Is it possible for militias or guerrillao fighters to use civilian aircraft like helicopters and planes for military...

Is it possible for militias or guerrillao fighters to use civilian aircraft like helicopters and planes for military rules? AreI there any militias that operate helicopters like in Far Cry 5?
farcry.fandom.com/wiki/Helicopter

farcry.fandom.com/wiki/Project_at_Eden's_Gate

farcry.fandom.com/wiki/AdjudiCor_FBW

Other urls found in this thread:

spotterrf.com/products/counter-drone-radar/
archive.is/V7wZQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't really know what you're asking. Write better.

There's a long ass tradition of that, they're called "pocket airforces", mudfighters, airborne technicals and a bunch of other names.

Read up on Lynn Garrison, among other things he invented airdropping supplies without parachutes, and having them still be usable.

People used to drop ammo in crates, but the crates always burst. Garrison had the idea of putting the ammo in a burlap sack, sealing it tight, and then putting that sack in a LARGER sack. The smaller sack containing the ammo would burst on impact with the ground, but the larger bag would contain all the ammo and prevent it from being spilled all over the forest.

Or Neall Ellis, guy is fucking ridiculous, killed an entire army of tens of thousands of people with a single Hind helicopter. Because of that a bunch of niggers put out a million dollar prize on his head, and he had to keep moving to escape assasins. Since the Hind ran on basically any combustible material, he managed to steal and force local gas stations to fuel him up. For weapons he used any east block ammo, but also dropped bombs off the winglets and shit out of the crew hatch.

It entirely depends on the scenario. An american guerrilla force would only be able to use extremely limited CAS, if any, and most air operations would be small private civilian aircraft ferrying men, supplies, ammo etc. Think beechcraft and cessna's.
In south america or africa, where land is generally more variable or expansive and the governments aren't nearly as well equipped, air support is much more viable. See the Rhodesians for an example.
But real life isn't a video game, and there aren't too many certified pilots for probably obsolete military aircraft that just happen to be floating around. Speaking of Neall Ellis - that's literally the only hind pilot in that part of the continent. Sierra Leone has two helicopters and the UN Indians have 3, but that's the only guy that can fly them.

Of course it's possible and been done. As for a militia using them in the US that wouldn't last long as the FBI would seize the plane and shoot all their dogs.

Attached: Rhodesian Air Force.jpg (800x517 299.14 KB, 104.82K)

Something like a Skyvan would be perfect, you could load it up with about 15 barrel bombs, each of which could wreck a city block. Then just toss them out the back at high speed over enemy held territory. Fucking get me hard.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1200x800 80.21 KB, 27.88K)

The Syrians never bothered as they were using choppers but I'm thinking parachute retarded barrel bombs would be pretty accurate too.

Attached: barrel-bombs-and-following-the-titanic-on-the-day-it-was-sunk.jpg (500x366 49.62 KB, 79.77K)

That thing is fucking adorable haha holy shit it's like a flying RV.

How is this supposed to be bad?

Even funnier is that 2/3 of the civilians were adult men. Makes me wonder how many of them were actually civilians.

There is one militia operating out of West Virginia that has an old Vietnam-era UH-1 gunship and makes regular use of it in their exercises. IIRC, with active machineguns on the sides. There's several militias in the south that likely have access to Cessnas and Pipers. One local to me has a pilot in it that has the ability to mount basic EW equipment and armaments on it. Heard of two men,one in Florida and one out west somewhere, having a Cobra attack helicopter that's fully armed sans bombs.

Its like APCs and tanks. No doubt some militias have access to them, but its very specialized and aircraft burn money for fuel. And most aren't armed, so they aren't any better than transport aircraft. There's a reason why cartels and most other guerilla groups don't employ them.


This too. Plenty of old warbirds still flying in private hands. Most are WWII and Korea vintage, nothing terribly advanced, and almost all of them are disarmed.


Think bigger. You can buy an old C-130 for a cool 1.5mil. Since its likely a one and done deal, you don't have to worry about extended flight times.

If you are going to one and done a C-130 you might as well just fill it with 20 tons of HE and go full Operation Aphrodite.

