V-22 turreted gun system

[bitburger]

info from GeneralDynamics.com

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) has been selected to develop the 12.7mm Turreted Gun System (TGS) for the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey. The V-22 Osprey is a Multimission / Multi-service aircraft designed for combat search and rescue, combat assault, and Special Operations troop insertion and extraction missions over extended distances. The General Dynamics 12.7mm TGS is fully integrated with the needs of the user. The TGS system provides a "Total Systems Solution" by meeting both aircraft physical and operational demands.

The V-22 TGS is based on the highly reliable 12.7mm GAU-19/A Gatling gun and a state-of-the-art linkless ammunition handling system. The gun, turret, and ammunition feed system are electrically powered and integrated with a stabilized FLIR and helmet tracking system through the aircraft MIL-STD-1553 data bus. In-flight reloading from the forward area of the cargo bay provides rapid replenishment of ammunition as well as a means to extend the basic 750 round load.

The system has been designed for the maintainer incorporating features for easy access and modular repair. System safety for the operator and maintainers is a key requirement of the TGS system design. The 12.7mm TGS provides the most effective ammunition caliber and gun, thereby minimizing aircraft burden and maximizing the mission success of the V-22.

[bitburger]

system diagram

[bitburger]

diagram 2

[bitburger]

diagram 3

[Xdeth]

12.7mm?? Come on, get with the program folks. 20mm at least, 30mm GAU-8/A preferred. Next thing I'll hear there will be no hardpoints for AGM's or LGB's, sheesh.

[GackMan]

Cool - prep your own LZ.

[TigerHooter]

The 12.7mm TGS provides the most effective ammunition caliber and gun, thereby minimizing aircraft burden and maximizing the mission success of the V-22.
Gatlin gun configurations have no recoil dampning, so 'aircraft burden' has to be considered. The added weight of the buildup of the airframe and mounts required to sustain firing of the heavier rounds, as well as the added weight of the ammo itself, make anything much larger prohibitive. Espcecially for the V-22 which is heavy (power limited) as a 'slick'.

Not to mention rate of fire and velocity. I've worked aircraft equipped with the 20mm chain gun, and didn't like it. The rate of fire and speed of the round made it seem like the aircraft 'caught up with the round', in diving and running fire. The V-22 system is intended for use as a defensive weapon (if the aircraft receives fire on approach, it has something for suppression).

I would be concerned about the 'basic load' of 750 rounds. Even at 'Low' rate, it won't take long before a reload is required.

JMO

[Xdeth]

The whole contract should have been given to Monster Garage.

[KJ]

I agree, 750 is too small, and I bet that re-loading in-flight idea is a suck one. We flew with 3,000 on each gun on the 53, then went down to 1500 on the HH-60. My question is, who is going to fire this gun. It is NOT a gunship, and the pilots have their hands full just trying to fly without crashing. Now they want to be shooters too. Forget about a ramp gun, forget the fact that with the tanks on, you got shit for door guns, just make sure the pilots have a good time. Go ahead, bang me.

[TigerHooter]

Nooo Problem.

[Fire-Gunner]

It would be nice, for a change, if those assholes at G-D would listen to the end-users instead of some pencil-necked geek with a pocket protector when it comes to designing an aircraft or a weapons system. Pilots are already task-saturated in the LZ. Why create more problems? It's like they're determined to get more good people killed, IMO.

[KJ]

Sorry, but if you don't think the pilot will be task saturated doing an approach in a hot LZ in a CV-22, then I digress. How about in a hover, with a guy dangling in the trees, on nods? That's what the door gunners are for. The non-flying pilot you say? Nice thought, until you start talking about night work, and the average flying time of "the left seater." (See that switch? Don't touch that switch. See that switch?...) The designers are talking to the end user. Trouble is, they are just talking to the pilots. Same problem with the 60. It is like this, pardon my parable, you operate a bus line, and are looking for a new bus. So you talk to the drivers, and you end up with a corvette. They didn't want to put an external hoist on this bitch because it would "slow it down," and by almost 6 knots under certain conditions! But a minigun on the nose is Oooookay. Right. Two external gas tanks not enough? Lets put in internal bladders, you know, "temporarily". Anything to let us fly longer. How many vehicles can we fit in that cabin again? Ahh...just a motorcycle you say. Be sure to back it in, because there isn't enough room to turn it around on the inside. How much room will there be after we add in all the extra ammo cans for the nose gun? Just my small, oh so small (like the cabin,) two pesos worth.

