# M134D MiniGun for CH-146 Griffons



## 421 EME

This should make you rotorheads happy.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-acan-m134-gatling-gun.htm


----------



## benny88

Huzzah! Shooting duties to be taken over by the one flight engineer? Will they add a 2nd?


----------



## armoured recce man

mission specialist will perform that task....


----------



## geo

Oh well.... Griffon "gun ships" to KAF..... 

"Up, up and awaaaaaayyyyyyy................"


----------



## Strike

Yes,  there was much happiness in 1 Wing when the okay for the purchase came out.  Of course, everyone is still holding their breath.  We all know that nothing is ever worth the paper it's signed on until the equipment actually arrives.  Fingers crossed.


----------



## 421 EME

3 MiniGuns would fit a Chinook just fine.


----------



## Loachman

421 EME said:
			
		

> 3 MiniGuns would fit a Chinook just fine.



Why?

Being in a big fat helicopter trading 7.62mm is not a good thing.

Even if the opposition did not pitch RPGs into the mix.


----------



## GAP

When coming into a hot LZ, I want as much and as big outgoing rounds as I can get.....the more the merrier!!! That's my tush I want to get down......safely.


----------



## OldSolduer

All very nice, but once you load the ammo and gun on.....how many troops can you lift?
Anyone remember the "mini tat" that was mounted on the Kiowas?


----------



## Good2Golf

I would figure it would be sufficient for any assigned mission, when that day comes.  Until then, probably best for everybody to stay away from doing the math for other side...


----------



## Blakey

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Anyone remember the "mini tat" that was mounted on the Kiowas?


This?


----------



## Loachman

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Anyone remember the "mini tat" that was mounted on the Kiowas?



Very well. In that capacity, it wasn't a weapon. It was a ****ing anchor.


----------



## Blakey

I guess this trial didn't go so well.... ;D


----------



## benny88

Whoa Cataract Kid,

   US Army missiles on a CF helo? You just blew my mind.


----------



## Loachman

It wasn't a trial - just a staged photo.


----------



## Blakey

Seen, would it have even been able to lift off with all that?


----------



## Loachman

Not just laying there unsecured.

I've no idea what the weight was. Somebody more in the know may wander in and explain the story again. A search for "plank" may turn up something.


----------



## GDawg

Loachman said:
			
		

> It wasn't a trial - just a staged photo.



I figured it was real, but the gun inside from the rockets looked like a 25 mm barrel.


----------



## Blakey

Loach, roger thanks,


----------



## Loachman

Being as nobody seems to have posted it yet:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=80abd968-751e-49d6-9216-cb0a60d5f49e

Canada ponders deploying armed helicopters to Afghan
David ******** ,  Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008
The Canadian military is looking at sending as many as six Griffon helicopters to Afghanistan to provide additional firepower and surveillance for troops there.

The idea of basing a "Griffon six-pack" in Kandahar is being proposed as one option for the Harper government which has yet to approve the chopper deployment.

In addition, Public Works and Government Services Canada announced it intends on awarding a sole-source contract to a U.S. firm for the purchase of three, electrical-driven Gatling guns that can fire up to 3,000 rounds a minute to be installed on helicopters.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said he has been told the Griffons will be used in an attack role and will be equipped with weapons and sensors needed to strike at enemy formations. The deployment of the choppers would be done as soon as possible, he said. 

Other military officials, however, said a decision on the choppers has yet to be made but that planning on the option is advanced. 

Kenny has been pushing for the deployment of the Griffons to Afghanistan as a way to further protect Canadian troops and to cut down on casualties. 

Canada does not have its own helicopters in Afghanistan. 

Defence Department officials have not responded to several requests over the last 10 days for information on the option to send Griffons to Kandahar. 

Under a new process, most statements issued by the department to the news media must be approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office or the Privy Council Office and any media questions about the Afghanistan mission are considered highly sensitive.

But Defence Department spokeswoman Lt. Isabelle Riche said the Gatling guns purchase is "not connected to deploying Griffons to Afghanistan." 

It "is an Air Force purchase to support the pre-deployment close combat attack training requirement of ground troops," she added in an e-mail. According to the Public Works notice there is the potential for more of the weapons to be purchased. 

The procurement will be used to establish tactics and procedures required so helicopters can support ground troops. The capability is in response to lessons learned by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, the notice added.

The Gatling guns are to be purchased from Dillon Aero Inc., of Arizona and will be sent for testing at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B. 

The Harper government announced in the summer of 2006 its intention to buy U.S.-built Chinook helicopters but discussions are still ongoing on that deal. 

It is not expected those large transport choppers will be delivered until after 2011. 

In the meantime, Defence Department officials are trying to convince the U.S. to provide older model Chinook helicopters for Canadian troops in Afghanistan. 

Poland also has indicated it will provide two helicopters and while defence officials are appreciative of the offer, they note it won't meet all of Canada's chopper transport needs.

Military leaders such as defence chief Gen. Rick Hillier have talked about the need for Chinook transport helicopters to reduce casualties in Afghanistan. Canadian convoys have become frequent targets for both suicide bombers and Taliban ambushes. 

Last year in response to Kenny's suggestion to send the Griffons to Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay issued a statement that such an option would not be considered. Army officials, however, have been pushing for the choppers to be sent. While the Griffons won't be used to carry soldiers, they can use the Gatling guns to attack insurgents on the ground. 

Details aren't being released on how much taxpayers are spending on the Gatling guns. 

But it's not the first time the air force has considered arming the Griffon. In 2002, a military report concluded outfitting the helicopter with sensors and weapons could be done and would be an effective way to enhance firepower. 

