R2D2 with an attitude (Air Defense System in Iraq)

[SC Tiger]

Supposed video of an air defense system in Iraq - basically the Navy's Phalanx system but on a tripod instead of a ship I guess.  

This isn't from the most recent attack though, as the bases that were hit didn't have this system.

I'm trying to determine if this is real or from a late-gen video game.  It just looks a little odd.  On TOS they seem to think video game.  I tend to agree.  But still badass.

Edited January 13, 2020 by SC Tiger

[Eric]

Those things would have to be sitting on mountains of ammo to sustain those rates of fire. 

[Bish1309]

This is so damn cool.

 

My LGS with an indoor range wouldn't allow me to bring one in for sighting.

 

Can't image why not.

[SC Tiger]

5 minutes ago, Eric said:

Those things would have to be sitting on mountains of ammo to sustain those rates of fire. 

True - but it is stationary mounted so maybe.......

The explosion on the right at around 2:00 is a dead giveaway that it's either a video game or a simulation though.

[Eric]

5 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

True - but it is stationary mounted so maybe.......

The explosion on the right at around 2:00 is a dead giveaway that it's either a video game or a simulation though.

I doubt if the barrels could endure such long bursts of fire without failing as well. Those were some long bursts. The Phalanx system is damned impressive though. If we had had them on our ships in WWII, being a Kamikaze pilot would have been pretty pointless.   

[SC Tiger]

2 minutes ago, Eric said:

I doubt if the barrels could endure such long bursts of fire without failing as well. Those were some long bursts. The Phalanx system is damned impressive though. If we had had them on our ships in WWII, being a Kamikaze pilot would have been pretty pointless.   

When I first watched it, I noticed the long bursts as well.  But I don't know anything about the Phalanx system so I figured maybe it could handle that.

 

[Eric]

14 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

When I first watched it, I noticed the long bursts as well.  But I don't know anything about the Phalanx system so I figured maybe it could handle that.

 

I carried an M-60, in the Army. The gun in the Phalanx system has six barrels, but it also has around six times the rate of fire. I don’t know much about those GE Vulcan 20mm guns, but if I fired bursts that long with the M-60, the barrel would fail, maybe catastrophically. Rates of fire like that generate an incredible amount of heat. 
 

The two things I miss most from my time in the Army are firing machineguns and flying in helicopters. 

[Eric]

Reading this thread, it occurred to me wonder if we shot down any of the missiles the Iranians fired. We have the gear to do so. 

[janice6]

2 hours ago, Eric said:

Those things would have to be sitting on mountains of ammo to sustain those rates of fire. 

Even if you had the ammo, how would you feed such a quantity for sustained fire...……..   Fascinating.

 

2 hours ago, Eric said:

I doubt if the barrels could endure such long bursts of fire without failing as well. Those were some long bursts. The Phalanx system is damned impressive though. If we had had them on our ships in WWII, being a Kamikaze pilot would have been pretty pointless.   

"...Block 0 CIWS mounts (hydraulic driven) fired at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute and held 989 rounds in the magazine drum.^[5] The Block 1 CIWS mounts (hydraulic) also fired at 3,000 rounds per minute with an extended magazine drum holding 1,550 rounds. The Block 1A and newer (pneumatic driven) CIWS mounts fire at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute with a 1,550-round magazine....".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

[SC Tiger]

15 minutes ago, Eric said:

Reading this thread, it occurred to me wonder if we shot down any of the missiles the Iranians fired. We have the gear to do so. 

Negative.  Iran targeted bases where we don't have the system set up (for some reason).  I think one concern is debris falling on civilian population.

18 minutes ago, Eric said:

I carried an M-60, in the Army. The gun in the Phalanx system has six barrels, but it also has around six times the rate of fire. I don’t know much about those GE Vulcan 20mm guns, but if I fired bursts that long with the M-60, the barrel would fail, maybe catastrophically. Rates of fire like that generate an incredible amount of heat. 
 

The two things I miss most from my time in the Army are firing machineguns and flying in helicopters. 

Did your M60 work properly?  As I understand it, the guys who carried the M60 in the 60s and 70s ('Nam) loved it.  Said it was reliable and a good gun.  The guys who carried it in the 80s hated it as an unreliable PPS.  Mainly because the ones carried in the 80s were shot to absolute pieces in 60s or 70s.

The receivers had actually physically stretched from firing.

[SC Tiger]

16 minutes ago, janice6 said:

Even if you had the ammo, how would you feed such a quantity for sustained fire...……..   Fascinating.

 

"...Block 0 CIWS mounts (hydraulic driven) fired at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute and held 989 rounds in the magazine drum.^[5] The Block 1 CIWS mounts (hydraulic) also fired at 3,000 rounds per minute with an extended magazine drum holding 1,550 rounds. The Block 1A and newer (pneumatic driven) CIWS mounts fire at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute with a 1,550-round magazine....".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Long-@ss belt.