[TigerHooter]

KJ,
You are correct. But, when you are on approach or departing, door gunners have a difficult time engaging targets at the twelve o'clock position. Likewise, in multi-ship insertions from a hover, all aircraft are usually oriented the same direction (granted, it doesn't have to be that way). That usually leaves wholes in the fields of fire when only door guns are available. I have 1000s of hours in training and too many in the real shit. I speak with some experience when I say I wished we had nose mounted, head-tracked weapon systems.

Additionally, the aircraft has hands-off hover capability, freeing the pilots up to watch their fields of fire and the aircraft. It makes it easier for the pilot to keep from jerking or repositioning under fire. (EDIT)
I'm not saying this thing does'nt need door guns as well. Hell no! All vertical lift aircraft that are to be used in direct combat operations should have door guns if it has crew members in back. Like you, I want more bullets and armor, less gas and other non-combat accessories.

I loved this:
The non-flying pilot you say? Nice thought, until you start talking about night work, and the average flying time of "the left seater." (See that switch? Don't touch that switch. See that switch?...)
"When asked, 'Which system in the aircraft do you watch the closest?', the crusty, old CWO responded, 'The co-pilot. He is the most likely not to perform to MIL-spec, perform erratically, or outright fail. Unlike failure of a mechanical subsystem, you don't know what the silly bastard in the other seat is likely to do.'

[KJ]

Haha...That's good TH. I agree with you, the 12 (and 6 on non-ramp helo's) are vulnerable spots. I figured I would be hearing from you first also. Understand your statement on 60's. I was a backender with a thousand on 60G's (another thousand on 53s and a thousand on H-3s, yeah, I know, I'm old.) At least I had a seat on the 60 though. On the 53 and 3, you stood the whole time at the doors or sat on the aft ramp. My bias on pilot perspective is because of the 60s limited space I suppose. In rescue, they packed in TWIN 185s in the interior (although they seldom talked about it, go ahead look it up on the internet, they will tell you about a single 117. I think I flew ONE time on a helo that only had a single 117 in it.) Places like Eglin wanted to add in a door .50 also and that meant, if we had a guy in a litter, his head or feet were outside the helicopter! Inside taken up by gas, the space between the door gunners taken up by mini-gun ammo, and we were left with a two foot by 6 foot space for two PJs and any survivors we picked up. I felt that A LOT of flying time had to be spent teaching new co-pilots how to fly around the flagpole without crashing at units that needed to be spun up. Didn't leave enough time to practice the terminal area. I worked the Kirtland schoolhouse for six years and kept seeing their pilot course get smaller and smaller at the expense of the units. The war zone, seems to always be the place where you learn to do the things, you should have been doing all along. Again, my back-ender, muscle-headed, two pesos worth.

[TigerHooter]

I just finished reading through your input on the "Osprey May Win Its War" thread. I didn't realize there were so many problems with the rotor wash on the 22. I haven't really been following its progress, though. If it has wings, Army pilots have little chance to fly it. You're a smart man, but then ALL PJs are GOLD.

I know what you are talking about as far as space in a dedicated CSAR aircraft. I've flown many hours with you guys and your equipment in the back of my MH-60. (Space, what f'n space?) Hell, you had to open a window for room to fart. Check my "Misery and Zen" thread in 'Humor' (recognize who I'm talking about?).