Weapons that could be fielded on the Griffon include missiles or a high-speed gun near the front of the chopper. The gun concept was considered as most suitable for upgrading the Griffon as an armed reconnaissance aircraft.


----------



## Blakey

Better hook up with the PHYSOP guys when they get there and get outfitted with some amps.  ;D
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek&feature=related


----------



## daftandbarmy

They stole my Regimental March, the heathens!


----------



## Loachman

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Better hook up with the PHYSOP guys when they get there and get outfitted with some amps.  ;D
> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek&feature=related



We used to have speaker systems for the Kiowa and Twin Huey. We should have kept them, or bought new ones, for the Griffon. Very useful in disaster relief.


----------



## OldSolduer

I have a question (again):

I understand that for political reasons we are saddled with the Griffon. When will the politicians realize that maybe, just MAYBE that there is better kit "on the shelf"?
OK this leads to another question:

Have any pilots on this thread flown the Blackhawk? I've flown in them, and they seem to be OK. Opinions??


----------



## Good2Golf

GDawg said:
			
		

> I figured it was real, but the gun inside from the rockets looked like a 25 mm barrel.



It's a Bushmaster 30 on low-recoil rails.

Contract Fabrication and Design, Ltd.


----------



## COBRA-6

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Better hook up with the PHYSOP guys when they get there and get outfitted with some amps.  ;D
> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek&feature=related



The Taliban will learn to dread the sound of Stompin' Tom!


----------



## GAP

Stompin' Tom vs Flight of the Valkyries ?? They'll giggle themselves to death.... ;D


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

While this is very much a likely reality, timeline is always an unknown factor, that is when are we going to truly see them? I know that they are training some grunts down in Borden right now as door gunners, the inclusion of a second FE is definitely out, I would say the mission spec and another grunt with the occasional ex grunt wearing blue will man the guns.....time will of course tell with all things, hopefully sooner than later.  ;D


----------



## Strike

Blue Grunt,

That training was with the C6.  The two events are not necessarily related.


----------



## Jammer

The intent is to use the Griffons for strictly top cover. No trooplift.


----------



## Im Not Telling

you know I heard about this a while back and kind of lauphed.  I love going for a ride in the Griffon, nothing like having the pilot push my guts into my head or feet.  but as for CAS.  well the A-10 is slow and it kills things I guess it will work.  I'm just not sold on using Griffons for anything more then transport, it seems like we'd be turning them into RPG bait even with the best pilots on the planet.  don't get me wrong I would love to play with a mini, and I'm sure the 421er's are going to be jumping at the chance to play with a new system and the guys flying are going to love having the onbord ability to whipe out life in a small grid square but again, low and slow even if your crankin and bankin


----------



## Scoobs

I love when people that have no experience with the Griffon offer their opinion.  It was interesting yesterday and today when I saw two Twin Hueys flying at midday both times.  Didn't previous threads state that the Griffon couldn't fly in KAF due to the altitude and heat?  BS.

A Griffon would not be used for CAS.

The Griffon can be used for a variety of tasks.  I say again, a Griffon does not equal a Chinook.  Please everyone, get that out of your heads.  Anybody at all with experience in Afghanistan would be able to pick one or two tasks that the Griffon could easily do and this equals helping to save lives.  Like my other posts in other threads said, you use the machine that you're given for what it can do.  I can think of a lot more than two, but my experience with this particular helo matters not to those much wiser who laugh at the thought of the Griffon coming to Afghanistan (I grow tired of misinformed opinions and thus the sarcasm).


----------



## aesop081

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Please everyone, get that out of your heads.



Broad brush anyone ?


----------



## Welshy

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I love when people that have no experience with the Griffon offer their opinion.



I personally love speculation from all the "experts," on what Canada will do with the Griffon. Those who know are just sitting back and chuckling to themselves while reading these types of threads.


----------



## OldSolduer

Instead of sitting back and "chuckling" why don't those who know offer to share their knowledge? It may seem like fun and games on here, but when your butt is on the line its nice to know that those who have the knowledge will share it.
I did not state I was an expert, but I am an infantryman whose troops could depend on choppers...so lighten up and enlighten us that don't know.


----------



## Welshy

I would share what I know, but then I do not want to break OP SEC. Thats why I say those who know are sitting back. I'm not trying to pick on anyone and I'm not even saying some people are wrong or right. Thats why its remaining at speculation, because there are people in the know and probably know far more than me, but cannot weigh in.


----------



## Jammer

I have spoken to those intimately "in the know". Instead of mouthing off about what you think you know, why not offer another viewpoint?


----------



## OldSolduer

I grow constantly annoyed with those that think just because my MOC says 0010 (formerly 031) they think I know nothing. 
There is a perception out there that we infanteers are just stooooopid idiots because we "close with and destroy the enemy". Some of the most intellignet bright people I know are in teh infantry. Don't presume to dismiss us as "speculators"
Welshy,,,,dont' presume to lecture about OPSEC. we all know what it is,,,,and some of this is readily available on MSM


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

Where do I start .

1.The Griffin in the Sandbox, while some are correct in stating that it could not fly over there but only half right, the problem is that is definitely could not fly in Kabul, altitude and heat are against it, Kandahar is lower in altitude though not in heat.

2. Close Air Support, that is likely the role it could fulfill over there, troop lift, never going to happen, the A/C does not have the power in its current configuration, when I talk about config a I am talking about the mast itself. ( the blades attach to the head, the head is mounted on the mast, the mast is what translates all the energy developed by the engines. simplified version)


The Chinooks will need support, hence we outfit the Griffion with guns and the Chinooks will have a flying Buddy to suppress those on the ground that don't wish to see it landing at all with 40 odd troops or artillery  slung below or any of the other myriad of possible variations that it would be employed in. 