And ice.  Because when R2 is done with all that he's gonna need ice for his.....gun.

Edited January 13, 2020 by SC Tiger

[Eric]

1 minute ago, SC Tiger said:

Negative.  Iran targeted bases where we don't have the system set up (for some reason).  I think one concern is debris falling on civilian population.

Did your M60 work properly?  As I understand it, the guys who carried the M60 in the 60s and 70s ('Nam) loved it.  Said it was reliable and a good gun.  The guys who carried it in the 80s hated it as an unreliable PPS.  Mainly because the ones carried in the 80s were shot to absolute pieces in 60s or 70s.

The receivers had actually physically stretched from firing.

There were a lot of worn out guns around, but the one I carried was a good one. It jammed occasionally, but it was a reasonably tight gun. I remember when I got to fire the M-249 SAW though. That was a brand new gun and it felt like it. That thing ran like a Swiss watch. It would have been a great gun to carry on the move, but I'd rather have had the added firepower of the M-60, in a defensive position.

[SC Tiger]

8 minutes ago, Eric said:

There were a lot of worn out guns around, but the one I carried was a good one. It jammed occasionally, but it was a reasonably tight gun. I remember when I got to fire the M-249 SAW though. That was a brand new gun and it felt like it. That thing ran like a Swiss watch. It would have been a great gun to carry on the move, but I'd rather have had the added firepower of the M-60, in a defensive position.

Watched a video on the M60 and apparently those things did have a few absolute dumbass design features though.  The flat spring that held in the pins for the trigger group was one.  Why not just two detent pins?

Also the bipod that came off with the barrel.  Lots of extra weight.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by SC Tiger

[tous]

The M61A1 Gatling gun mounted in the F/A-18 E/F fires at up to 6000 rounds per minute -- and has a normal load out of around 4-500 rounds.

Get out your slide rule.

The ammunition just won't be there long enough to overheat the barrels.

As 6 of jamice documented, it isn't as if the CIWS fires continuously for hours or even minutes.

They are likely programmed for a 4 or 5 second burst -- rest -- burst again until empty or target is no longer a threat.

Edited January 13, 2020 by tous

[Eric]

13 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

Watched a video on the M60 and apparently those things did have a few absolute dumbass design features though.  The flat spring that held in the pins for the trigger group was one.  Why not just two detent pins?

Also the bipod that came off with the barrel.  Lots of extra weight.

 

 

I liked the layout of the gun well enough. The bipod being there and ready to deploy at a moment's notice was nice. The added weight helped keep the muzzle down when you fired it on the move, as well. I did know a couple of guys who lost trigger groups because they didn't install them properly. That typically entailed the unit following its backtrail and thinking evil thoughts about the gunner, while they looked for the errant trigger group.

The only design feature I thought was weird was the fact that it was possible to install the firing pin in the bolt backwards and yes, we had a couple of dumbasses do just that. Then the gun would no go bang. The two guys that did it said that there wasn't much light when they put the guns back together, but how hard is it to check the pointy end of the firing pin with a finger, before installing it. I guess that is before we starting trying to idiot-proof the designs of everything. It is a fool's errand to try to idiot-proof everything. Idiots are too resourceful.

[M&P15T]

It's from a video game called Arma 3, sadly.

When I first watched the video, I was amazed. Then it turned out it was from a damn video game.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, M&P15T said:

It's from a video game called Arma 3, sadly.

When I first watched the video, I was amazed. Then it turned out it was from a damn video game.

So, Antifa's training may be faulty...…………….  

[tous]

Speaking nf the M60.

My father worked for Weapons Command headquartered in Rock Island in the eraly 1960s.

We lived across the river in Bettendorf.

One day, I come home from school and there's an M60 machine gun lying on the dining room table.

Dad had flown to Vietnam to evaluate some reported problems with the system and he brought a sample back for further testing.

He told me that he hand carried it through multiple airports and just leaned it up against the wall or had it between his legs on the plane.

He also said, he got a few odd looks, but no one panicked and the flight crews just shrugged.

Different times.

 

NB  yes, his son got to tear the thing down before it went away. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by tous

[SC Tiger]

12 minutes ago, Eric said:

I liked the layout of the gun well enough. The bipod being there and ready to deploy at a moment's notice was nice. The added weight helped keep the muzzle down when you fired it on the move, as well. I did know a couple of guys who lost trigger groups because they didn't install them properly. That typically entailed the unit following its backtrail and thinking evil thoughts about the gunner, while they looked for the errant trigger group.

