Proposed Aerial Artillery System

[Michel Van]

Helicopter mounted 105 mm artillery concept developed by US Army Weapons Command (WECOM) in the 1960s

Source Rock Island Arsenal museum

found on Twitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1129408124471992321

 

[Grey Havoc]

It looks like the design used the UH-1C as its basis. If it had made it to the prototype stage, it is logical to assume that it would have pretty quickly ended up being fitted with a four-bladed hingeless rotor in order to take advantage of the progress with that new technology in the same time period.

 

[Pioneer]

How interesting, and yet simple!

I'm wondering/suspecting it could be the utilisation of the XM204 Soft Recoil 105mm howitzer, as proposed mounted on the CH-47 gunship.

When I say 'simple', I mean the adoption of the stripped-down UH-1 Iroquois


Regards
Pioneet

 

[yasotay]

No helicopter pilot worthy of the name would be caught flying that thing. Arguably the ugliest thing I have ever seen. It would not have been able to fly as the air would be too repelled by it.

 

[taildragger]

I don't think it makes any sense except as a way to avoid some Key West prohibition on the Army having air-launched missiles. I haven't done the math, but it seems likely to me that this would be a single-purpose system whose gun, loading mechanism and recoil management system (whatever that would be) would dramatically limit the payload available for ammunition. A less specialized helicopter of a similar size carrying missles could probably deliver a heavier and more accurate punch.

 

[TomS]

I don't know if this was meant to be fired in flight. It sort of looks like it's meant to be fired on the ground, as a faster way to bring artillery into action supporting airmobile ground forces than sling or internally carried guns.

 

[dan_inbox]

Firing from the ground seems rather unlikely, with those flimsy skids.

 

[TomS]

The description says gun-launcher, so it might be something akin to the 115mm XM-70.

 

[Jemiba]

I won't put too much faith in that sketch with the tray-like chassis and that "cockpit", that looks like a
baby buggy put on top of it. Or is it just a kind of a windscreen for the gunner/loader and the cockpit
actually is those two cabins besides the engine ?
Whatever, IF built, it certainly would have looked quite different.

 

[GTX]

Part of similar studies?

 

[taildragger]

Part of similar studies?

View attachment 615964

Now there's a dumb idea. I can't imagine that anything so half-baked got serious consideration even if somebody did take the time to draw a picture of it. The gun recoil would break the Chinook in half and/or collapse its landing gear. Adequately strengthening the airframe to allow it to double as a gun carriage would dramatically reduce the payload and, if designed for structural efficiency, would make the helicopter unbalanced. Also, note that the forward rotor has had a blade removed (possibly to get it out of the path of the outgoing round and shockwave).

 

[Ravinoff]

Part of similar studies?

View attachment 615964

Now there's a dumb idea. I can't imagine that anything so half-baked got serious consideration even if somebody did take the time to draw a picture of it. The gun recoil would break the Chinook in half and/or collapse its landing gear. Adequately strengthening the airframe to allow it to double as a gun carriage would dramatically reduce the payload and, if designed for structural efficiency, would make the helicopter unbalanced. Also, note that the forward rotor has had a blade removed (possibly to get it out of the path of the outgoing round and shockwave).

That'd be where the XM204 recoil-reduced howitzer would likely come into play. 1965 is a bit early as the XM204 was developed more in the '70s, but it looks like the Army was playing around with the helicopter howitzer concept for a while during the Vietnam era.

 

[yasotay]

Well you are only going to do low angle shooting if the rotors are turning. Obviously someone asked about rapid mobility artillery without slingloads and the engineers went to work.

 

[TomS]

Well you are only going to do low angle shooting if the rotors are turning. Obviously someone asked about rapid mobility artillery without slingloads and the engineers went to work.

Just seems like if it was small enough to carry this way, it would be small enough to roll out the rear ramp and set up conventionally. I can imagine a Chinook carrying a 105 light gun with a little built-in APU tug and racked ammo along the cabin walls for ready service. Instant firebase.

 

[yasotay]

Just seems like if it was small enough to carry this way, it would be small enough to roll out the rear ramp and set up conventionally. I can imagine a Chinook carrying a 105 light gun with a little built-in APU tug and racked ammo along the cabin walls for ready service. Instant firebase.