Attached: zergface.png (1982x1265, 2.87M)

lel

Syrians were using choppers because you can hover a chopper over a target to score a direct hit. There's no need for complicated bomb sights and praying that the wind won't fuck your aim, just hover over a building and toss a bomb out of it, building gone.


Bless the Irish.

Neall Ellis seems hardcore as fuck.


That sounds like they have some proper outdooring groups around there.

Assuming we are talking about military action in the US, isn't solitary air targets one of the easiest things for the military to take out? Barrel bombs work in syria because the dudes that use them are the same who has all the SAM's.

Attached: 7d74924780129479b0ba1e9959ec548d6f15d5110488ed2beb11726b7ac457bf.png (500x348, 99.8K)

This is true, and I doubt that the US chairforce's background and psychiological checks aren't geared entirely towards loyalty to superiors. It is unlikely that a pilot would ignore orders to shoot down some lone chopper dropping grenades on some troops.

An easier, cheaper and possibly more effective system would be drones. The way ISIS used them in Iraq was very smart. Pics related.
Unless the military deploys jammers everywhere (which have limited range) you can use commercial drones for recon and small strikes from maybe 50 to 100 meters altitude.
The jammers the military uses to disable radio triggered mines in Afghanistan have a very limited range. Assuming that they have the same range for drones, you may be able to fly above their jamming zone. A problem could be them locating the operator of the drone, but as long as you shoot and scoot properly, you should be fine.

Attached: serveimage2.jpeg (1536x2048 70.29 KB, 267.97K)

Their qualification for civilian was probably if they could find a gun in his dead hands or not.

Attached: annoying plane.png (978x1527, 358.36K)

The S-55 was a modification of old H-19 helicopters that made it onto the civilian market when they were retired from military service. And they made a "heli-camper" aftermarket package for it that had four bunks and a small kitchen. A true flying RV.

Attached: 4669243853_e609e4cb67_z.jpg (640x426, 151.75K)

The world will be so much less interesting without ISIS.

the Civil Air Patrol (or the United State Air Force Auxiliary is the rough equivalent to the 'unorganized' militias, except its an air force, and they do far more operations with the USAF then any militias do with the Army/Marines/Nat'l guard. Nowadays they train to do border patrol and emergency disaster relief/airlifts. They apparently moved a lot of stuff around during the last few hurricanes, and are probably spotting for the water bombers fighting that big fire in california right now.

Now, if america balkanized, and the USAF stopped functioning/existing, we'd see a lot of GA aircraft find uses on the battlefield. Air superiority will not rely on superior fighters but superior SAMs and AAA, fighters will just be more agile planes with .50cals.

However, many old warbirds will out-dogfight most modern fighters at

There used to be a copypasta floating around that showed that if 10% of all US gun owners went into rebellion, they would bring, statistically, something like 4000 privately owned aircraft with them.

I bet it would take about a week before every one of those planes was equipped with Rhodesian flechette bombs and barrels full of ANFO and ball bearings with impact detonators. Not to mention napalm. Good camo paint and flying low and evasive just above ground level until the attack would be the tactic of the day, and airfields full of planes would be the number one targets at first.

I've long been disappointed that I didn't find out about CAP until I was already an adult, and it's hard to really get involved if you weren't a cadet.

Checked, nice satanic quads.
I had been involved in CAP as a cadet since age 12-18.
There is a lot which can only be done as an adult, but it can be time and money costly. Although depening upon where you go in it you can learn some cool stuff.

Attached: 10%.png (1264x640, 108.66K)

Acid Man is a treasure. I wish he would come here and start posting.

How hard would it be to re-arm a WW2 warbird for SHTF purposes?
Are privately owned M2 Brownings hard to find among militiamen these days?

Attached: warbirds.jpg (1183x787, 824.71K)

>2nd American civil race war begins

Attached: 190.jpg (960x638, 54.75K)

Instead of rearming them for strafing runs it'd be safer, easier and more effective to fit a few hardpoints & then barrel bombs to the underside and dive-bomb.

Don't even need to do that. Most of the mid to late war fighters could already mount bombs.
Although you would still probably be better off re-fiting some emphasis just due to part availability. Those lycomings are fucking everywhere in the private pilot world.

