More importantly, who did that DTA? The tailwheel looks way underserviced
-
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!
- Thread starter Flying Toaster
- Start date
I'm OttoWrote8 and I approved this post
Interesting that they added the heat shields from the previous pictures I saw. Cool stuff.
Question for the salty dogs: My understanding is you're worried about money for proficiency training ammunition? Is this a matter of where they choose to allocate a block of funds? How does that work?
Question for the salty dogs: My understanding is you're worried about money for proficiency training ammunition? Is this a matter of where they choose to allocate a block of funds? How does that work?
Each squadron gets a set amount of ammo to qual the number of crews specified in the readiness reporting instruction. (Actually you only get 80% of that amount and when you blow through it, you go back to your ISIC (usually the Wing) and ask for the rest)
The squadron doesn't get involved with "money" it's all about the number of rounds or missiles you need to maintain quals.
Since someone has to pay for the actual ammo to save money either your allocation may be cut or there just won't be ammo available in the amory to issue you, regardless of your allocation. (Your allocation is your squadron's ammo account. You draw from you allocation to shoot.)
When you consider the M-240 machine gun, the readiness requirments may be 1000 rounds (not real number, but used for this explanation) every quarter per crewman. That means each Aircrewman will need to shoot 4000 rounds per year to maintain qual.
For a gatling style weapon like this or the GAU-17, since the firing rate is so high, you may require the same amount of actual time firing the weapon as the M-240 but you will fire a much higher number of rounds. If the firing rate is 6 times higher for the gatling style gun, then you will need 24,000 rounds per Aircrewman per year to maintain qual.
This starts to get expensive quickly.
So, it's not a money issue as the squadron level, it's an ammo availablity issue. At the TYCOM level (the folks who actually pay for the ammo) then they start to see the expenditure rate of training for a high volume fire weapon such as this.
One of the arguments as to why the Active Duty HH-60H did not use the GAU-17 (7.62, 6 barrel gun) is that the cost of the ammo to keep the crews qual'd was WAY too high. There was also argument that the weapon was unreliable, but the HCS folks disproved that claim long ago. The other claim was that you had to carry too much ammo in the cabin, but that hasn't seemed to stop the HCS folks from flying in the desert actually doing the mission.
So, the only answer must be that the Navy does not want to pay for all that ammo, therefore they do not give us the weapon.
I don't know what the cost of a 7.62 round is, but I would bet it's cheaper than a 20 mm round.
Ironically, big navy decided that the WPN FIRE button that they had the foresight to put in our aircraft from the get go needed to be redesigned for the M197. They wanted a two stage trigger like the ICS/Radio button, so the all the WPN FIRE buttons have to be replaced with new ones before the M197 goes operational. That and the folks at Crane looked at us like deer in the headlights when we asked if it was jettisonable. 800 pounds hanging off the left bat wing (no intention to mount it on the right) with no ability to jettison it when the poop hits the fan... Of course this was back at the NHA symposium this year, so things may have changed.
I'm sure we could fit a couple of those on board. STRAFING RUN EXTREME!
A lot of effort to bag one small craft per decade, for sure.
FIFY. Your 1/decade estimate was looking pretty high to me...
Fixed Forward gun on an aircraft with no money for training.... Good luck guys.
There is a reason only the 160th uses the DAP version of the Hawk, they have the money to buy enough ammo to be decent with it. The ranges that you would have to get to actually have an effective aim vs dispersion is going to negate and of the standoff of a big caliber round (ie 20 or 30 mm vs 7.62 or .50) so your going to put yourself well inside the engagement envelope of similar large caliber weapons only they will be on tripods and more accurate than you.
Basic rule is dont get into a knife fight from an aircraft against a ground based weapon, he is more accurate than you.
There is a reason only the 160th uses the DAP version of the Hawk, they have the money to buy enough ammo to be decent with it. The ranges that you would have to get to actually have an effective aim vs dispersion is going to negate and of the standoff of a big caliber round (ie 20 or 30 mm vs 7.62 or .50) so your going to put yourself well inside the engagement envelope of similar large caliber weapons only they will be on tripods and more accurate than you.
Basic rule is dont get into a knife fight from an aircraft against a ground based weapon, he is more accurate than you.
This is actually no different than the current setup everyone has. Go in close and shoot a missile that might not do anything in the environment or go in closer and shoot a gun.
Over land, true. Different story over water, which is what this weapon is for. Helo is a much more stable platform than a 30 ft small boat in 5 foot seas.