Thread: 30mm chain gun or 2 .50 cal Gatlings...

The 30mm is going to be too heavy for that kind of aircraft. Be like flying with the gear down all the time. I'm thinking something more like a 7.62 minigun pod mounted centreline. IIRC Impala pilots said it took three hands to fire the gun and drop the outboard stores simultaneously.

Anyone remember these guys



just open the canopy and throw some grenades at'em, or buy a second world war type plane with a manned machine gun turret of some type (which fits with a clear view of the ground).

Alright so I think the following after some research (tell me what you would change)
I chose soviet made weapons since they are probably more available with the exception of the plane...
N418BB North American AT-6D Which also includes two parachutes...
Plane would be AT-6 because of it's cheap, relatively fast, a two seater, easy to service and rugged. 100k in good shape.
I would have a chin mounted Shipunov GShG-7.62 minigun and barring that 6 PKM's. Without ammo 18.5kg and the 6 PKM's weigh 9kg each. (substitute any soviet made machine gun maybe an RPD or RPK)

As many RPG's would be bolted on to the wings as possible since they are lighter and more effective than rocket pods. I would probably have 4. At 15kg each that's 60kg of arms.

The observer, radio man, navigator, side gunner, rear gunner, and co pilot (If I get shot or my cockpit is damaged and conditions aren't VFR) will man an AGS 17 automatic grenade launcher (31kg) and a fixed PKM (another 9kg). This would be mounted on a track so it could be moved from rear facing to left facing to allow me to orbit above a target and attack.

Assuming the minigun build without ammo or feed systems base arms come out to a whopping 190lbs or 86.5kg in new terms. Not too bad for a lot of lethality. Add in PDW and pistols the crew will be carrying and some improvised grenades or bombs with ammo for weapons and I'm figuring under a quarter ton. And then kevlar plates for fragile components (like me!) and lexan bolted onto the glass everywhere and still the plane is flyable alebit with some substantial performance loss. After dumping the heavy ammo onto the target I'll be back down to 200lbs of dry weapons and can hopefully high tail it out.
Feel free to post your own fantasy merc plane build.

I would possibly add this little heli with a couple MG's for rescuing me. It could hover on standby out of sight and if anything goes wrong move towards me for extraction.
http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/Curr...Helicopter.htm

Edit: Just looked up those biafran pilots. Pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by kuku

Anyone remember these guys

Biafra?

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Alright so I think the following after some research (tell me what you would change)
I chose soviet made weapons since they are probably more available with the exception of the plane...
N418BB North American AT-6D Which also includes two parachutes...
Plane would be AT-6 because of it's cheap, relatively fast, a two seater, easy to service and rugged. 100k in good shape.
I would have a chin mounted Shipunov GShG-7.62 minigun and barring that 6 PKM's. Without ammo 18.5kg and the 6 PKM's weigh 9kg each. (substitute any soviet made machine gun maybe an RPD or RPK)

As many RPG's would be bolted on to the wings as possible since they are lighter and more effective than rocket pods. I would probably have 4. At 15kg each that's 60kg of arms.

The observer, radio man, navigator, side gunner, rear gunner, and co pilot (If I get shot or my cockpit is damaged and conditions aren't VFR) will man an AGS 17 automatic grenade launcher (31kg) and a fixed PKM (another 9kg). This would be mounted on a track so it could be moved from rear facing to left facing to allow me to orbit above a target and attack.

Assuming the minigun build without ammo or feed systems base arms come out to a whopping 190lbs or 86.5kg in new terms. Not too bad for a lot of lethality. Add in PDW and pistols the crew will be carrying and some improvised grenades or bombs with ammo for weapons and I'm figuring under a quarter ton. And then kevlar plates for fragile components (like me!) and lexan bolted onto the glass everywhere and still the plane is flyable alebit with some substantial performance loss. After dumping the heavy ammo onto the target I'll be back down to 200lbs of dry weapons and can hopefully high tail it out.
Feel free to post your own fantasy merc plane build.

I would possibly add this little heli with a couple MG's for rescuing me. It could hover on standby out of sight and if anything goes wrong move towards me for extraction.
N927AV Hughes TH-55A Helicopter

Edit: Just looked up those biafran pilots. Pretty interesting.

Nope. Can't mount anything centreline because of the prop or integral to the wings, no room. Everything has to be hard points. Do AT6's have hard points? Anything else is a (barely) flying barn door.

Armor, kevlar? You can wear a vest and maybe sit on one. No copilot, no gunner, no radio operator (you were kidding right?). Pilots cost money, it only takes one to fly the thing. I took flying lessons just in case after an incident where my pilot was injured during an extraction. That situation never happened again. Each and every crew member is 200 lbs of dead (pun?) weight you can use for something else. This thing is barely getting off the ground anyway.

SAR? Doubtful. I was tasked with possibly retrieving Impala pilots who were dropping ordnance from our observation. We knew they were egressing east in morning, west in afternoon. SAR was a ride with two other guys on a single Suzuki 250. That's assuming we got there first with enough room to get out.