One thing I do differ with you on, well maybe not, is the AF manning schema. Why have 2 FE and 2-3 gunners? The gunners ride all the way to the OA, bored or scared, then the FEs sit there scared in the OA. After all, what does the FE really do enroute that he can't do while manning the gun? The Army has utilized the "crew member(s)" as gunners and/or augmented them with non-MOS related soldiers as gunners when strength restrictions don't allow 2, as in conventional units operating UH-1s and 60s.

Additionally, on the nose gun issue, don't let the guys up front BS you. They aren't that busy. From approach thru to departure in a hot area, one guy is flying and the other is only watching. Guarding the controls or holding his SMG at the ready if he trusts the pilot at the controls. Control and security, thats it. Sure they have to report, and monitor systems (or is that the FE duty), but if they can't do that and provide security fires.., ooh, better stop there. There are lots of AC-130 amd 60G guys in your mission that I love and wouldn't insult them with generalities.

After reading up on the V-22, though, I agree with you. We need something better for CSAR, but it ain't the Osprey.

[Fire-Gunner]

We used a single 185 aux tank when we were deployed and it was great! We're still using the dual 185's now that we're back, but I've heard that there's a smaller single tank in the works that will free up some more space in the back for us. Probably just wishful thinking!

[bitburger]

here is a .pdf translated into html presentation of what the governmet expects of the turreted gun system for the V-22

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:X_Qsa8bc4qwJ:www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf+v-22+turreted+gun+system&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Xdeth]

For the Corps, this is either going to be the biggest bust in it's aviation history and all that goes with it, or at best a solution without much (any?) room to grow.

This aircraft only has to meet two general requirements for tactical success, carry 24 troops 130 NM with a sortie rate of 45 minutes or less, and carry 2 ton external load 50 NM. The other things I've seen listed such as the trans-atlantic capability, really a question of maxed fuel handling, seem unnessecary.

Everything else from the MC perspective besides survivablitly and maintenance which I take as givens compared against the CH-46 doesn't matter much. If you get aything else out of the aircraft it's a bonus, if not well then the major mission req's are met.

Downsides are thie airframe is reported to hit the ground already maxed out, very little growth potential. So for some "special missions", there may be no implementation via MV-22. And of course the question of the simple requirements not being met.

As far as the guns we are discussing, it's not looking like 24 Marines are going to get door or tail guns unless they can fire them themselves(very doubtful). So the nose turret may be all the firepower this thing gets for us anyway.

[KJ]

