Gun Ship attacks

Since the early videos of the Iraqi war, I have been frequently puzzled about how a typical gunship attack is achieved. For example, the one Assange made famous is typical. Basically, the military is observing the scene with high-powered optics we must assume because we see those below clearly enough to determine what they are doing and even sometimes if they are carrying a rifle or RPG.

But the aircraft is obviously standing off at some distance....isn't it? And why isn't the potential targets not showing a an awareness of the beat of a 'choppers blades or the drone of a C-130, etc?

The bad guys on the ground would be keenly aware of the possible danger from any aircraft in the vicinity. So why are they seemingly caught unaware?

There are two other troubling aspects that puzzle me. Whatever the a/c is, it seems to be barely moving over the scene. sometimes, it seems to be stationary. I know that there are image-stabilization cameras, but this ability seems far beyond that in that the perspective hardly seems to change as the camera covers the target.

The other aspect is that the time between when we hear the 20mm(?) firing until the projectiles impact the ground is very short. The video doesn't appear to have been condensed to eliminate that lag. So it would appear that the position of the gun is pretty damned close to the targets and, thus, the sound of the a/c should have been noticed by the targets. Not to mention that such a gun has range limitations.

Even if the video is from a low earth orbit satellite and target data relayed to the gunship, that still doesn't satisfactorily explain how the gunship could be so close.

It could be said that the targets were so used to the noise of a/c that they didn't give them a second glance. Admittedly, in Assange's video the guys could have been entirely innocent, but as dangerous as the whole situation was over there at that time,. I would suppose everybody would be on-edge and observant of the slightest hint of danger.

Can any of you air weaponry experts clear up this matter for me?

reply to post by Aliensun


The collateral murder video you are referring to wasn't a plane, it was a chopper. An AH-64 (or maybe a cobra).

There werent "bad guys" in that video, which is probably why they weren't running. Insurgents run, there are enough vids of that on youtube/liveleak.

Here's what it looks like without the guncam:


Edit: @iLoGiCViZiOnS, no it is manned. You are thinking of predator drones or uavs. Too much BC2 methinks

They are Unmanned Stealth Helicopters that hover silently and out of site. Technology is Power. Hitler knew this better than anyone. The best part is the people flying them can be located anywhere in the world drinking their morning coffee just before they blow up a few unsuspecting individuals in Afghanistan etc. Kinda like video games but NOT! Do some research....

Originally posted by iLoGiCViZiOnS
They are Unmanned Stealth Helicopters that hover silently and out of site. Technology is Power. Hitler knew this better than anyone. The best part is the people flying them can be located anywhere in the world drinking their morning coffee just before they blow up a few unsuspecting individuals in Afghanistan etc. Kinda like video games but NOT! Do some research....

"Do some research..."

Where did you come up with this earth shattering information? Is this in:

A blog or website?

A book or magazine?

Do you have some sort of "security clearance?"

Are you just making this crap up?

reply to post by MurrayTORONTO


I found few of those videos directly addressed my questions about exactly as posed. For instance, there is one with a guy walking along a path with two RPGs over his shoulders. "Bad guy" right? (We never saw what happened, but killing innocents or not isn't my point.) In that instance, the image is from about 70-80 degrees off of being vertically over him so the a/c was nearly overhead. And by the delay between firing and impact the distance was not great. Why didn't he hear the a/c and do something rather than just go bopping along?

And yes, war is Hell, and we should not have been involved in either of them..

To answer the OP's question. I believe the majority of the footage is shot by surveillance drones usually at an altitude where rotor engine noise is minimal:

n a typical mission the Predator cruises at an altitude of up to 25,000 feet

www.defense-update.com...

Other footage is shot by gun cameras during ongoing combat operations. On the ground you would be aware of rotor noises all around you, not necessarily realizing that you were being singled out and targeted. .

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
"Do some research..."

Where did you come up with this earth shattering information? Is this in:

A blog or website? I am sure there are blogs about it.

A book or magazine? Have seen articles on it. Popular Science etc..

Do you have some sort of "security clearance?" To opinionated for one of those.

Are you just making this crap up? Like I said...Do the reasearch.....Its been on the news before, and that show 60 Minutes. This is not new News just apparently new to you. Always happy to be of service.