The Griffin could fly in the south, some restrictions obviously, the only armour would be the seat, anything else and it will not work, also the A/C will also need to go on a diet of sorts, any and all useless equipment will not be tolerated (not that the Giffion purchase should have ever been, strictly politics) the big factor in all of this of course will be what configuration of door guns ammo load and crew can fly and accomplish the job. you don't need an F.E. on board to fire a door gun period. In the civilian world he has been replaced with a simple mirror on the skids that the pilot can see through the chin bubble, his bloated carcasses weight would be better utilized in more ammo. If the new gun is used it will weigh more and the amount of ammo carried will significantly increase ( I am speculating on that no real figures on this)

The biggest question on all of this will be, if and when they send the Griffin, because the Chinooks are coming, they just announced six used ones from the U.S. as reported n Janes Defence weekly (22 Mar 08... http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtmlcom/public/jdw/index.shtml)... we will see what happens real soon I am sure.


----------



## Jammer

You DO need and FE, as well as door gunners.
The door gun crse is going to be run in G-Town this spring/summer. The reservist's have been given the job of providing pers for this one.


----------



## Welshy

Before we get too far off topic, let me say this. You are taking what I said the wrong way. I'm simply trying to get across the fact that anyone with detailed knowledge is not going to share. That is fine that your MOC is that, I never judge anyones intelligence based on what they do so please stop assuming I did. 

As for OPSEC, while some stuff might be readily available, this does not mean that more should be divulge. If this was at a military facility you would find people more willing share information, but unfortunately if you find out capabilities here then so does everyone else. You may find in the coming weeks more information divulged, but as it stands no one is allowed to say to much. When it becomes permissible, I will more than gladly offer my viewpoint.

I will say this though, the Griffon can fly in Afghanistan, but will not be able to carry its maximum payload weight, due too the density altitude over there (high and hot). One thing not to assume though is that the MiniGun is directly related to Afghanistan.


----------



## Strike

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I grow constantly annoyed with those that think just because my MOC says 0010 (formerly 031) they think I know nothing.
> There is a perception out there that we infanteers are just stooooopid idiots because we "close with and destroy the enemy". Some of the most intellignet bright people I know are in teh infantry. Don't presume to dismiss us as "speculators"
> Welshy,,,,dont' presume to lecture about OPSEC. we all know what it is,,,,and some of this is readily available on MSM



OS,

You might know a BIT about what the Griffon is capable of, but you don't know the numbers.  In fact, neither does Welshy, but he works closely with those that know the books intimately, and is thus taking his knowledge from them.

As for the OPSEC issue, just because some info may be "out there" does not make it alright to to talk about it that much more.

As for talking about what people do know, sometimes it's just easier not to say anything at all so as to prevent any violations.  Unfortunately, that means that you may be shut down on your thoughts of this subject without being able to get the whole story.

There are enough Griffon-type people around here, some of whom have already thown there had in the ring (Welshy, Loachman, Scoobs, etc) so please listen to what they have to say.  Their intent is not to make you look the fool, but to shut down the rumours and try to inform as best they can without violating any directions they may have received from above.


----------



## Sf2

> 2. Close Air Support, that is likely the role it could fulfill over there, troop lift, never going to happen, the A/C does not have the power in its current configuration, when I talk about config a I am talking about the mast itself. ( the blades attach to the head, the head is mounted on the mast, the mast is what translates all the energy developed by the engines. simplified version)



Hot and high has nothing to do with mast limitations.


> you don't need an F.E. on board to fire a door gun period.



ok then, may I ask who is supposed to fire it?  Your little mirror sure as hell isn't going to.


----------



## Strike

> ok then, may I ask who is supposed to fire it?  Your little mirror sure as hell isn't going to.



And before anyone asks why, for the simple reason that the testing of a system such as this would take some time, let alone the procurement and training.  Pilot overload could also be an issue, but the above is the biggest hurdle into getting something like this on the go in a timely manner.


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

> ok then, may I ask who is supposed to fire it?  Your little mirror sure as hell isn't going to



You are absolutely right *the mirror is not going to fire anything*...that is what you have *mission specs * for and either qualified door gunners from the army or other trades who have been specially trained and qualified...The only reason I said that an F.E. is not needed in this case was that you are not landing troops, confined spaces slinging loads etc all things that a good F.E. helps assist the pilots with. That being said, I say again , civilian pilot's do not use them and they land just fine, yes they are not being shot at but like I said the Griffin will likely not be but in that situation (troop insert etc) but you never know I guess, anything is possible in this mans Army.


----------



## benny88

Not an expert, but I don't think mirrors are very tactical.


----------



## Sf2

> You are absolutely right the mirror is not going to fire anything...that is what you have mission specs for and either qualified door gunners from the army or other trades who have been specially trained and qualified...The only reason I said that an F.E. is not needed in this case was that you are not landing troops, confined spaces slinging loads etc all things that a good F.E. helps assist the pilots with. That being said, I say again , civilian pilot's do not use them and they land just fine, yes they are not being shot at but like I said the Griffin will likely not be but in that situation (troop insert etc) but you never know I guess, anything is possible in this mans Army.



So then why not have someone on board who can do both?  A guy to shoot the weapon, AND a guy who can fix/troubleshoot/do clearances.  Last time I checked, FE's are just as capable in putting rounds downrange as mission specs are.  Replacing the FE with a mission spec on one side makes absolutely no sense.  But then again, what do I know

And for the love of God, one last time, its Griffon.  At least, that's how it's spelled on my flight suit patch.