I meant skyhawks.
God hates phone posters and has punished me accordingly.

A man can dream. Imagine the live footage.

Attached: 1502567645058.jpg (565x524, 72.19K)

*rocket
Can confirm God hates phone posters.

Couldn't you counter these drones with "anti-drone guns"? I know it would be annoying to equip every single Squad with one but assuming these guns work as well as they are said to be it would heavily reduce the risk of getting targeted by these drones. Then again just gunning them out of the sky with regular means could work just as well.

Semi auto 12ga or 20ga modified choke shotgun with 3 1/2 inch shell turkey or goose loads.

There might be situations where these drones hover over you in a height and angle where simply shooting them is not a good option. ISIS has used them in altitudes above 150m hovering directly over the targeted unit. Anti drone guns can have a place in a unit but they are very specific in their task and capabilities.

Somebody should make a shotgun load designed for shooting down high altitude birds/drones. 150m is pretty far for conventional shot shells. Its doable though, especially with a very large bore.

Why not train birds to attack enemy drones instead?
Eagles and such are more than capable of taking out quadcopters and small fixed wing craft, for larger stuff you'd have a Flakvierling mounted on a nearby technical anyhow.

Wait…wouldn't a civil war turn America into a Technical paradise that would make even the most well-supplied CIA proxies in the mideast salivate with jealousy?
What would you mount on the nearest pickup truck in the event SHTF?

Attached: it_really_makes_you_bird.jpg (1024x768, 188.16K)

A modern done 8 gauge would probably do the trick. Though I'd rather go the distance and use a punt gun.

I'd mount my homemade katyusha to an old S-10. Though its better off being towed by a Ural due to shoot and scoot principles.

Attached: Strelok school.png (640x2149, 46.98K)

Radar seekers are hard and good IR seekers too.
But if you go to 1950-1960 era of tech, it suddenly becomes more possible thanks to parts prices coming down thanks to cellphones and shit like wifi.

I do however belive that the ww2 crap would ghet blown from air by gen3-4 gear.
At best there would be unreliable IR locking due to the piston engines.

Drones and COIN and possible CAS with converted civilian plances with piston engines is very much possible.
If individuals can own and operate planes, then a small militia or insurgent group can too.
Just forget anything jet powered.
Too much fuel consumption, too much exotic repair and parts needed.


Night raids with consumer grade GPS and NVG (most have Galileo, Beidou and GLONAS in addition to Navstar) so C/A would not mean shit.


"Anti-drone guns" are just radio jammers in a fancy formfactor. They cannto even run serious power without frying the eyeballs of the operator.
Retune the drone radios to something like cellular or radar bands and the COTS jammers will not affect them.
Most likely just jamm 2.4GHz and 5.6GHz and are done with it as even with civilian drones 433Mhz control and 900MHz or 1300MHz video is relatively rare.

Drone detecting radar exists. You might be able to modify it to detect helis and fixed wing aircraft at useful distances. It also wouldn't be terribly difficult to jerry-rig some kind of digital camera and pattern/shape recognition software to create a basic fire and forget missile. It won't be IR guided or particularly accurate, but it'll be relatively cheap. Beam-riding guidance is another possibility, probably more useful for man portable AA missiles.

Apparently FLIR will sell its military-grade IR cams for helicopters to anyone. At least, it looks like it to a layman reading their import/export guidelines. I dont read legalese.

If you think about it, an IR seeker is essentially like a laser mouse sensor: a one-pixel camera with a very high sample rate tracking changes in color, in this case IR density. This would probably be akin to a simple early ir tracking missile, and could(with a shitty sensor) easily get blinded by the sun. An actual cooled IR camera working at 720p and 30fps is enough to tell between the sun, flares, and engine heat (they are all slightly different IR frequencies, but good flares are the exact same freq iirc) plus multi-target tracking, but will cost a couple thousand dollars a piece. Perhaps a compromise of a small array of high sample rate IR sensors on a 10' rocket body, with something like an rPI to control it.

How hard it would it be for a militia to rig together a Radar-guided Flak 36 battery?