The only design feature I thought was weird was the fact that it was possible to install the firing pin in the bolt backwards and yes, we had a couple of dumbasses do just that. Then the gun would no go bang. The two guys that did it said that there wasn't much light when they put the guns back together, but how hard is it to check the pointy end of the firing pin with a finger, before installing it. I guess that is before we starting trying to idiot-proof the designs of everything. It is a fool's errand to try to idiot-proof everything. Idiots are too resourceful.

Dad worked with them when he was deployed in Vietnam in '68-69.  He said that they often replaced the missing trigger group spring with a paper clip - it actually worked better than the flat spring.  The reason I looked the video up was to try to see WTH he was talking about.

There was something about the nut on the gas system too, but that was fixed with a safety wire.

But dad liked it overall.  I think because the problems it had could be relatively easily fixed in the field.

 

[SC Tiger]

9 minutes ago, tous said:

Speaking nf the M60.

My father worked for Weapons Command headquartered in Rock Island in the eraly 1960s.

We lived across the river in Bettendorf.

One day, I come home from school and there's an M60 machine gun lying on the dining room table.

Dad had flown to Vietnam to evaluate some reported problems with the system and he brought a sample back for further testing.

He told me that he hand carried it through multiple airports and just leaned it up against the wall or had it between his legs on the plane.

He also said, he got a few odd looks, but no one panicked and the flight crews just shrugged.

Different times.

 

NB  yes, his son got to tear the thing down before it went away. 

And what changes did a young Tous suggest to the weapon system?

[Eric]

9 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

Dad worked with them when he was deployed in Vietnam in '68-69.  He said that they often replaced the missing trigger group spring with a paper clip - it actually worked better than the flat spring.  The reason I looked the video up was to try to see WTH he was talking about.

There was something about the nut on the gas system too, but that was fixed with a safety wire.

But dad liked it overall.  I think because the problems it had could be relatively easily fixed in the field.

 

I know that if you pulled out the buffer retaining yoke while the bolt was still locked to the rear, you were going to eat that buffer assembly. A guy in the next company over from mine lost a couple of teeth that way.

[pipedreams]

1 hour ago, SC Tiger said:

Negative.  Iran targeted bases where we don't have the system set up (for some reason).  I think one concern is debris falling on civilian population.

Did your M60 work properly?  As I understand it, the guys who carried the M60 in the 60s and 70s ('Nam) loved it.  Said it was reliable and a good gun.  The guys who carried it in the 80s hated it as an unreliable PPS.  Mainly because the ones carried in the 80s were shot to absolute pieces in 60s or 70s.

The receivers had actually physically stretched from firing.

I carried a M60 during the mid 60's for about 6 months and it worked perfect,  your right by the 80's they were worn out. 

I remember at Ft. Leonard Wood they were still using M1's for basic even though the M14 was out and M16 was on the horizon.  Some of those M1's had been shot so much that rounds would keyhole through the targets sometime.  We actually took a live round and inserted it in the muzzle end of the rifle and part of the brass casing would fit in the bore.  Gov. getting every ounce out of it's purchase.

Felt sorry for a solider trying to qualify with one of those rifles.

Edited January 13, 2020 by pipedreams

[tous]

18 minutes ago, SC Tiger said:

And what changes did a young Tous suggest to the weapon system?

My big complaint was that I didn't get to take it out in the backyard and shoot it.

[gwalchmai]

57 minutes ago, tous said:

The M61A1 Gatling gun mounted in the F/A-18 E/F fires at up to 6000 rounds per minute -- and has a normal load out of around 4-500 rounds.

Get out your slide rule.

The ammunition just won't be there long enough to overheat the barrels.

As 6 of jamice documented, it isn't as if the CIWS fires continuously for hours or even minutes.

They are likely programmed for a 4 or 5 second burst -- rest -- burst again until empty or target is no longer a threat.

There's also a good bit of air-coolitude going on with that thing, as well.

Do the gats mounted on fighters have to "spin-up" when fired or do they have a "instant on" feature?

[janice6]

When I got on my little Navy ship I had my biggest surprise.  The ship was wood, cheap (by government standards), expendable.  It had no real self defense from sea or shore fire.

So the problem of taking shore fire was that the rounds would penetrate the wooden hull and have deadly splinters flying all around the living quarters.

The technique when minesweeping close to shore was to have the crew out on deck with the assumption that they had less chance of being hit by direct fire versus the splinters in the interior.

To placate the crew, we carried two small arms for crew members.  One was the iconic 1911 for each crew member, the other was a Thompson Sub gun for each crew member.

So one of my biggest thrills in the Navy was the opportunity to shoot Thompsons during "target practice".  The target was a 50 gallon drum tossed into the sea.  Everybody quickly thought of themselves as a 1920's/30's gangster.