----------



## Strike

BLUE GRUNT said:
			
		

> The only reason I said that an F.E. is not needed in this case was that you are not landing troops, confined spaces slinging loads etc all things that a good F.E. helps assist the pilots with. That being said, I say again , civilian pilot's do not use them and they land just fine, yes they are not being shot at but like I said the Griffin will likely not be but in that situation (troop insert etc) but you never know I guess, anything is possible in this mans Army.



If you take the FE out of the mix then if there is a situation where the crew needs to board pax on the fly (sorry for the pun) who's qualified to do so?  If the aircraft happens to get a few extra holes on the way, who's going to start work on handling the emergencies while the pilots try and get their rear ends out of that situation?

Do civilian pilots regularly fly in confined spaces as small as us with serious time constraints?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  I do know that I'd prefer having an FE with me so I know my tail is clear.

As for your very last remark, I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but it grates on me as much as people answering the phone with "How can I help you, sir."  There are women in your so called "Man's" Army.

Why do people feel the need to contradict SMEs?  It's one thing to ask about the why or why nots.  It's another to say we're all right out of 'er wrt who should be in our crew.


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

Sorry to all for my spelling mistake...Griffon

Regarding my less than politically correct statement about this Mans Army...I am truly sorry to Strike... for upsetting her/his sensabilities..then again...maybe just maybe..we should not concern ourselves with all of those little statements. Then again I really don't care...I say something and do not really worry about if something is politically correct or not..if your skin is so thin as to be bothered by it I would suggest you find yourself another line of business. Having said just that, don't mistake my last for meaning that I am not sensitive to the world around us and the changes that are continually going on... I just don't get hung up on it if someone does not use the politically correct word of the day.



> If you take the FE out of the mix then if there is a situation where the crew needs to board pax on the fly (sorry for the pun) who's qualified to do so?  If the aircraft happens to get a few extra holes on the way, who's going to start work on handling the emergencies while the pilots try and get their rear ends out of that situation?
> .



Well Strike last time I checked is that the job of the person with the stick beetween their legs to get you out of the situation, the only thing I have ever experienced with an  F.E. during an emergency is opening a checklist for those ones they are not required to remember by wrote. Then again I don not fly the Griffon I maintain it, and before you start with it, I have no ill feelings towards aircrew in anyway...we all have our part to play...like everthing it seems that if a difference of opinion is offered up which differs from the norm we must label that individual as disgruntled or some such thing.

Just in closing...they don't have F.E.'s on C-17's,may not even have them on the Chinook, I overheard these rumblings true or not...might just be a loady... the realities are that F.E.'s will not be people who repair the helo anymore...they will be concerned only with the ops end of things...the reason behind this is that they do not get enough hands on time what with all the other things they have to do just to maintain their flying quals...

Who knows maybe it won't change as I have alluded to but it is nice to look at different ways of operating...and yes SME's will rule the world or maybe they are just old and tired and need to be pushed aside as they no longer think instead just repeat the same old tired mantras...

But what I know I have only been around for 25yrs and have seen some of the same mistakes repeat themselves because of some idiots desire to change the status quoe and look at operating differentally than we normally do.

Thanks all for listening .....


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

BLUE GRUNT said:
			
		

> Then again I really don't care...I say something and do not really worry about if something is politically correct or not..if your skin is so thin as to be bothered by it I would suggest you find yourself another line of business.
> 
> ...like everthing it seems that if a difference of opinion is offered up which differs from the norm we must label that individual as *disgruntled *  or some such thing....and yes SME's will rule the world or maybe they are just old and tired and need to be pushed aside as they no longer think instead just repeat the same old tired mantras...
> 
> But what I know I have only been around for 25yrs and have seen some of the same mistakes repeat themselves  because of some idiots desire to change the status quoe and *look at operating differentally *  than we normally do.



Blue Grunt, two things:

1.  Ref your first line and advice to Strike - if you don't wish to abide by the forum guidelines  wrt conduct, tone, expectations of respect and personal attacks maybe you could find another outlet to express yourself.  You've come close to turning an intelligent debate into mudslinging for no reason.

2.  You have contradicted yourself.  First you gripe that "expressing differences of opinion" earn one the label of disgruntled.  Then you go on to reflect that those who "desire to change the status quo and look at operating differently" are idiots.  My question is, which way are you going to have it and who are you attacking?  Are you a "SME", someone who believes in "the status quo" or are you "one of the idiots with a different opinion"?

Either way, what shines through is that you are disgruntled and upset about something.  Perhaps a small break from this debate is required.

I do not have a dog in this fight.  Count this as a friendly warning wrt tone, content, personal attacks and the expectation of respect between users.

*The Army.ca staff*


----------



## Strike

BG, I don't take any offence to your remark.  I just choose not to pass a fault, otherwise I am just as wrong as the next person.

As to the FEs focussing on the Op side of things as opposed to continuing their maintenance quals, given the current shortage of qualified techs, getting rid of them in this aspect anytime in the near future would likely have negative repercussions on the sqns that do employ them.

They do more than open a checklist in a real emergency.  They are the extra set of hands to pull breakers, change switches, and work the radios.  Although I've been lucky enough not to have any major incidents in my aircraft, I know, just from simulated emergencies and anytime I'm in busy airspace that this extra person can be a godsend.  I consider the FE the AF version of the boatswain.  A handy person to have around in a fix.  Certainly the person I would want to have manning the guns since they have the inherent understanding of the effect the aircraft has on accuracy when shooting, as well as what damage our own guns can do to the aircraft (casings flying around, loose cans, turning while shooting, etc etc.).