TH - Really loved your story man. Sorry to hear about your crashing in the jungle, but hey, you’re alive and breathing and shit. Been in a couple myself, (both times it was 53's though). Some day if I am drunk enough, I'll tell you about my close calls in the 60. Crew compliment, yaah, you are a sharp guy, because that is exactly where this argument was destined from the beginning. I argued it at HQ PACAF a bunch on my last fling. The gist is: we at least managed to move crew ratios up to 2 per aircraft. As you may know, aircrew manning is based on airframes X crew compliment x crew ratio = manning assigned. In Vietnam, the AF helicopter ratio was 1.5 for all positions. Up until a few years ago, it was still 1.5 for all positions. We had a problem with that, because with the advent of NVG's, there was now the reality of 24 hr. operations. Why was the manning the same as it was back in the days of a daylight-only war? Probably saw the same problem for the Army. First, we managed to bump the FE manning to 1.75 using the advanced avionics argument. Then we went to 2.0 for the works and added a gunner position. It still ain't right. But there are reasons. My personal opinion is the Army undermanned and the Air Force over-manned (but that is Okay if you can beef maintenance up enough to support continued flying around the clock, like a civilian airliner say.) In the Vietnam days and most of my career, the PJs were the door gunners and rescue specialists, both. Why do we now need gunners? I’ll tell you why (but it ain’t right.) As flying became complicated and night flying required everybody’s eyes, and the Air Force staff kept adding more and more and MORE aircrew currency and bullshit, it reached a critical point. We, as PJs were spending damn near 85 percent of our time supporting pilot and FE flight currency. We were just scanning the left position. Let me put it in real terms for the pilot position even. You have a 9 bird squadron, some 32 pilots, counting the CC and Stan/Eval guy (DO’s may or most likely, may not rate their own manpower billet.) Half of all these pilots are good flyers, this would include the CC, DO, two Stan/Eval guys, and at least two or three instructors. That might leave four or five AC’s (there is, and will remain, a shortage of AC’s since the deployment structure went HD/LD and the demands of that position are escalating closer to an instructor, than a solo pilot.) The rest are co-pilots or brand new AC’s that need watching. To fix it, you need to fly, fly, fly. But safety demands that you fly with the left-scanner on damn near every flight. What training was the PJ in the left window getting? Nada, except maybe a gun profile every now and then, oh and a 60-day flight, um…every other day. It reached the point where, if you were to ask a PJ to do it today, he might kill you. So, the Air Force bought gunners. Now, everybody is happy. As for the Army way, I have met great Army aviators and great Army crew chiefs, but honestly, I never met a great crew chief that was also a great gunner. If he was, he didn’t sleep, and that means he is either fixing or flying tired, and THAT will catch up to him someday and maybe even kill everybody. Oh, I haven’t even mentioned the need to add CCT on CSAR. Hmmm…we need an Israeli 53. Two engines, with beefed up hydraulics. Sorry, I am drifting. A bigger aircraft with nose gun and ramp gun. Door guns that can actually have effective arcs of fire, and an aircraft that is fast enough to keep up with the strike package. Oh well, where is my Millenium Falcon?

Fire-gunner – I saw the gas tank of which you speak. Picture a 117 that goes all the way to the ceiling. I saw it at the 422nd while I was doing some TIP work. Anyway, bottom line was the contractor wanted some Ungodly amount of money for it. Close to 80 or 100k if my memory serves me correct. Try talking with Portland before they close. Think they made their own that worked great, but couldn’t get Warner Robins to get off their asses and certify crash worthiness.

P.S. (Bonus question: How come, the KG 10-21 can’t come with a 10 ft. cable so the PJ team leader [who is trained on it, yeah right, I know, I am dreaming] can flight follow, know where you are kicking him out at, and even, perish the thought, call out wires within a half mile? Just a two peso thought for you.)

[TigerHooter]

We are getting off the MV-22 here, but let me respond to a few of the points since my last post.
I preface the following statement with, "In the past...".

MH-60:

SPACE-
We did a lot of missions with only one aux tank, depending on mission duaration requirements. The crewchiefs/mechanics hated having to take them out and put them back in, so the aircraft usually stayed conigured however the last mission profile left it until profile dictated otherwise. However, it was pointed out that the airwothiness release only covered the two tank configuration, so that became a questionable option. When I retired, I thought they were just short of seeking an airwothiness release for the smaller, bench type tank for the 60L.

MANNING-
The 160th had the best 'authorized' strength level in the Army and the best we ever got was 1.5. That means we were 'authorized' 3 pilots and 3 CEs for each MH-60. However, that one extra crew member on each side included the FNGs in our Green Platoon and crew qual training programs. So we pretty much worked with 1 man for each crew seat, if we were up to strength. The AFSOC got smart faster than our guys about driving the personnel train. They wrote mission specific minimum crew requirements into their safety regulations, then used those to justify higher manning requirements. We jumped on the bandwagon. My point is that the AF in general runs like a union. This guy is an FE, if you want someone to man a gun, get a gunner. They have 4 or 5 crew members and gunners in a 53, we use the FE, CE, and one extra CE as a tail gunner in the 47. See what I mean? And KJ, our CEs were shit hot on the guns. But then that was their favorite part of the mission and we had endless ammo. KJ points out in a 9 bird squadron they have 32 pilots. When I was the assault platoon leader, I had 10 MH-60s and only 16-18 pilots in the platoon (authorized-19). The XO and Ops Officer also filled seats, when you could get them. I hear your dilemna as far as PJs having to be 'scanners', but that is a result of AFSOCs attempt to get more FEs and Gunners authorized by increasing the regulatory requirements.

