M134D MiniGun for CH-146 Griffons

[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]

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]

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]

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

 

[PJOsborne]

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.

 

[PJOsborne]

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

 

[armyvern]

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.

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]

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.