The fact that Army types may be training in door gunning doesn't equal the removal of the FE.  It means one more person that can do the job if the FE is otherwise engaged or needed for some other aspect of the mission.  It also helps in increasing the understanding of the Army to what we in Tac Hel do.  It's been fairly one sided up to this point with us supporting them all the time.  Now they get the chance to see the other side of things and how we work.


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

Fair enough Strike..all good points I am sure we could go back and forth on this for ever...hahahah

tah tah for now.. ;D


----------



## LordOsborne

Apologies in advance for my lack of knowledge, but could the M134s not be mounted on a fixed outboard pylon similar to the M27 armament system found on the OH-6 Cayuse / Little Bird? 

http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/kpm27.htm#M27

I'm not sure how the weight would balance out when you compare a fixed mount to a door mount + gunner, but maybe it's worth looking into?


----------



## Sf2

You're forgetting here that the primary purpose of this weapon is for SELF DEFENSE.  While it can be employed in CCA, it is intended as a defensive weapon.  Having it fixed forward, as you suggest, obviously severely limits its defensive capability, as it cannot be rotated to engage targets beyond the 12 o clock position.


----------



## LordOsborne

Thanks SF2. I didn't consider it in the Self-Defence role, and i can definately see how it would restrict its use.


----------



## armyvern

BLUE GRUNT said:
			
		

> Having said just that, don't mistake my last for meaning that I am not sensitive to the world around us and the changes that are continually going on... I just don't get hung up on it if someone does not use the politically correct word of the day.
> 
> Thanks all for listening .....



Good,

Be sensitive to this then: it has been brought to your attention that the terminology that you used is not appreciated on the site; you have admitted that you are aware that the term is not politically correct.

Then, I suggest to you, that the professional thing to do would be to cease using it and start using proper terminolgy which is respectful of ALL members of the CF. Continued use of it, knowing that it has caused offense ... is in the realm of trolling.

Thanks for listening ... and complying because I *DO* get hung up on it if someone is *asked politely * to cease ... and chooses to continue despite that fact.

Fair Warning.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## FoverF

Wait a minute, I thought that _Chinook_-Defence, not just self-defence, was a major reason for bringing this capability on-line? 

It seems to me that a Griffon weighed down with guns/gunners/ammo doesn't have a whole lot of capabilities, outside of a) observation/recce, and b) shooting things. If it's not looking to go shoot things, then I have to ask, does carrying this kind of heat really improve it's observation capabilities? Wouldn't it be better with improved ECM/IRCM, MAWS, and maybe a little good old-fashioned excess power instead (This is what I keep hearing from old former Kiowa people)?

If an armed Griffon is limited to pretty much just carrying around the guns/gunners/ammo...
And the guns are just there for self-defence...
Then what is the armed Griffon really doing there in the first place?


----------



## FoverF

And perhaps more importantly, I still haven't really been able to figure this out, what missions does a Griffon toting a minigun do that a Griffon (or two?) toting C-6/9's can't do?


----------



## Strike

Self-defence doesn't just refer to defending that one aircraft, but the aircraft in that packet.  So then it can defend those aircraft it might be escorting.



			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> And perhaps more importantly, I still haven't really been able to figure this out, what missions does a Griffon toting a minigun do that a Griffon (or two?) toting C-6/9's can't do?



I haven't had a chance to look at the specs of the mini-gun, so I can't really say.  I can expect that it's probably a little more robust in accuracy (like door guns are acurate... ;D), less likely to jam, and easier to maintain in the long run.  A little more user friendly.


----------



## aesop081

Strike said:
			
		

> I haven't had a chance to look at the specs of the mini-gun, so I can't really say.  I can expect that it's probably a little more robust in accuracy (like door guns are acurate... ;D), less likely to jam, and easier to maintain in the long run.  A little more user friendly.



You can probably add "more bullets down range in a given amount of time" to your list.


----------



## Strike

Well, duh!  I knew THAT much!


----------



## aesop081

Strike said:
			
		

> Well, duh!  I knew THAT much!



In Fairness, i know that YOU did but others reading this might not have.


----------



## FoverF

Strike said:
			
		

> Self-defence doesn't just refer to defending that one aircraft, but the aircraft in that packet.  So then it can defend those aircraft it might be escorting.



The escort role makes sense when you're talking about a package of Griffons. But what kind of differential in tactical speeds are we really talking about, between a heavy Griffon with a gun hanging in the breeze and a Chinook? I'd guess it's in the tens of knots, which is awful inconvenient. Maybe the main task of the Griffon would be protecting the airmobile force you just dropped (and the LZ, obviously), rather than the Chinooks themselves? A Chinook would usually be better served by flying 30+ kts faster, than by a Griffon with door gunners, me thinks.  

And aren't our Chinooks supposed to be coming with many bells and whistles, and thus be doing a lot of their operational flying at night? This may be opsec, but is that big, blazing death-hose NVG-compliant? I know some crew stations on some other helicopters fire miniguns on NVGs, but what about in this installation? Would make a big difference.


----------



## RCR Grunt

As has benn said before ... The escort does not necessarily have to leave the strip with the package.  The Griffon "gunship" could leave ahead of time and meet the packet at the LZ.  Differing speeds then becomes a bit of a non issue.


----------



## aesop081

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> As has benn said before ... The escort does not necessarily have to leave the strip with the package.  The Griffon "gunship" could leave ahead of time and meet the packet at the LZ.  Differing speeds then becomes a bit of a non issue.



It only becomes a planning issue just as it does with fixed wing operations. Different types of aircraft with different speeds and capabilities operate together all the time, no biggie. I mean after all we manage to get fighters across the pacific by refueling them with a much slower C-130, i'm sure we can handle a few helos travelling at less than 100 kts.


