simonrichter
New member
Is there still such a thing or has the idea of survival rifles been abandoned as such?
Aircrew survival rifles today
- Thread starter simonrichter
- Start date
I am a little confused. Is the question about the type of rifle or is it about why flight crews do not carry?
Henry has come out with their line of survival rifles. I suspect military will be equipped with firearms and will be rescued. Passenger planes will be rescued. It is up to private small plane operators whether they want a firearm or not.
So, I am not sure of the question.
Henry has come out with their line of survival rifles. I suspect military will be equipped with firearms and will be rescued. Passenger planes will be rescued. It is up to private small plane operators whether they want a firearm or not.
So, I am not sure of the question.
At one time the USAF ( SAC crews ) had a small foldable rifle / shotgun in their survival kits . I believe it was the M6 ?. 22 Hornet over 410. SAC crews flew over some very rough isolated places. The combo rifle shotgun had 14 inch barrels. I do believe this is what the OP was referring too. Good question, I don't believe they still pack a weapon ( other than a knife ) in the kits now. Don't know for a fact and I don't know any B-52 or B-1people to ask.
I agree Blackhawks are the survival firearm for military aircraft crews.
Following is available to private aircraft operators,
The Henry Survival Rifle: https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/u-s-survival-ar-7/
Following is available to private aircraft operators,
The Henry Survival Rifle: https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/u-s-survival-ar-7/
FrankenMauser
New member
There really isn't such a thing any more. Everything that I know of is a standard issue firearm.
Even then... It depends upon the type of aircraft, type of aircrew, and type of mission being flown.
An F-16 pilot flying from San Francisco to Hawaii, for example, probably won't have anything more than the standard survival gear (no firearm).
Even a B-1B crew, flying over "unfriendly" countries is not always going to be armed. Sometimes, the presence of the weapon is worse than just being captured.
But an Army CH-47 crew, or Air Force MV-22 crew, flying into hostile territory, is likely to have M9s strapped to their legs and M4s available in the cabin (and even the cockpit).
And, all crews on armed aircraft are trained to make the best of what they have available - up to and including dismounting M2s, miniguns, grenade launchers, Bofors cannons, and accompanying batteries to run them, if necessary - in order to put up a fight.
As FITASC hinted at: The basic premise of modern "survival" is immediate rescue. If you can't be pulled out in the first few hours, you're assumed to be captured or dead by that point, anyway. (Rescuers won't give up. It's just that the time frame for rescue [and survival] is generally pretty short.)
The modern approach is not escape and evasion, even though it's still taught in the classical manner. Rather, it's, "sit tight, defend your position, and hold out until evac arrives." (...Or you're captured.
)
"Survival firearms" are now just whatever weapon you have available, or issued.
Even then... It depends upon the type of aircraft, type of aircrew, and type of mission being flown.
An F-16 pilot flying from San Francisco to Hawaii, for example, probably won't have anything more than the standard survival gear (no firearm).
Even a B-1B crew, flying over "unfriendly" countries is not always going to be armed. Sometimes, the presence of the weapon is worse than just being captured.
But an Army CH-47 crew, or Air Force MV-22 crew, flying into hostile territory, is likely to have M9s strapped to their legs and M4s available in the cabin (and even the cockpit).
And, all crews on armed aircraft are trained to make the best of what they have available - up to and including dismounting M2s, miniguns, grenade launchers, Bofors cannons, and accompanying batteries to run them, if necessary - in order to put up a fight.
As FITASC hinted at: The basic premise of modern "survival" is immediate rescue. If you can't be pulled out in the first few hours, you're assumed to be captured or dead by that point, anyway. (Rescuers won't give up. It's just that the time frame for rescue [and survival] is generally pretty short.)
The modern approach is not escape and evasion, even though it's still taught in the classical manner. Rather, it's, "sit tight, defend your position, and hold out until evac arrives." (...Or you're captured.
)"Survival firearms" are now just whatever weapon you have available, or issued.
I'm very familiar ( very familiar , having crewed, rebuilt, and worked on the mad Russians helicopters since the H-19C thru to the Apache and as good as the Blackhawk is, it cannot follow a a B-52 several thousand miles for a rescue attempt.
Not enough space in a fighting aircraft for any kind of rifle. No firearms attached to or tucked in the rocket powered lounge chair they drive around in either. It gets separated from the driver(who will likely be hurt from using it)when used anyway. Transports and helicopters, maybe.
"...cannot follow a B-52..." That's what the Boat People are for. Assuming they're close enough. Only 76 B-52's left anyway. Only 66 B1B's.
You won't be dismounting a Bofors cannon or a mini-gun. Nobody's going to ride the aircraft down either. That quick, sudden, stop at the end of the fall, hurts.
"...cannot follow a B-52..." That's what the Boat People are for. Assuming they're close enough. Only 76 B-52's left anyway. Only 66 B1B's.
You won't be dismounting a Bofors cannon or a mini-gun. Nobody's going to ride the aircraft down either. That quick, sudden, stop at the end of the fall, hurts.
Deaf Smith
New member
The powers-to-be will decide if they will let you be issued a standard rifle or pistol. Survival rifle? Governments are rarely worried about any soldier/sailor/marine's survival these days. They go asleep on ships and let them get rammed and issue 10 missing sailor bulletins while the bodies are still in the ships.
Harsh? Yea, but I just don't see the higher ups worrying about survival weapons. They have even closed down a lot of the survival schools! Cost cutting you know while we have gender training.
Deaf
Harsh? Yea, but I just don't see the higher ups worrying about survival weapons. They have even closed down a lot of the survival schools! Cost cutting you know while we have gender training.
Deaf
FrankenMauser
New member
B-1s and B-52s don't have Bofors.