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
To answer the OP's question. I believe the majority of the footage is shot by surveillance drones usually at an altitude where rotor engine noise is minimal:

n a typical mission the Predator cruises at an altitude of up to 25,000 feet

www.defense-update.com...

Other footage is shot by gun cameras during ongoing combat operations. On the ground you would be aware of rotor noises all around you, not necessarily realizing that you were being singled out and targeted. .

edit on 2/1/2011 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)

Many of the firing instances I have seen are cannon firing from 'copters or something else, You hear it. Out in the quiet countryside of Afganistan the drones must be high enough to be dead quiet to those they blast. (No pun intended.) I live in the country close to a Texas NG base and as the old saying goes you can hear the 'copters coming a mile away. And the higher they are, more distant they are when you first hear them. Plus, the more they are in a hover mode, the noiser they are.

As I mentioned in the original OP, the simple explanations that should explain the circumstances, do not do it for me.

I'll add that with heavy missile attacks to bridges, etc. the videos clearly show that the missile did not come from the area of the camera, but perhaps those were cruise missiles fired from elsewhere and watched over by drones.

Originally posted by iLoGiCViZiOnS
Originally posted by clay2 baraka
"Do some research..."

Where did you come up with this earth shattering information? Is this in:

A blog or website? I am sure there are blogs about it.

A book or magazine? Have seen articles on it. Popular Science etc..

Do you have some sort of "security clearance?" To opinionated for one of those.

Are you just making this crap up? Like I said...Do the reasearch.....Its been on the news before, and that show 60 Minutes. This is not new News just apparently new to you. Always happy to be of service.

edit on 1-2-2011 by iLoGiCViZiOnS because: (no reason given)

This video?


Generally when an assertion is made it is up to the claimant to provide back up, at least that's the way we do things on ATS.

Still looking for a stealth attack copter UAV. .

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

Generally when an assertion is made it is up to the claimant to provide back up, at least that's the way we do things on ATS.

Still looking for a stealth attack copter UAV. .

Yeah thats the one. Nomally I do back up everything I say when its my thread. However when reading someone else's thread and making comments, I feel comfortable making an assertation as you say and letting them do the research. The Reaper can fly 50,000 feet and hover for over 15 hours straight. They wanted to know what could do that kinda damage. Well there it is....

Originally posted by iLoGiCViZiOnS

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

Generally when an assertion is made it is up to the claimant to provide back up, at least that's the way we do things on ATS.

Still looking for a stealth attack copter UAV. .

Yeah thats the one. Nomally I do back up everything I say when its my thread. However when reading someone else's thread and making comments, I feel comfortable making an assertation as you say and letting them do the research. The Reaper can fly 50,000 feet and hover for over 15 hours straight. They wanted to know what could do that kinda damage. Well there it is....

edit on 2-2-2011 by iLoGiCViZiOnS because: (no reason given)

Uh.... no. The Reaper is not a helicopter, and it can not hover. It flies like a regular plane.

As for the OP... my guess would be either they are very used to hearing choppers, or that since they weren't "bad guys" they felt no reason to run. I'm going to do a bit more research into the subject as it is interesting how far away they are when engaging the targets.

Originally posted by James1982

Uh.... no. The Reaper is not a helicopter, and it can not hover. It flies like a regular plane.

Well Apparently we are taking away completly different information then because in the Video they say "Sit over a target for over 15 hours" I translated that into Hover. Call it what you will but when you watch the video of it they sure don't look like they are bouncing around or having any problems keeping and eye on the target.

When they flie in an eliptical pattern you can essentially hover over a target and provide a 365 view of a T.O.P and with intertia of a lighter plane you can have less power to power it thereby making the motor smaller and quieter. OH yeah fly slower too

Last time I was at Fort Hood, i was camped out in a GP medium 20 man tent. We were all sitting there having lunch when the wind kicked up for no reason...just all of a sudden.

There was an AH64 attack helicopter hovering above our tent and we didn't even hear the damn thing. it has some sort of silent mode on it.

Pretty damn scary those things can sneak up on you like that.

You can barely hear an M1 tank in the mud coming straight towards you as well......

Somehow I don't think many of you are thinking this through. A turbine powered aircraft..either helicopter or fixed wing is much quieter than the olde Piston type engines.

