Abbott Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 New tail gun mount. Cruising over the desert just above 400 feet, a Marine crew chief kneels behind the Gun Ammunition Unit 21 mounted on the ramp of the CH-53D Sea Stallion. The pilots and crew chiefs in the front of the aircraft relay the current target's location that will be coming into his field of fire within seconds Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463, Marine Aircraft Group 16 (Reinforced), 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, is the first CH-53D helicopter squadron to install the GAU-21 .50-caliber machine gun system onto their aircraft. "The GAU-21 is very similar to the XM-218 .50-caliber, which is the machine gun that is mounted on the doors of the aircraft," said Cpl. Thomas D. Martinez, crew chief and weapons and tactics instructor, HMH-463. "Most people can't really tell the difference until they know a little bit about them. It is a new system to the Marine Corps. The XM-218 has been around forever, but the GAU-21 is modified to fire faster and fire slightly farther." "The 7.62 round used in the M-240G is too small," said Harquail, a 26-year-old native of Sea Side, New Brunswick, Canada. "The rotor wash from the aircraft affects the rounds' trajectory. The .50-caliber is a heavier round. You need a heavy round with a higher volume." Between the muscle required to man the weapon and the buffeting and heat in the rear of the aircraft, the crew chief has his work cut out for him. But they appreciate the weapon's capability and location. "We are normally engaged by the enemy from the rear of the aircraft," said Martinez, a Durango High School graduate. "These weapons are important because our window guns only give us coverage in less than a 180 degree angle in front. The tail gun provides 180 degrees of coverage behind and to the sides of the aircraft." Urrah! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Abbott, GAU-21, eh? That'll discourage people from blasting the helicopter where it's "defenseless," won't it? I think, been a lot of years since I last checked, that the GAU-21 forms part of the battery for the AC-130U gunship, too. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 Nope, that'd be the GAU-12 25mm Gatling cannon you are thinking off. Installing a .50 cal weapon would make no sense, you'd have to get a teensy bit too close with the Herc to do any good with it. I always thought the GAU name was for gatling gun systems but GAU-21 is what saner people call an M3M. Made by FN, you'd never suspect it from the Belgians but they make seriously fine weaponry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 RoF in excess of 1000 rpm, if memory serves. The barrel must get pretty damn hot PDQ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 I'm not sure this will get a ton of actual use due to the 53s primary mission being the transportation of cargo. A ramp gun would greatly inhibit loading and unloading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 Problem witha .50 cal from ahelicopter is that it's not a particularly stable gun platfrom and the round has very good penetration. If someone makes a mistake when fired at from insurgents in a built up area, you could get a lot of dead civilians. As ever it's a hard one to call. the best weapon for war isn't always right for peacekeeping and vica versa. You have to be careful as you are there to protect these people and make them feel safe, not to injure them or put the fear of god in to them. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: the best weapon for war isn't always right for peacekeeping and vica versa. Very little peacekeeping is going on in the world in any event; the days of the blue beret seem to be declining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Hiati, Congo, Lebanon, Cyprus, Possibly Dahur, and maybe Chad soon, there must be a few other. I know lets see what the UN is saying.... UN Peacekeeping. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Hiati, Congo, Lebanon, Cyprus, Possibly Dahur, and maybe Chad soon, there must be a few other. I know lets see what the UN is saying.... UN Peacekeeping. Peter. Yeah, cause the UN wouldn't be biased about how effective blue-hat peacekeeping is. Not saying it isn't being done, saying it is becoming increasingly rare. Your website seems to confirm that, oddly enough. UNMOGIP? What do they do - besides move their headquarters every six months from Pakistan to India, and back again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Michael Dorosh, What are you suggesting that the UN is lieing about where all these people are. As to it decreasing I don't have any figures as to how many were on going in say 66, 76, 86 or 96, so I can't make a comparison. As to not much, the UN seems to have about 45,000 troops in Africa at the moment, which puts some of the larger operations at 10,000 plus on a par with Nato's commitment to Afghanistan of around 9,000. We may not hear much about them but they are still pretty wide spread and large. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Elmar, I worked threat on the AC-130U, not armament, and it looks like the GAU-21 didn't make the selection cut. Thanks for the correction! Weapon loadout's much lighter than the AC-130H, which had a 40mm and a couple of 20mm M61 Gatlings, in addition to the trademark 105, but the GAU-12 has both better range and much more terminal effect as well. Am not quite sure how the trainable armament works, being used to fixed mounts and pylon turns for gunship ops. Here's a nice rundown on the AC-130U. http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/AC-130U-Spooky-Spectre.htm Here's a comparison of the two models. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Maybe the U.N. is finally realizing that if they send Blue Hats into a region that is still hot they are just sending them to die. Not a lot of people are afraid of taking on U.N. peace keepers. The have become a handy source of weapons and hostages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Michael Dorosh, What are you suggesting that the UN is lieing about where all these people are. As to it decreasing I don't have any figures as to how many were on going in say 66, 76, 86 or 96, so I can't make a comparison. As to not much, the UN seems to have about 45,000 troops in Africa at the moment, which puts some of the larger operations at 10,000 plus on a par with Nato's commitment to Afghanistan of around 9,000. We may not hear much about them but they are still pretty wide spread and large. Peter. Is that the UN mandating peacekeeping forces, or is that simply the nations of Africa finally getting their **** together and controlling their own populations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Michael Dorosh, No it's UN forces mostly, although nigeria is a big contributor. Fact is they tend to be there because of the way Africa traditionally "controls" their own populations. Where the Un has gone wrong is poor intel or political judgement, where it has put in a small lightly armed force to police a truse that turnrd out not to exist. On the other hand they have been heavily criticised when they have gone in hard. It's what comes of being an armed social worker. The politicians set the rules and give the orders, and if you are too light and civilians die, the UN gets the blame, not the contibuting countries, and if the Un is to tough and it kills civilians, the UN gets the blame not the countries. Oh course if a UN mission succeeds, all the Politicians rush to the front to say it was our boys that did it and and get their pictures taken beside them. The UN is only as good as the nations that make the decisions and that tends to be the security council, where the west have a majority. If it's peacekeeping efforts are lackluster we can solve it, if we have the will. Peter. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Very nice helo chaingun video with inside of ammo box shown! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Doom clearly has a great deal to answer for. A minigun (as shown) and a chaingun are very different animals. Wiki Wiki Wiki 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 You are welcome! Best regards, Thomm PS: GREAT! Now I have to edit Wikipedia to fit my post ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUR Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Interesting. Do you have a single big can off to the portside or sit on four boxes as in the USAF Pave Pig community? Is the mounting plate hardware also similar (i.e. bolted on over the vehicle guide rails) and how does that effect disembarkation of large internal loads and particularly vehicles like Gator or ATV which Marine SOF are known to use now? Given the amount of lateral precess and 'bounce' on the ramp, plus the known shortcomings of the 7.62 round from Grenada onwards, I always wondered why they didn't just go straight to the GAU-19 and standardize all mounts to a powered gatling post or pedestal. That way you can both push the side guns into the wind (ala AH-60) with automatic sponson clearance and _real_ forward fire. And put the rear gun on a swivelling pedestal that can be tucked out of the way quickly while operating from forward of any payload or troop compliment. Especially in an era of extended range threat weapons in the SPR and LAW categories, you don't really want to bring your truck platform in tight with unsuppressed fires as some kind of ersatz gunship. But at the same time, without stabilization and a really good sight, you're NOT going to see diddly from 400ft up in daylight as every yutz with a scoped rifle takes a crack at you. A high rate gun, properly integrated with a flash-detector set of optics (preslew cued) and a thermal sight on a stable mount, this could change. It would also support a variety of integral AIM-1 and similar laser 'scare to suppress' marker options and possibly even ADW or similar 'wide effect' gear later on. GUR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Does 1000+rpm not count as high rate? Plus the automated system sounds alot like a CROWS that weighs about 200kg compared to 36kg for the M3M rig. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.