Back to the
MV-22-
In regards to Xdeth's comments on the Osprey, it seams like our unit did the same with the MH-60K. It started out as a great airframe package, but we put so much more on it as basic aircraft subsystems, that at fielding, it couldn't lift as many team guys as we could with the 60L. Back to taking out tanks, dropping wing stores and wings, etc. It's the old 'briefcase' rule. "No matter how big a briefcase you get, within a month or two you'll have it so stuffed, you'll need a bigger one."
One trick our unit used in the 60A/Ls, just increase the Max Allowable Gross Weight. If you have power enough, go for it. -crack, pop, screee-

In summation; give me more guns, guys that love to shoot 'em, and enough ammo to turn the night sky green.

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally posted by TigerHooter
[B

In summation; give me more guns, guys that love to shoot 'em, and enough ammo to turn the night sky green. [/B]

Great discussion:

Terry

[Highspeed160th]

Originally posted by TigerHooter
One trick our unit used in the 60A/Ls, just increase the Max Allowable Gross Weight. If you have power enough, go for it. -crack, pop, screee-

[/B]

If it won't go just remove the N1 safeties and make adjustments that you can correct after Just Cause (C20's). Err these comments do not reflect on the Army or the safety center in any way.

KJ, I always wondered, what do the gunners do when they are not flying? What are their other duties?

[Xdeth]

Originally posted by TigerHooter

.
Back to the
MV-22-
In regards to Xdeth's comments on the Osprey, it seams like our unit did the same with the MH-60K. It started out as a great airframe package, but we put so much more on it as basic aircraft subsystems, that at fielding, it couldn't lift as many team guys as we could with the 60L. Back to taking out tanks, dropping wing stores and wings, etc. It's the old 'briefcase' rule. "No matter how big a briefcase you get, within a month or two you'll have it so stuffed, you'll need a bigger one."
One trick our unit used in the 60A/Ls, just increase the Max Allowable Gross Weight. If you have power enough, go for it. -crack, pop, screee-

In summation; give me more guns, guys that love to shoot 'em, and enough ammo to turn the night sky green.


It's all upsides for you guys, tear the inside out and refit it with untold number of gadgets and guns. Who knows maybe hard points and gatlings make this thing a lightweight SPECTRE, like I said Monster Garage.

[Sdiver]

This is a very interesting topic. I just want to 'spit ball' here for a sec.

I can see the need for some type of weapon to be brought to bear in the front of the AC. I harken back to the days of WW II, where the B-17 pilots complained of German aircraft coming up from under the nose and firing on the planes. Boeing then introduced the "G" model that had twin .50's on a nose mount, that was controled and fired by the Co-pilot. (it also had off set waist gunners, because in the older planes such as the D and E models, they were always bumping into each other).

Has anyone ever thought of mounting the weapon on the top of the AC? (this is were the 'spit balling' comes in effect) again I'll use the B-17 as an example. There was a top turret gunner positioned behind the cockpit that fired twin .50's. Would something like that be effective? Looking at the diagram that is posted at the begining of this Thread I can see a weapons system mounted behind the cockpit and opperated by a gunner, maybe sitting in a swiviling type chair? (Like on the Millinium Falcon......Right KJ ;) ) The weapon could be fit up with some type of lift system that adds height and greater down angle for the front and sides of the AC. (Ahhh yes I see it now....a new MOS for the Corps....."What did you you do in the Marine Corps Daddy?" "I was a top turret gunner on a V-22 son." "WOW !!!! That's what I want to be when I grow up.")

Like I said.....Just Spit Ballin

[GackMan]

Ok i'll play, spitball right back at ya... ;)

the top turret in the B17 was for engaging air to air threats.

which aren't really an issue these days for a couple reasons that my pea-brain can come up with: 1) us air superiority in most theaters makes air to air threats against lift aircraft pretty scarce and 2) in WWII guns were the threat from enemy air, with missiles and laser beams and death rays and what not - a gun bubble wouldn't be much help against an SA-6.