----------



## FoverF

seen

And it's always good to have another tool in the Griffon toolbox (which may get ported to the Chinook's toolbox).


----------



## Sf2

lol, I've never heard of weapons being NVG compliant.

The Griffon is fully NVG capable, regardless of what's strapped to it.


----------



## KevinB

You can see and descriminate tgt's in NV -- once the minigun is rolling its like a laser at nigth with all the tracer - and the FE can walk the rounds over muzzle flashes till they all go away...

The US Army uses their FE's as aerial gunners - why would we want to reinvent the wheel?

Additional advantage to the CH146 and FMS (Foriegn Military Sale) Chinooks is they are not hard wired for gun mount, thus will use the battery pack setup for the Dillon -- thus removing one issue the US military has had with downed birds not being able to use their miniguns once the power is out in the bird.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> This may be opsec, but is that big, blazing death-hose NVG-compliant? I know some crew stations on some other helicopters fire miniguns on NVGs, but what about in this installation? Would make a big difference.



I have actually fired a C-6 door gun, at night, on NVGs from a moving Sea King.  It works rather well (and was a hoot!). The pilots weren't on googles, but did not overly mind the muzzle flash or the tracer. And don't let anyone tell you door guns are necessarily inaccurate- it takes practice. Certain flight profiles also greatly enhance the accuracy of the fire.  

Cheers


----------



## kj_gully

I have routinely used a 5 million candle power white light while pilots are on NVG, and it enhances their view. I am sure if you are shooting at things that are trying to kill you, pilots won't be too concerned about some minor light pollution. ;D


----------



## benny88

kj_gully said:
			
		

> I am sure if you are shooting at things that are trying to kill you, pilots won't be too concerned about some minor light pollution. ;D



   Not only will they (me, someday) not be too concerned, but will also buy you gallons of beers.


----------



## Im Not Telling

Here's a question, we're all focusing on the mini gun (which has LCF) but I wonder if anyone has compared the 7.62 chain gun (diemaco/colt canada) in the same role. lighter gun, allowing for FE but you still have ammo restrictions (not knowing specs for lift vs enviroment).


----------



## Loachman

Im Not Telling said:
			
		

> Here's a question, we're all focusing on the mini gun (which has LCF) but I wonder if anyone has compared the 7.62 chain gun (diemaco/colt canada) in the same role. lighter gun, allowing for FE but you still have ammo restrictions (not knowing specs for lift vs enviroment).



Rate of fire is over ten times higher for a minigun.

When firing from a moving helicopter at altitude, that's significant.

Mounting a minigun does not require leaving the FE behind, even one of the larger ones.


----------



## Loachman

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> As has benn said before ...



Yup, and by me, too, for one.



			
				RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> The escort does not necessarily have to leave the strip with the package.  The Griffon "gunship" could leave ahead of time and meet the packet at the LZ.  Differing speeds then becomes a bit of a non issue.



Precisely. The lift hels are most vulnerable at low altitude and low speed - like taking off and landing. During transit, they derive significant protection from speed and altitude, and that will continue to be true until such time as the Taliban acquire a meaningful anti-air capability.

"Escort" hels arriving a few minutes before the lift hels will have that time to do a quick scan to find those who don't consider us to be friends and do something about them. This is the same tactic used during the Kiowa/Twin Huey/Cold War era for pathfinding except that it's done from altitude rather than distance and there are no trees to hide behind.


----------



## benny88

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mounting a minigun does not require leaving the FE behind, even one of the larger ones.


  
   One of the larger miniguns, or FE's?  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see from a recent magazine article that Dillion (As in Dillion reloading presses) makes an upgraded mingun which has a variety of improvements, including the clearing of stoppages, which apparently could take a minigun out of service and require disassembly back at the hanger to clear them. Also the Dillion gun is 9lbs lighter and interrupts the ammo feed so rds are not wasted when you cease fire.

http://www.dillonaero.com/


----------



## Loachman

benny88 said:
			
		

> One of the larger miniguns, or FE's?  ;D



Yes.


----------



## OldSolduer

Just a question:
If this comes to fruition, could you use an older soldier who'd love to  man a minigun?

Hint hint! :


----------



## MCpl Burtoo

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Just a question:
> If this comes to fruition, could you use an older soldier who'd love to  man a minigun?
> 
> Hint hint! :



OldSolduer.......Get to back of the line!!! Some of us retreads in TacHel are forming a line that is getting long.......... ;D


----------



## Loachman

The bunch that we trained here at 400 Squadron a month or so ago were reserve privates and corporals. No great experience is required.


----------



## KevinB

I hate to the bearer of bad news -- but you cannot just fly the escort on ahead -- having been in helo's that have been hit on the way.

 It may be easier in open terrain -- but in an urban - suburban environment - you need escort helo's with a package.


----------



## Strike

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I hate to the bearer of bad news -- but you cannot just fly the escort on ahead -- having been in helo's that have been hit on the way.
> 
> It may be easier in open terrain -- but in an urban - suburban environment - you need escort helo's with a package.



Kill joy!


----------



## lone bugler

wow big toys for big boys, a minigun just spells out fun, after all the TV shows involving the minigun I've been dieing to try it. But the taliban will learn the meaning of cover fire, that outta keep there heads down entering a hot LZ


----------



## Sf2

> wow big toys for big boys, a minigun just spells out fun, after all the TV shows involving the minigun I've been dieing to try it. But the taliban will learn the meaning of cover fire, that outta keep there heads down entering a hot LZ


----------



## SeaKingTacco

:
Ooohhh  Boy....