Show me the ejection seats in a C-130.
If it can be man portable and operated outside of the aircraft, it's a contingency weapon.
Modern times aside, there are documented cases of miniguns, cannons, and even rocket pods being pulled from downed or disabled aircraft to defend FOBs under attack in Vietnam.
The last purpose-made "survival rifle" issued to aircrews was, as RJay pointed out in past #4, the M6. First issued in about 1951, it was withdrawn from service by about 1973. Armalite designed the AR-5 (designated MA-1 when adopted by the Air Force) as a replacement for the M6 as part of the XB-70 program. Although the MA-1 was adopted, the cancellation of the XB-70 program eliminated the need for the rifle and so none were procured beyond the prototypes and they were not issued to flight crews.
Unconventional
New member
Transports and helicopters, absolutely. I know an MH-6 pilot who has more kills with his M4 firing from the cockpit than with the weapons on the stubs. (This is due to the ridiculous ROE in place that require "Star Fleet Command" level approval to do a gun run, yet allow unfettered use of small arms even while in flight, albeit while under the presumption of use for self-defense). I think his M4 falls under the category of "any kind of rifle".
Agreed. For as long as aircraft have been in combat, egress kits have been used to allow the mounted guns to be used away from the aircraft for E&E situations. This is true today such as with certain variants of the M240.
simonrichter
New member
Thanks for the replies so far, and yes, I did refer to whether they are still in use by armed forces pilots
FrankenMauser
New member
I don't know if it's still true on the MV-22 Osprey, but the USAF MH-53Ms that were replaced by it had at least two modern instances in which the M2s were dismounted for semi-auto use (an electrical interrupter in the USAF version prevents full-auto without being energized).
One was in Afghanistan in early 2002. Brown-out hard landing.
M2s and issued weapons used to form perimeter. Evac came after the dust blew away. Aircraft swarmed by Taliban. JDAM inbound. BOOM!! Early in OEF, there was an 'iconic' photo of an Afghani child rolling an "Apache" tire down the street, while the Taliban claimed to have shot down and seized a US helicopter (with photos of a partial cockpit on a truck). They didn't mention that we killed over 30 of them with the JDAM, or that we blew it up ourselves. No one bothered telling the media that it wasn't an Apache.
The second was in Iraq in 2004. RPG to cockpit (no detonation, but major damage to controls).
Safely landed in a courtyard surrounded by hostiles. M2s dismounted. M134 dismounted and moved to aircraft tail, but crew evacuated before it could be hotwired for use. Army grunts kept the M2s on the perimeter until a QRF came in to get them on the second evac. Sadly, again... The area was too hot to go back in for aircraft recovery. JDAM... BOOM!!
globemaster3
New member
I'll weigh in on this one. Bonafides up front: 23-year (and counting) AD USAF pilot who spent the majority of his career in KC-135, C-141, and C-17 before making a career change at the 20-year point.
Lots of combat time low level, high level, and everything in between. Landed between the craters on runways in C-17s when you could still see the mines in the dirt next to the taxiways/runways at Bagram and Kandahar.
Kosovo, OEF, and OIF on those airframes and now quite a bit of time in OIR on another. I have ground deployments working staff weenie/desk flying in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
All I was ever issued/allowed to carry for flying duties was an M-9. That's it. No M-4/M-16/M-249/M-240 etc. Just the M-9 and some magazines of ammo. Ground deployments were different. I've carried the M-4 and M-16A2 in addition to the M-9 on those with standard combat ammo loadouts.
A funny aside was in the 2003 timeframe, they issued a magazine of hollow points with our loadout for use on the aircraft since it would cause less damage to the aircraft than ball ammo in case we needed it. The JAG explained that if we were forced down, we were to swap our ammo for the ball... The blank stares abounded... The scenario of just being forced down in hostile territory, with bad guys coming for us, and I'm going to unload my pistol, swap mags, and then defend... Obviously this is the legally correct answer since hollowpoints are prohibited in combat by LOAC, but the practical application side of it was somewhat....
I recall there being some open source discussion inside the USAF years ago about an MP-5 variant that was super short being packed into fighter kits, but I don't know if that ever made it into fruition.
As for AFSOC or rotary wing, I cannot speak for them. But for your AMC heavies, they'd all be the same (C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-135, KC-10, etc).
Lots of combat time low level, high level, and everything in between. Landed between the craters on runways in C-17s when you could still see the mines in the dirt next to the taxiways/runways at Bagram and Kandahar.
Kosovo, OEF, and OIF on those airframes and now quite a bit of time in OIR on another. I have ground deployments working staff weenie/desk flying in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
All I was ever issued/allowed to carry for flying duties was an M-9. That's it. No M-4/M-16/M-249/M-240 etc. Just the M-9 and some magazines of ammo. Ground deployments were different. I've carried the M-4 and M-16A2 in addition to the M-9 on those with standard combat ammo loadouts.
A funny aside was in the 2003 timeframe, they issued a magazine of hollow points with our loadout for use on the aircraft since it would cause less damage to the aircraft than ball ammo in case we needed it. The JAG explained that if we were forced down, we were to swap our ammo for the ball... The blank stares abounded... The scenario of just being forced down in hostile territory, with bad guys coming for us, and I'm going to unload my pistol, swap mags, and then defend...
Obviously this is the legally correct answer since hollowpoints are prohibited in combat by LOAC, but the practical application side of it was somewhat....I recall there being some open source discussion inside the USAF years ago about an MP-5 variant that was super short being packed into fighter kits, but I don't know if that ever made it into fruition.
As for AFSOC or rotary wing, I cannot speak for them. But for your AMC heavies, they'd all be the same (C-5, C-17, C-130, KC-135, KC-10, etc).