Most of the fire is needed to suppress ground targets either to force insertion or, more commonly, to expedite departure.

If those ESSS tanks are a pain in the ass to shoot around on a 60, imagine shooting down from the dorsal position of the airframe. it would work ok when you were on the ground flat and level with targets, but engaging targets while airborne wouldn't be very practical... unless you want to fly inverted, with a sling load, under goggles, along the P-518… no shit there I was.

How about a chin bubble? you want to put in a chin bubble and recruit little short ass dudes to climb down in there?

[Sdiver]

I guess I didn't make myself clear.....(I do that alot, Sorry)

I know that the top turret on the 17's, 24's, 25's and 29's and all others, were for air surpression. What I'm saying is, mounting a telesopic type turret controled by a gunner in the AC. The more I think about it he doesn't need to be in the swivil chair (Oh No...NOT the Commfy CHAIR !!!!!), the gunner could even be wearing some type of helmet mounted system, like the gunners on Apache's and the new Commanche's.

The weapon could be raised when an insertion or extraction is under way, to allow for a greater down angle fire. The Chin mounted system as on the diagram at the begining of the thread, would be somewhat ineffective as the AC was on the ground. The only good thing that I see it doing would be cutting down trees. (But yes, it would keep the bad guys heads down).

I'm really thinking Monster garage here.

[KJ]

Originally posted by Highspeed160th

KJ, I always wondered, what do the gunners do when they are not flying? What are their other duties?

Good question to ask Fire-Gunner. He is an aerial gunner after all. (by the way F-G, you did know that I spent three years at the 129th as a PJ tech, probably before you were born, right?) Ryan Renuart used to be a PaveHawk gunner also before he succumbed to the Dark Side and became an FE.

[Fire-Gunner]

Originally posted by KJ
Good question to ask Fire-Gunner. He is an aerial gunner after all. (by the way F-G, you did know that I spent three years at the 129th as a PJ tech, probably before you were born, right?) Ryan Renuart used to be a PaveHawk gunner also before he succumbed to the Dark Side and became an FE.

I was born in '66, but you're still old! ;) We know alot of the same people. I've heard your name mentioned, but there were nothing but good things said about you, I swear!
:D
I met Ryan at Patrick last year, he's a good dude.

Originally posted by Highspeed160th
KJ, I always wondered, what do the gunners do when they are not flying? What are their other duties?

Full-time gunners usually have the same additional duties as an FE, like working in Tactics, Stan/Eval, Training, etc.

[Rotor Strike please]

KJ,
I've given up on the dark side of the force. As I deployed before my training date into FE-dom, I was given the option to stay a gunner forever. As it originally stood, I was only offered a job with the reserves as an FE. I decided that I prefered being a gunner, so I am now and forever more a gunner. Take that, Dark Side!

The discussion, which I just now discovered, has intrigued me a bit. It seems to me that the issue of having or not having a gunner has bypassed a critical component. That is crew resource management. The Army guys I have flown with, to include the SOAR, seem to have less work to do in the helicopter. The AF seems to have integrated the enlisted crewmembers to a greater degree than the Army. We are constantly working tactics issues, radios, and god forbid...checklists. The FE's have pawned off a few of their duties to us. The SOAR guys are seemingly an exception to the Army rule. We are included in all aspects of the decision making process. Long gone are the days of the guy in the left seat being only allowed to say, "Clear Left." I am more of a mission specialist that shoots the guns than ever before. As much as I hate to say it, we might have to merge with the FE career field to survive the CV-22 generation. There always needs to be crew served weapons on the aircraft that do LZ work. Whether you call them Gunners, FE's, Lesbian Anti-Gravity Projectors, it does not matter. I think that the CV-22 might do well with less than two FE's. The gunners could man the hoist as well as the right side of the aircraft. All it takes is more training. I know, I know, we aren't supposed to know anything about the aircraft from the 12 O'Clock position to the 6. Leave the FE to systems and mission managing and allow the gunners to be the shooters. Also, leave the PJ's to do what they do best, medicine. They are undermanned and undertrained to be an active scanner in today's hectic mission profile. Could they be retrained to do it? Sure. Do they want to? No way.

