Armed Cargo Aircraft?

Does any one know of an armed cargo aircraft?

I am aware of the AC-130, but it does not carry any payload. I am curious if anyone is aware of a cargo aircraft that delievers payload, but has a few guns or missels for protection.

Something along the line of a troop or freight deployment aircraft that has a little something extra.

I am not looking for bombers.

The Chilean Aiforce uses CASA C-212 Aviocars.

They can be armed with up to 500 kg of weapons on two hardpoints. Typically, machine gun pods or rocket launchers.


Jensy

I think that a few cargo aircraft can be fitted with machine guns on the rear doors, but that may just be me.

I think Chinook also might have a few areas that a gun turret fits in as well. But that's just a guess.

Would the MH-53J Pave Low meet your definition? It can carry troops and equipment and has mounts for three Guns (50 cals I think, one on each side and one in the rear). I've seen them carry assualt vehicles on exercises.

The Soviets back in the Cold War had rear-facing gun turrets on their IL-76 and some of their Antonev cargo planes. Nowadays, I don't think there is much point.

Thanks!

I could see how the guns could be usefull in a hostile extraction, to keep general masses at bay.

I was also curious if any had Air-To-Air or Air-To-Ground capabilitites? I would think that it would be nice ot have 2-4 of each handy in case of an emergency or last minute hostiles in the landing area or drop zone.

Perhaps this is not needed as fighters provide that type of cover. I was just curious if there were any exceptions that someone was aware of. I would think a few missles would be more of a deterent than just defensive measures.

There I go again with the best defeence is a good offense!

Some examples of the Israeli Aircraft Industries Arava 201 were fitted with two machine guns scabbed onto the forward fuselage (ala North American B-25 Mitchells and Martin Marauders) plus pylons for A2G rocket pods. I seem to recall that those supplied to Mexico (among others) were so equipped.
i20.tinypic.com...

Also a number of Russian military transports were fitted with tail turrets including
Antonov An-8,
www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz...

Antonov An-12
www.airliners.net...

and Ilyushin Il-76 military variants.
www.aviaphoto.ru...

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Electronic countermeasures come to mind...

The need for turrets is pretty much diminished with the advent of missiles. If you're slow and heavy, you're a pretty good target for missiles. Fighters will find uses for gun cannons, heavy airlift, not so much.

Shattered OUT...

Ah old times. One of my first threads here on ATS

AC-17... To Replace the AC-130 Spectere? What would you arm it with?'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It never got off the devlopmental stage and the AF needs more airlift than it needs gunships anyway.

Also during the Carter administration the AF looked at arming 747 with ALCM's


[edit on 10/18/07 by FredT]

Nah, no USAF cargo aircraft are armed, besides the AC-130 that was mentioned, but that's not really a cargo aircraft anymore.

Chinooks with the 160 SOAR are armed and they haul troops, and I think the run of the mill Chinooks might have door guns, too, but that's all I can think of.

Of course, given a suitable need for it, there is no reason that a transport could not be fitted with defensive missiles such as Sidewinder and its derivatives.

Recall that during the Falklands campaign the Brits fitted Nimrods with Sidewinder. However, given the lack of helmet mounted sights at the time (and the off-boresight capabilities of the era - lack there of), one wonders just how the Nimrod (or indeed a present day transport) would be able to obtain the initial lock-on for the missile system to be effective - so I would suggest that the Sidewinder fitment was actually more offensive than defensive (ie:- against other patrol and transport aircraft beyond the range of fighter escort).

Given those considerations, the simpler self-defense system (and probably the most practical and effective) is chaff and flares.

The Winged Wombat

Thats right wombat, the RN had been bothered by an Argentine 707 flying ELINT sorties and the Nimrod conversion was for the next time it showed up, but it never did.

Originally posted by FredTAlso during the Carter administration the AF looked at arming 747 with ALCM's.

I think you are confusing it with the plan to arm the C-5 with ICBMs, the AF only operates 747 class aircraft as C2C and the ABL.

FredT is correct.

The following picture is from 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Rockets and Missiles' (1979) by Bill Gunston.

The caption with it says 'One of the possible launch-platform options is this 747 with nine eight-round (AGM-86B) launchers. It appears to infringe SALT agreements but seems a lot of deterrence.'



Of course this would no longer be a cargo aircraft.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 18/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by waynos
Thats right wombat, the RN had been bothered by an Argentine 707 flying ELINT sorties and the Nimrod conversion was for the next time it showed up, but it never did.

Now THAT would have made for an interesting combat report!

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
FredT is correct.
The caption with it says 'One of the possible launch-platform options is this 747 with nine eight-round (AGM-86B) launchers. It appears to infringe SALT agreements but seems a lot of deterrence.'
Of course this would no longer be a cargo aircraft.

The Winged Wombat

FredT is incorrect since the 747 started out as a commercial airliner, and this program never went beyond the theoretical stage. The C-5 on the other hand has actually launched ICBMs out the back of it.

The subject line is armed CARGO aircraft, not airliners.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
FredT is incorrect since the 747 started out as a commercial airliner,

FredT is correct as the 747 is also a cargo aircraft even when flying PAX so it did seem to fit. But talking about FredT in the third person gives FredT a big headache

Now Now Cool Hand, let's not get into the semantics of whether an airliner is a cargo aircraft or not (are people not cargo? Some airlines seem to think they are - Is it not that economy class is referred to as cattle class?).

Indeed, is a Boeing 747 freighter not a dedicated cargo aircraft? This is like saying the C-135 is not a cargo aircraft because it was derived from the same prototype as the Boeing 707.

Any debate on such a distinction is pointless anyway, for as any fighter pilot will gladly inform you, there are only two types of aircraft -

Fighters and Targets!



The Winged Wombat


[edit on 19/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by COOL HAND


Have to correct you there and say that it was a C-17 that launched the Falcon rocket booster. at least 90% sure about that one. Saw the video footage correct of them using the drogue chute to pull it out the back ramp of the plane.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Have to correct you there and say that it was a C-17 that launched the Falcon rocket booster. at least 90% sure about that one. Saw the video footage correct of them using the drogue chute to pull it out the back ramp of the plane.

The falcon is not a weapon, so I have to correct you there.

The C-5 Galaxy conducted tests of dropping an ICBM (a real weapon) out the back.