Also something I don't think of which many of you are aware is that people walking along and carrying equipment and close to each other make sufficient noise such that a turbine powered craft at sufficient altitude would not easily be heard unless everyone stops and carefully listens.

Also another thing of which to be aware....many of the insurgents are or have been issued hearing protection when they are training with their weapons...yes?? Do some of you understand what even a relatively low powered round like the 7.62x39mm round can do to ones natural hearing after even a half a magazine...ie..15 rounds??
It will diminish your hearing significantly.
I don't think hearing protection is a high priority in an insurgents TOE.

I too have noticed that many of these peoples whether insurgents, terrorists, or just plain civilians do not even have a clue that an aircraft is operating overhead.

I also know that silent rotor technology has been around since at least the late 1960s or early 1970s. Nothing new here.

I think that much of the image stabilizing technology gives the illusion that the launch/camera vehicle is more stationary than it is. I noticed this some years ago in a video where a fighter drops a guided bomb and in mid course makes a correction to a new target when getting new instructions from a command center. I was astonished by this and up to this time had no idea that a guided bomb could make such a mid flight correction after being launched at one target and then re directed to a new target. Remarkable!!
But I did notice that at times the video appeared to be somewhat stationary until the camera or image made corrections. This would be even more so in a slower flying aircraft.

Hope this helps,
Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

It's probably just a matter of altitude. Airliners aren't exactly quiet, but you don't hear them when they're way up in the sky. I know for a fact that holds true for C-130s.

reply to post by mdiinican



I know that too about the C 130. I spent alot of years working on the C130 E models. Get some altitude and you don' hear much. Not so with the olde piston powered engines verses the Jet turbine or turbo prop.

However..I have been around some Russian Aircraft with contra rotating propellors ..these are very loud..almost unbearable close up. I wonder how many crewmen on constant long flights to Cuba and back went deaf or had severe hearing problems.

Orangetom

Good answers.

The videos you see are taken from different platforms

Drones: Height above ground mostly answers this. They are intended to operate at a height sufficient to mask the craft visually and aurally from those on the ground. You wont see or hear the missile that kills you, never mind the launch platform.

Helicopters: A lot of this footage is night footage. All helicopters are noisy but its not easy for a human to resolve the direction of the noise. Sneaking up on somebody in a helicopter is tactics not technology. At night you might hear it a couple of Km out but you wont know where to run, and you still wont see it when the cannon shells (think grenade) erupt around you.

AC-130: A combination of the above factors.

To complicate matters some of the videos are relayed video, the attack may be a gunship but you may be watching it via a drone sensor feed.

If you're pinned into some position by other groups on the ground, if you suddenly focused on a threat from above you're going to get rushed anyhow. Also, unless you have some portable AA-missile or an RPG with enough reach - your typical firearm is useless against an armored attack helicopter. (And unlike in videogames, real life insurgents can't just spam these kind of game-changing weapons from a bottomless ammo crate. IRL, they're often rare. This is why gunship footage always consists of completely lopsided and unfair pwnage-porn.) Considering the insurgent's predicament, it's not hart to figure out why they only worry about the targets they can deal with.

Another thing is that a helicopter sounds like a helicopter. If you're worried about other things instead of looking to visually spot it - you're not easily going to tell an AH-64 from a SH-60, etc. Since helicopters are often used in support of ground troops outside the attack role, combatants usually don't waste time trying to make such distinction. I'll admit military helicopters have been made a bit quieter though, it seems that the main rotors on almost all of them now have a forward swept tip extension - something to do with eliminating tip vortices and cavitation noise. They're not like the old Hueys anymore.

As for AC-130s, they can orbit a target from something like a mile or two out. If you circle something from that far out, it's pretty easy to keep sideways aimed gun on it. And no they're not hovering, it's just one long slow turn. Those aircraft actually have a HUD on the side window, so if the pilot can keep a target centered the guns won't have any problems doing the same.

What's funny is that even some fairly old FPS videogames that aren't even all that realistic can still give some understanding of the mechanics behind how these scenarios and events play out. Even if you're not a big FPS fan, just playing one for a bit can be a learning experience.

The AH-64 uses the Hughes M230 Chain Gun.

Maximum range 4,500 m (4,920 yd)=2.796 miles.

That is a long way from the target.
And if the wind is blowing right someone on the ground would not hear what was coming.