----------



## Strike

SF2 said:
			
		

>



Hijack:

SF2...I didn't know you were such a geek.   ;D  With the car you drive?  What a let down.

End Hijack


----------



## Privateer

Article by David ********:  "GRIFFONS ONE STEP CLOSER TO KANDAHAR"

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/07/16/griffons-one-step-closer-to-kandahar.aspx


----------



## 421 EME

I have one question ??? Who is going to be doing the maintenance on the M134D? As a Weapons Tech land, I would love to get that course and work on them, but I think its going to be a Airforce job :crybaby:. Anyone care to wager a guess?


----------



## aesop081

421 EME said:
			
		

> I have one question ??? Who is going to be doing the maintenance on the M134D? As a Weapons Tech land, I would love to get that course and work on them, but I think its going to be a Airforce job :crybaby:. Anyone care to wager a guess?



We have our own weapons techs so that would be my bet.


----------



## 421 EME

Anyone have any info on how the trials are going ???


----------



## George Wallace

Huddy said:
			
		

> 'Sounds' like there leaning towards .50's now. mingun is heavy, has too large of an electrical draw, and they want to hit a little harder.
> also it's not doing anything for ya when your shot-down. alot of minigun operators in the chinook world are getting out of it. I do like the
> look of the Marine Sea Knights with Browning .50's.



Have you ever hefted a .50 Cal (a complete .50 Cal; Body, Bolt, and Barrel) on your shoulders?  If you are shot down, I doubt that will be one of the things you'd be thinking about.  I doubt it would be a thing you would desperately run back and get out of a wreck.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you ever hefted a .50 Cal (a complete .50 Cal; Body, Bolt, and Barrel) on your shoulders?  If you are shot down, I doubt that will be one of the things you'd be thinking about.  I doubt it would be a thing you would desperately run back and get out of a wreck.



Would be interesting to fire it without a tripod thats for sure  ;D


----------



## KevinB

The Mini gun issue has been solved by the Dillon Battery packed one -- they dont require crew system electical -- as such they will work in a down bird.

 .50 - if you go that route you need the M3 with its higher ROF -- Canada does not currently subscribe to the M3 - so it would be another system added.

 The USMC runs their packets with a UH-1N and AH-1S(?) along for the ride (at least here) so the CH-46's are not alone -- the UH1 has two .50 door guns - plus some with rocket pod packages.

 I'm a big fan of the M240H for the UH-60 and in Canada's case the CH-146  - if your running SOF side the minigun gives a lot more - and the space and weight tradeoffs are usually worth it.  I dont think the .50 is a viable system on a bird that size (keep in mind I am just a passenger, but I've never seen any problems with the 240H getting bad guys) and I have some .50 experience that leads me to beleive it is not practical for what is happening in this day and age from a utility bird.


A fair amount of crews keep the 240B buttstock - in case they have to dismount the 240H - the gun has a bipod now as well (due to previosu dismount issues)

Dismounting a M134 or a M3 (or M2) .50 is not going to happen unless you crash land beside a place that conviently has EIS for it - that can lend you appropriate mounting hardware for ground use.  Most crews on birds like that will have a 240B or two as dismount guns -- or Mk48's if your a 160th guy.


----------



## George Wallace

Huddy said:
			
		

> of course your not gonna be EnEing with your trusty 50. perimeter defence if your able to make one.



Make up you mind.

Don't make a comment and then when caught on it, make a smart ass reply that your original comment wasn't what you meant.

As for a quote from a friend/acquaintance of a friend/acquaintance three times removed........Well, we aren't playing the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon here.


----------



## KevinB

FYI to your other point, FMS (foreign military sale) (which oddly includes other US gov entities than the US Mil) brid are not allowed to be setup for crew system electical minigun power.  Hence Canada will end up with a battery pack minigun - or playing jungle electrican on a bird still under warantee (which I dont think will happen if the Cdn tax payer values his investment).


----------



## Strike

Huddy...have you not wondered why members of the Wing hve been conspicuously quiet on this thread?  Probably a good reason for it.

By the way, pretty sure the purpose of having a separate power pack has NOTHING to do with taking the gun and running, but a little more with defending the aircraft should you have to land unintentionally (I try not to use the "C" word) in a hostile area.


----------



## Loachman

"mingun is heavy, has too large of an electrical draw"

We used to put them on Kiowas.

There was no issue with electrical draw whatsoever.

Weight, yes, and some other aspects not likely to be a factor anymore.


----------



## 1feral1

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you ever hefted a .50 Cal (a complete .50 Cal; Body, Bolt, and Barrel) on your shoulders?  If you are shot down, I doubt that will be one of the things you'd be thinking about.  I doubt it would be a thing you would desperately run back and get out of a wreck.



M2 12.7 x 99mm QCB should be about 37Kg basic gun, empty, not including mounts, if I remember correctly, regarding weight and if we look back to the movie Pearl Harbor, whan one man man packs an M2 up a huge tower, it must have been injection molded plastic, as he is carrying it as if it weights as much as a rifle.


----------



## George Wallace

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> M2 12.7 x 99mm QCB should be about 37Kg basic gun, empty, not including mounts, if I remember correctly, regarding weight and if we look back to the movie Pearl Harbor, whan one man man packs an M2 up a huge tower, it must have been injection molded plastic, as he is carrying it as if it weights as much as a rifle.



Being young and foolish, I did that once and only once during a Snowball.  Once I had it in the 20mm mount, I took a break to recover......a few seconds and then back to loading kit.  Yeah Wes.  37kg of non-ergonomic metal is not too comfortable on the shoulders or back.  Next time I made two trips.


