 134 mini guns mounted on a hardpoint as it was on our Iroquois were the pilot aims and fires the weapon system makes the aircraft a Gunship an "offensive weapon system" , the same mini guns on a pintol mount as on Marine UH-1N's and Black Hawks are a "defensive systems", ironic but true! So when we had a bit of fun and mounted Rocket pods and bombs and Sidwinders etc onto our Black Hawks and the photos get to the public domain , you could get a country for example Indonesia could complain to the UN that we have offensivly armed Black Hawks, thats the way it is in International politics.

Also the M 134's are electricaly driven, so if your electrical system is off line you have no guns, most spec ops Helo gunners carry spare aircraft batteries in the back to run the guns for a short time if they lose electrics, this is what happened to the 160th Black Hawks in Black Hawk Down, when the Black Hawks crashed as everything shut down the M 134 become usless without electrical power, you don't have that problem with a normal machine gun.

And yes there are Helicopter trained snipers in the Army and the AFP

This post has been edited by Sydhuey on Apr 17 2013, 10:55 PM

According to the specs the 28v DC drive motor pulls 400amps on startup and 40/50 on run, that's a bit like the starter motor in your car.
To my mind that is too much of a load for the aircraft wiring unless it is plugged directly into the battery bus, I would have thought that they would have their own battery supply that was constantly recharged by the normal aircraft electrics, as the pod mounted guns do.

Can anyone give a definitive answer to this?
Rod

This post has been edited by Rod Farquhar on Apr 19 2013, 10:24 PM

Thanks for your answers guys. Are our Blackhawks in Afghanistan fitted with M134s and have door gunners both sides?

I might be able to find an answer for you Rod. I have a mate who is former US Navy SWCC (still serving but not SWCC) and has been in Blackhawks, Seahawks you name it including the Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion which he said the rotor wash was so strong it is nearly impossible to get into and he is over 100kg.

That's what we need for our new LHD's, Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions! How cool would that be B) There's even a bigger one in development, the Sikorsky CH-53K Super Stallion Super Stallion

On the other matter we should be able to arm our Army, Navy and Air Force as strong as we want otherwise we may as just call ourselves the Australian Self Defense Force like Japan.

We don't have Blackhawks in Afghanistan.

We will never have CH-53's, nor do we need them. and no we can not arm them as we want, otherwise there is no money left over for the rest of the country.

@alexlemerton I thought that we didn't have any Blackhawks in A-stan because we have all ours painted camo but I thought I'd ask anyway. Anybody know why we use US Blackhawks for insertion of Special Operation Task Group soldiers instead of our own? Also I wasn't being serious about the CH-53's, the Chinooks do the job and we're getting new CH-47Fs in 2016 anyway.

However with the new LHDs coming if we were to get some CH-53s they could be used for 3 different types of missions. Heavy lift cargo and troop transport (up to 55 like the CH-47), anti submarine warfare and if needed mine sweeping.

@Rod Farquhar

This post has been edited by Cold Dawg on Apr 23 2013, 05:47 PM

Thanks Simon
Rod

Hey Rod,
My mate also wrote this but just like the first information he added this:

Does this make sense to you or go straight over your head like me ? ^_^

Can I ask you Rod are you a Vet solider, sailor or airman? Also have you ever used the M134? If that's private then that's cool.

The reply is:

"The legal aspects on what makes armament on craft/vehicles offensive or defensive varies. Nations often over interpret international law with their own restrictions when not domestically deployed. Appearances are often enough for forces to self-regulate, but that is often out of self-imposed political correctness as opposed to legal requirement. The mission always matters: Humanitarian, Nation-Building(Peacekeeping) or Warfighting. And those have several subcategories, all with different ROE and posturing. I would agree, pylon mounted weapons make a rotary winged a/c a gunship. But that doesn't mean that flexible door mounted weapons will always be considered only defensive. "


Cheers,

Simon

This post has been edited by Cold Dawg on Apr 26 2013, 12:36 PM

Simon
Yes your Mate's second bit of information made sense to me.
And yes I am a Vet RAAF 1960-1980.
No I have not fired the M134 but I did fit the first Minigun Pods onto our Machiis way back in 1971, they were fed from a magazine mid pod rather than a belt and powered by a battery in the back of the pod that was constantly recharged by the Aircraft electrics.
Rod

Hey Rod or other posters, can you please answer two questions that's I've already asked in this thread but you may have missed...

Why do the Australian troops in A-stan especially operators from the SOTG get infilled and ex-filled by US Blackhawk helos? E.g. why didn't we ever ship our own from say B Sqn in 5 Avn Regt or the 171 Avn Sqn in 6 Avn Regt? Not sure if I got that right...

Continuing on with our helos why haven't we deployed our Tiger ARH in support of ground troops? They have been combat ready for a while now haven't they?

I know we are wrapping things up in our bases to leave in 2014 however who knows how long our Special Forces from the SASR and the two Commando Regiments will stick around for. Usually SF these days is first one in and last one out :P

Why do the Australian troops in A-stan especially operators from the SOTG get infilled and ex-filled by US Blackhawk helos? E.g. why didn't we ever ship our own from say B Sqn in 5 Avn Regt or the 171 Avn Sqn in 6 Avn Regt? Not sure if I got that right...

Our Blackhawks do not have the upgrades and modifications required to operate in Afghanistan. Underpowered and lacks the self protection equipment.

Continuing on with our helos why haven't we deployed our Tiger ARH in support of ground troops? They have been combat ready for a while now haven't they?

No they aren't, and are not likely to be for some time. They have been grounded regularly the last 24 months on and off. Certainly not at a point now where its worth risking man and machine when we have allies that can provide that same capability.

Can you explain any further what particular upgrades and modifications in needs in order to safely deploy to the battlefield?

Also can I ask why the Tiger was chosen over the AH-64D Apache Longbow or the SuperCobra which has now been developed into the AH-1Z Viper? They're about the same price. These Tiger have spent more time in the maintenance hanger than in the sky.

Army pilots "muntiny"

Cold Dawg asks: Also can I ask why the Tiger was chosen?

You would need to ask the politicians involved.

Super Cobra was eliminated from the list because it had skids and not wheels, which appears to be a requirement for Army now.

Thanks for the answers guys however:

Politicians make their decisions based on advice thus either the Chief of the ADF and also in this case the Chief of Army.

What I don't get is what's the difference between an attack helicopter having hydraulic wheels and skids? All the helicopters with skids just need a lifting dolly to roll it into the maintenance hangers.

I was told that Army require helicopters to have wheels and not skids, don't know why.

Yet Bell offered to develop a wheeled version...

A decade + long ground war, and all we've managed to deploy is a flight of Chooks; disgraceful!

I agree, it's embarrassing that we have to call our big brothers the US for a ride in their Blackhawks for insertion and exfil of missions in Afghanistan because our Blackhawks are too old and haven't been upgraded with the latest avionics. Oh and don't forget our reliance on others for CASEVACs.

Also embarrassing is relying on Dutch (when they were there) and US Apaches for Close Air Support when we had troops in contact when we should have our own organic Attack helicopters by now.


Cheers