Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

HH-60 Blackhawks get extra firepower

Wikiposts
Search
Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

HH-60 Blackhawks get extra firepower

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 24th Nov 2022, 12:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes on 1,200 Posts
HH-60 Blackhawks get extra firepower

They are now sporting twin mounts in the doorways

While exploring new ways to provide combat search and rescue teams with more firepower, the U.S. Air Force developed a doorway gun mount to arm its HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters with four additional M240 machine guns. Built using repurposed armament parts, the solution would supplement the HH-60’s dedicated gunner aperture and offer a cheap way to increase the amount of lead that combat search and rescue helicopters could pump out by using equipment that is already in the inventory.
Pictures of the weapons system below

Twin Machine Gun Configuration Developed For HH-60 Helicopter Doors (msn.com)
NutLoose is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2022, 15:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,287
Received 506 Likes on 210 Posts
Two M-240's have far less capability than a single 7.62 Mini-gun.....which begs the question why not just mount a second mini-gun and do way with the M-240's altogether?

Is it a weight issue....weight of the gun and mount plus the sheer amount of ammunition the mini-gun eats up when firing?

Or is there some other reason that prevents that.

4800-5000 Rounds per minute from the mini-gun at full chat compared to 1300-1500 rounds per minute from the twin M-240's seems to challenge the value of the new Twin mount.
SASless is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2022, 18:57
  #3 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Two M-240's have far less capability than a single 7.62 Mini-gun.....which begs the question why not just mount a second mini-gun and do way with the M-240's altogether?

Is it a weight issue....weight of the gun and mount plus the sheer amount of ammunition the mini-gun eats up when firing?

Or is there some other reason that prevents that.

4800-5000 Rounds per minute from the mini-gun at full chat compared to 1300-1500 rounds per minute from the twin M-240's seems to challenge the value of the new Twin mount.
The article suggests too much torque in the 50cal mount and too much power required for miniguns
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2022, 19:40
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,287
Received 506 Likes on 210 Posts
Does not seem to be an insurmountable problem.....but I have. noticed the pairing of a single mini-gun on one side with a M2 .50 cal or M-240 on the other side and always wondered about that.

The MH-60 M Penetrator has a fit of two forward firing 7.62 Mini-guns and also has an option for two .50 cal three barreled mini-guns. as some sources mention.

It sounded like it could also be fitted with two 30mm guns found on the Apache.

I wonder what the rest of the story is about all of this?

SASless is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2022, 07:30
  #5 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Does not seem to be an insurmountable problem.....but I have. noticed the pairing of a single mini-gun on one side with a M2 .50 cal or M-240 on the other side and always wondered about that.

The MH-60 M Penetrator has a fit of two forward firing 7.62 Mini-guns and also has an option for two .50 cal three barreled mini-guns. as some sources mention.

It sounded like it could also be fitted with two 30mm guns found on the Apache.

I wonder what the rest of the story is about all of this?
I suspect it's a solvable problem, but it sounds like part of the requirement was "need nothing new, only existing parts/procedures" which probably prevents something more solid. Part of an "innovate with what you've got" process. Lots of similar things springing up all over the US at the moment.
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.