----------



## 421 EME

Wes, correct if I am wrong, but any .50 HMG that I have seen for use in aircraft has had a lighter barrel, barrel shroud, Hydraulic buffer and a light weight bolt. This make the weapon lighter and also increases the rate of fire.


----------



## 1feral1

The Aircraft M3, yes its a bit lighter, and yes a higher ROF. A few kg lighter or less maybe?

Don't have the specs at hand.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 421 EME

One other thing, I saw a few combat arm types walking around here in flightsuits. Me think door gunners?


----------



## Sf2

> One other thing, I saw a few combat arm types walking around here in flightsuits. Me think door gunners?



Mission Specialists (combat arms guys) have been wearing flight suits for years.


----------



## 421 EME

This is true, my bad, but I have never seen it before.


----------



## George Wallace

421 EME said:
			
		

> One other thing, I saw a few combat arm types walking around here in flightsuits. Me think door gunners?



Door gunners for the eventual deployment.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Door gunners for the eventual deployment.



Not necessarily GW.......read the posts before yours.


----------



## Strike

Probably a mix of both door gunners and mission specialists.


----------



## Loachman

If they're young corporals and privates, and mostly from reserve units, they're door gunners. All of the guys that we trained in Borden last year were reservists.

It will take me a long time to get used to seeing balmorals worn with flying suits (the traditional Canadian term, "flight suit" is American), but I like it.


----------



## George Wallace

Then again, they may be Crewsuits, as opposed to Flying Suits, and the pers are there for some other trg with another org and just happen to take a shortcut through the Flight Lines.....No longer on the M134D MiniGun for CH-146 Griffons any more are we?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> If they're young corporals and privates, and mostly from reserve units, they're door gunners. All of the guys that we trained in Borden last year were reservists.
> 
> It will take me a long time to get used to seeing balmorals worn with flying suits (the traditional Canadian term, "flight suit" is American), but I like it.



Ahem... most likely you saw a Tam O' Shanter: probably khaki coloured. 

Viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tam_o%27shanter_(hat)

A Balmoral is a similar shape, but usually a different (dark blue with red and white dicing) colour and worn with a dress uniform of some kind.

Viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmoral_bonnet

Looking forward to putting together the cultural awareness roadshow for the CF - "One army: Mostly wishing they were Highlanders"  

Ach aye the noo, Jimmy ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Ahem... most likely you saw a Tam O' Shanter: probably khaki coloured.
> 
> Viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tam_o%27shanter_(hat)
> 
> A Balmoral is a similar shape, but usually a different (dark blue with red and white dicing) colour and worn with a dress uniform of some kind.
> 
> Viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmoral_bonnet
> 
> Looking forward to putting together the cultural awareness roadshow for the CF - "One army: Mostly wishing they were Highlanders"
> 
> Ach aye the noo, Jimmy ;D



Redemption  ;D

PS and in the interest of cultural awareness : http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/images/cache/Img5630S128.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.futuremuseum.co.uk/Default.aspx%3FId%3D218&h=91&w=128&sz=3&hl=en&start=4&um=1&usg=__CWmU-7JFCcpWZOOqB8CSCtb5ED4=&tbnid=zTgxAkls6vReoM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkilmarnock%2Bbonnet%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN "The Bunnet"

In Ayrshire  they were Bunnets, Toories, Tams, Tammy-Toories or Kilmarnock Bunnets..  Furriners kent them as Tam O'Shanters because that was the Bunnet that Tam wore.


----------



## daftandbarmy

And here's another good blend of 'Heelander' and Helicopter culture for you war (movie) pigs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00pOrjzMASA&feature=related


Music: Nick Glennie-Smith - Flying High
Soundtrack from We Were Soldiers (2002)
Lyrics:

"Lay me doon
In the caul, caul groon
Whau afore
Monie mair huv gaun

Lay me doon
Lay me doon
In the caul, caul groon
Whau afore
Monie mair huv gaun

When they come
A will staun ma groon
Staun ma groon
Al nae be afraid..."


----------



## Dissident

Anyone want to point me in the general direction to look for info on how to become a door gunner?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dissident said:
			
		

> Anyone want to point me in the general direction to look for info on how to become a door gunner?



I took a few minutes to do up a draft memo-picture for your Sgt.  Just give it to him/her, and they'll get back to you.

(Seriously, I have no idea but...I was bored.)


----------



## Dissident

I laughed, but it does represent pretty well how a half baked memo would be received. Kinda like:"Sgt, I want to be a supersniperninjaskymaskandtutuwearingjtf2seasore, can you please make it happen?"

Edit: I'm just looking for the official name of the trade or specialty or where I can get more info on this.


----------



## armoured recce man

some position where open in cftpo and they will be fill by member of the infantry and the armoured corps...they've just completed there training in gagetown and by the way everyone they are reg forces......


----------



## NL_engineer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I took a few minutes to do up a draft memo-picture for your Sgt.  Just give it to him/her, and they'll get back to you.
> 
> (Seriously, I have no idea but...I was bored.)




 :rofl:


----------



## Miller97

A very good job indeed done by our fine forces!


----------



## AirCanuck

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I took a few minutes to do up a draft memo-picture for your Sgt.  Just give it to him/her, and they'll get back to you.
> 
> (Seriously, I have no idea but...I was bored.)



thanks a lot.  I just laughed out loud in my ground school class at the airport.


----------



## RetiredRoyal

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=3397

mayhaps read this. I think the grunts acting as a mission specialist as a door gunner is not a trade or specialty, but perhaps a position on the helomocopter. I have rode along many times as a 'spotter' never got special wings etc for it. Its just a casual position on the air weapons platform.


----------