Any way you cut it though, leave the damned CV-22 out of the CSAR mission. Chin gun or no.

[TigerHooter]

required for an MH-60 NG flight? Just a plain vanilla proficiency iteration or hop, what ever the AF calls it now days.

I knew little of what the 53s required back in '96 when I left the job, but we always joked about how it takes at least 1/2 again as many 'crew members' in the AF to do the same job that the Army does. In the Army the 'crew members', the flight engineer/senior crewchief and crew chief, are also the gunners. They were charged with maintaining the aircraft, marshalling, aircraft clearance/spotter duties, and gunner duties. We did not require, nor need, someone with a different MOS (or AF equivelant). We didn't call the medics or PJs that flew with us 'crew members'. If your job requires you to depart the aircraft during the mission, you are not a crew member, you are a customer. I refer back to my comparison of what has been stated as the AF requirements for a 53 and ours for a 47. 5 vs 3. Two men doesn't seem like much, but we all know how much we and our gear weighs. Take out those two extra 'crew members' and you gain at least one big 'bubba' with a heavy load.

Like I said, I believe in guns, but aviation is a space and weight limited operation. For every pound of crew member or mission gear you put on, that's one less that the customer can use. I agree that the V-22; (1) needs door and tail guns, it just doesn't need 5 crew members in the back to run them, and (2) is not suited to CSAR.

On the 'turrent' idea from earlier, too much weight and drag.

[KJ]

Well, I can't tell you if the regs have changed, but it used to be for an MH-60 NVG flight: crew of four. Vanila night flight, with lights (what we used to call 60 -16) i.e. night hoist (over the helipad) or transition, then three.

[TigerHooter]

Originally posted by KJ
Well, I can't tell you if the regs have changed, but it used to be for an MH-60 NVG flight: crew of four. Vanila night flight, with lights (what we used to call 60 -16) i.e. night hoist (over the helipad) or transition, then three.

Was it 4 for tatical NVG/NS ops (ie, NOE/contour)?

[KJ]

Four required for any low level. In the Air Force, the right and left scanner clear your turns. The Air Force did not allow NOE when I was in. The backend had a much higher role, for instance, the airplane did not take off until the right and left (and tail on a 53) scanner cleared the aircraft up. My experience with trainiing Army cross-over pilots at Kirtland was...that they were very good low level and always flew their approaches much hotter than an only Air Force trained pilot. Their formation work, however, usually sucked as well as the air refueling, but that was to be expected, wasn't it? It got so, I could tell a pilots background without asking him after one two-hour sortie. "You used to fly hueys didn't you sir?" "Why, yes, how did you know Sgt?" "You are clearing the pilot's left turns for him, instead of letting me do that." Etc, etc.

[TigerHooter]