Well where is the fun in that! No engineering challenge there. I'm sure some staff officer with raised eyebrow made your point at the "questions or comments" part at the end of the briefing.

 

[Charlesferdinand]

Why would you want to have a flying heavy cannon? I can see the point of airmobile artilley, but that would do its shooting from the ground.

Once you are in the air, if you want to deliver a powerful punch, it surely is more effective to drop bombs or, if pinpoint accuracy is needed, use a guided weapon.

 

[TomS]

Why would you want to have a flying heavy cannon? I can see the point of airmobile artilley, but that would do its shooting from the ground.

Once you are in the air, if you want to deliver a powerful punch, it surely is more effective to drop bombs or, if pinpoint accuracy is needed, use a guided weapon.

Well, consider that these sketches are mid-1960s, before guided weapons were widespread and before it was even obvious that they would become common. (Paveway was first tested the same year as the CH-47 concept art above). At the time, a gun shell had a good chance of being more accurate than a dropped bomb. Note that they built a 105mm gun into the AC-130H just a few years later.

 

[fightingirish]

Look, Cobra from G.I Joe has got a new toy.

Now that's what we call flying artillery.
This 1960s drawing of an Advanced Air Mobile Artillery Weapon is from the R&E division of US Weapons Command (WECOM) at Rock Island Arsenal

Sources:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Charlesferdinand]

That is even better than the missile-launching motorbikes of Megaforce

 

[youROKer]

Several interesting photos (source: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4621180613167635):

 

[Tomahawk missile fan]

That is even better than the missile-launching motorbikes of Megaforce

This is the Moto Destroyer.
Armament of 4 missiles and 3 turrets gun.
I'm one of favorite movie.

 

[youROKer]

Another version of the Aerial Artillery System.

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/RIAMuseum/posts/526079042228740

View: https://www.facebook.com/RIAMuseum/posts/526079042228740

 

[Charlesferdinand]

That rotor looks dangerously close to the muzzle of the howitzer.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The artist is just not very good at perspective. There are some DIA paintings with similar issues. It would be no worse than the 105mm howitzer on the AC-130 provided the helicopter's structure were reinforced.

 

[Pioneer]

That rotor looks dangerously close to the muzzle of the howitzer.

The fact that the helicopter had to fold it's main rotor to employ the howitzer says it all.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TomS]

That rotor looks dangerously close to the muzzle of the howitzer.

The fact that the helicopter had to fold it's main rotor to employ the howitzer says it all.....

At least it's a CH-53, so the blade fold is powered. But it's kinda funny seeing WECOM design a system for the Sea Stallion.

 

[youROKer]

Another extremely unusual version of the Aerial Artillery System.

Source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1590377660508930048

View: https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1590377660508930048

 

[yasotay]

That is interesting. At least they thought about where the rotors are when shooting the primary.

 

[publiusr]

I don't think it makes any sense except as a way to avoid some Key West prohibition on the Army having air-launched missiles. I haven't done the math, but it seems likely to me that this would be a single-purpose system whose gun, loading mechanism and recoil management system (whatever that would be) would dramatically limit the payload available for ammunition. A less specialized helicopter of a similar size carrying missles could probably deliver a heavier and more accurate punch.

A drone whose fuselage is a recoilless barrel/missile tube might be rather simple.

 

[hesham]

From, Army Aviation Digest 1958,

here is a hypothetical concepts.

 

[publiusr]

I could see a barrel sliding in a chopper’s tail?

 

[fightingirish]

Shown here is the XM21 proposed subsystem on the UH-1C Huey. Interestingly, this rendering also shows what appears to be an XM140 30-mm automatic gun. The XM140 was designed to be used on the AH-56 and AH-1s.

Shown here is an AH-1G equipped with the M18 Armament Pod modified for the XM195 20-mm automatic gun. This rendering also displays the M28A1 subsystem equipped with the M134 machine gun and the M129 grenade launcher.

Source:

It wasn’t just napalm: A tale of the Huey and Cobra in Vietnam

When thinking about the Vietnam War, what comes to mind? Perhaps it is the sights and smells of napalm or the harrowing scenes in magazines or newspaper...

www.army.mil