Ok thanks. Now my posts on this topic are starting to become silliness so I'm not going to pursue this idea on these boards anymore. Initially I was thinking a two person crew with the back seater taking on a lot of responsibility so I could focus on flying and combat. But I'm thinking now that a single place semi aerobatic LSA type plane with an uprated powerplant (something I actually have a little experience flying) would be the way to go. Plus it would be less of a target I'm sure... When it comes to hardpoints I've seen some very crude (and effective) ones improvised. And some AT6's make provisions or have hardpoints. Only thing about wing mounting besides weight distribution and spoiling some airflow is the convergence distances. But for sure I would need something capable of high rate of fire and something else that is explosive... You've probably heard about the American 180 being used. Hit probability is about the same and several of them can be mounted easily. Lethality is an issue though.

You were seriously thinking about doing this? How old are you?

Originally Posted by sappersgt

Biafra?

late tamil tigers

Originally Posted by Jimmy

You were seriously thinking about doing this? How old are you?

Old enough to know better then to actually do such a thing. Partially a bit for parody but mostly just for fun.

This is worth a read. http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n1/frcoin.html

It was called the T6G Tomcat. Carried an observer (ahem "tactical battlespace awareness unit" lol) With the possible exception of the availability of MANPADS not much has changed from the Viet Minh days to now. I quote

"As the war dragged on and as the sophistication of the enemy increased, the French had to look for more powerful substitutes. Happily, one of the hastily adapted trainers had proved well-suited to its new tasks. Surplus, American and British T-6 Texans, SNJs, and Harvards turned out to be rugged, easily maintained, and efficient attack aircraft when equipped with a pair of pods housing twin, 7.5-mm machine guns and racks for fragmentation bombs, rockets, and napalm canisters. The Tomcats, as they bevcame known, stood up well in the face of ground fire, had a good endurance, and were still available in quantity. Four escadrilles were formed on the T-6 in 1955. By 1958, the total had risen to more than 30. (Note: the French were perhaps the first to use the T6 in this way, since operations preceded the USAF FT-6 program by some years. Many of the French airplanes were subsequently passed on to third-world clients, including Katanga.)"

Originally Posted by BD1

late tamil tigers

Right you are air tigers, a friend of mine had gone on vacations to Colombo, he was there on one of the air strikes on the airport.

I'm thinking a Super Tucano might be a better platform; it was designed at the outset as a COIN a/c, has more power, and a greater useful load, although the T-6C Texan II is essentially the same thing, and is probably cheaper.

You would be a lot safer with two aircraft which would give you the capability to wheel and keep the enemy under constant fire. Basically there are two fundamental sets of tactics for a single plane operation. Kind of hard to explain but I think you will get my point.

1. The Stuka style shock and awe and higher duration of attack. May entail multiple engines, crew, screaming passes, more ordnance, bigger balls for the crew. Multiple passes require more exposure to fire & usually has to take more of it too. Come in screaming out of the sun. Get the enemy to :hide: then strafe with rockets. Break line of sight and then strafe for a few more passes. Downside is the planes are higher maintenance and come back riddled with fire. This would be the T-28's forte.

2. Low and slow more observation style. Kind of like U-17 tactics. Break cover at the last second and get out before they realize anything has happened. Usually Cessna or LSA type aircraft. Cheaper, more spare availability, low maintenance etc. Less direct action oriented. Dropping light ordnance and maybe spray with some 7.62 MG fire for added effect. Then call in the big guns.

Again I have NO experience so anyone who did fly CAS please do speak up.

Against hardened positions (mostly mg nests etc.) would enough 7.62 MG's take out it out through cumulative damage? I'm wondering whether payload would be better spent on multiple lighter weapons or one large one. Then availability of ammo is also an issue. Rigging up air dropped IED's and feeding a 7.62 MG is far easier than something exotic.

This is worth watching. Some nice flyovers in the end. I like my planes with adequate smoke thanks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Xqh...eature=related

Enough 7.62 rounds especially if you are using fun expensive rounds of special purpose will eat through nearly anything given time and numbers. The downside of this whole idea though is that you are going to have to sooner rather than later have someone or something else firing back at you with either air to air fire, decent AA fire, or a SA-14 type missile all of which you are spectacularly unequipped to successfully evade or survive, even reasonable numbers of RPG's. In order for you to effectively train your armaments you are going to need to be low/slow and coming nearly right at your target, (unless you've got a weapons guy and a mechanic who is good at jury-rigged syncro/servo systems.)

Either way you do it the problem is investment in the weapons system and the possibility of insuring it against loss. I see no way to build a system that has any chance of effectiveness and survivability for less than $250,000 and that is counting nearly free labor and a well equip machine shop on hand. Add in the cost of fuel, transport to get on scene and support staff to be hired and you are looking at close to half a million. Now figure out what Lloyd's would charge to insure such a venture, figure out a decent profit for you and your staff for risking life and limb, and figure out what your chances of not getting paid are, and what/where are you planning on getting your merc contract? Soldier of Fortune isn't exactly a reputable employment agency.

If the airframe is a total loss chances are I will be as well. I have some experience with metal work and r/c aircraft... LOL
Maintenance can be done any starving mechanic and base security etc. by indigenous workers. The profit would be an issue. Any nation so poor as to not have it's own air force probably can't pay much either. But flying in support of coalition forces could land you some $.