Originally posted by KJ
Four required for any low level. In the Air Force, the right and left scanner clear your turns. The Air Force did not allow NOE when I was in. The backend had a much higher role, for instance, the airplane did not take off until the right and left (and tail on a 53) scanner cleared the aircraft up. My experience with trainiing Army cross-over pilots at Kirtland was...that they were very good low level and always flew their approaches much hotter than an only Air Force trained pilot. Their formation work, however, usually sucked as well as the air refueling, but that was to be expected, wasn't it? It got so, I could tell a pilots background without asking him after one two-hour sortie. "You used to fly hueys didn't you sir?" "Why, yes, how did you know Sgt?" "You are clearing the pilot's left turns for him, instead of letting me do that." Etc, etc.
"Clear left, right, and above", has been standard Army aviation terminology since at least 1977 when I went through flight school. But, like I said, the AF is more like a union, with regulations used to justify manning levels. To justify the regs that justify the manning levels, the AF pilot is not even allowed to clear his own "tail". Besides that, since Army pilots are forbidden to wear those cool 'Nick Danger' scarves, we CAN turn our heads enough to clear the opposite side of the aircraft (on OH-6s, -58s, UH-1s, AH-1s, and UH/MH-60s). Hell, I probably have 50-100 hours flying single-pilot in the UH-1 series, without a crewchief! I felt foolish talking to myself, so I admit even I had to remind myself to ask about that which I knew, when others were on board. Now if pax were involved and there was a crew member aft, it was verbotten to take off before receiving the 'OK' from the rear. Not saying it didn't happen; I just know some old Army crewchief came up with the idea of STABO and FRIES/SPIES from previous premature take-offs when he was 'slung' by his commo cord. Probably where break-away valves came from as well.?

RE:
always flew their approaches much hotter than an only Air Force trained pilot. Their formation work, however, usually sucked as well...
That is because Army pilots were trained by Army pilots. Who had probably been shot at/up on approach to LZs. 'Airspeed is your friend'! If you come under fire, it gets you through the fire faster, allows you to maneuver better and regain "getaway speed", if that is what is needed, and gives you more options should your engine get shot out. Most AF pilots would even fail the FAA Practical (flight) Test for Helicopter due to their slow approaches. "Always maintain an airspeed thet will allow you to reach your intended point of landing, regardless of engine state." Besides that, the guys in back (pax) aren't impressed as much if you 'milk it in'. Formation flying is for 'dog and pony shows'; it's not tactical. Ask a Ranger how strange it feels to try to stand asshole to elbow in the chow line after coming back in from the field after a month. Tactical separation!
Their formation work, however, usually sucked as well as the air refueling, but that was to be expected, wasn't it?
Yer right there, our air was (almost) always fine.

You say you got where you could identify an Army pilot, after a two hour sortie, without even asking. After working so long off of AF and Navy/Marine bases, I could tell the Army guys from the others at a glance, from behind (no name plates/tapes). The AF and Navy guys were the ones that didn't have wrinkles nor sweat stains in the ass of their flight suits at the club. Because they had them hanging in their locker/car all day while they were in Class Bs or civies and put them on (with those damned scarves) just before going to the club.

Just funnin', kinda, sorta!?

[KJ]

Originally posted by TigerHooter
I felt foolish talking to myself, so I admit even I had to remind myself to ask about that which I knew
Just as long as you are not talking to yourself all the time now. lol.

Most AF pilots would even fail the FAA Practical (flight) Test for Helicopter due to their slow approaches. If you think Air Force pilots fly slow approaches you should fly along with a Navy 60 with tricycle gear some time. I mean FOREVER, even numbers all the way to the ground.

The AF and Navy guys were the ones that didn't have wrinkles nor sweat stains in the ass of their flight suits at the club. Guess you guys never figured out that the chicks REALLY dug an ass in a flight suit.:cool:

[TigerHooter]

Originally posted by KJ

Guess you guys never figured out that the chicks REALLY dug an ass in a flight suit.:cool:
I'll keep settin' 'em up, you keep knockin' 'em down.

"Am I tawkin' ta ME?
Am I.. tawkin' ta ME!?"

[Ace]

Originally posted by TigerHooter
I just know some old Army crewchief......................from previous premature take-offs when he was 'slung' by his commo cord.

Guilty, What sucks about that is when the cord unplugs and you're hanging there by your harness and you can't get his attention. About the only time you pray the guy up front looks back to clear the tail.

Of course I would get them back about an hour later by walking up the skids and start beating the shit out of the side window, LOL.

[TigerHooter]

start a new fuel consumption check now that we have these fat-butt boys on board. I'm showing 1850lbs at 0212."

"Ace!"

"Ace?"