Get the fuck out.

They already train birbs to do that.
They can afford to do so for police purposes, because all you need is one or two birds per major city. In a military scenario you don't want to have to make your soldiers take care of a living breathing animal for long periods of time. Birds of prey require meat to live, their shit can cause asthma, and their bones are fairly weak, so a nearby explosion can fuck up your anti drone measure with one strike. It also takes a lot of time to train birds, and they are very expensive.
Not to mention the environmentalist outrage.

I honestly believe that some sort of shotgun system would be best. Maybe couple it with some tiny automated turret on some vehicle, so it can use sensors to more accurately track and aim at the drone, instead of having to shoot 20 shots per drone, but that would add weight and size and make the system more complicated. We will see what they come up with.

A homemade Livens Projector (with a shitload of bracing) loaded with incendiary bombs - which should be easier to source than gas

Attached: Livens projector.jpg (649x599, 40.41K)

It depends on how much work they have done with robotics and programming beforehand, and the access to required machining tools.

It would be on the level of those columbian drug submarines; not at all impossible, but a huge challenge to make it actually effective. Would need small industrial stepper motors for the pan/tilt wheels, a beefy motor controller (or two for redundancy), probably a dedicated generator as well for the gun+radar.

Assuming you have a 100% accurate search radar, it would be fairly simple, just solving trig math for difference between your radars path to the expected hit location and the guns. However, im confident modern versions of this like ciws use a sort of radar scope inline with the barrel to make fine adjustments.

But if you had a bunch of surplus ww2 flak36s and a modern radar, it could be pretty effective. Their upper altitude limit is like 25k feet right? Nowadays bombers fly higher than that, but it could still work for CAS defense.

I still think the phone-guided missile is the next big militia thing.

Radar is radar. So a "drone radar" would work for any targets in it's range, likely even better for planes as they are larger and have a larger RCS.
But if the "drone radar" really is something else like listening to control links or video links then it would not work in any way.


All civilian export FLIR stuff is FPS limited so that they are not usable in munitions.
Beam riding sounds actually doable as far as guidance goes.


Dunno, people did radar guided anti-air in ww2.
Airshitters also have one or two opensource turret softwares out there.
And that one dudes proof-of-concept about a robot that shoots people in the eyes with a laser.
The mechanics, electronics and software for controlling a Flak36 is a problem relatively easily solved with stuff meant for modern industrial control.
The RADAR however is harder. Fire-control radar is quite obviously hard to get on the open market cheaply and radar in general has annoying problems.
And it's not trivial to convert a marine furuno to a firecontrol radar, even if you could use the parts.

Who needs guided missiles when you have drones?
Where does the difference between a drone and a cruise missile go?

How about an rc jet with a brick of plastique? Coat the fuckin thing in ball bearings or whatever you want for shrapnel, go for a high speed low altitude flyover and drop it right on top of em. Those jets can do better than 500 kmph, world record is 740 odd. Good luck shooting that down when it does a flyby at 40 meters. Especially in an urban areas where youll only have visual for a few seconds. Im sure it would be difficult to time drops properly, but thats why god invented practice.

Hamas rockets are better.

Probably a better idea. At least when collateral isnt a concern.

There were some effective MCLOS anti-aircraft missiles designed back in the 60s. MCLOS gets a lot of crap because of the Blowpipe missile and how it was designed. When the operator had to fire the missile and then keep the whole damned launch tube steady on his shoulder while steering the missile with a thumbstick that makes a Gamecube controller in a fighting game seem precise, of fucking course they never hit anything. Modern tech could improve on that system to such a ridiculous degree that I'd bet real money some college engineering kids could have a respectable MCLOS AA missile designed and flying in 3 months if push came to shove.

And for low flying aircraft like police helicopters there's always pic related.

Attached: fliegerfaust_by_erikdevolve.jpg (600x900, 135.71K)

Just had a stupid idea, tell me how stupid it is.
Was also looking up the good old 72 TOW and found out that some had EFP for top down attacks… I was just thinking EFPs would be easier to manufacture than standard shaped charges with a conical liner.

Fly by wire missiles would be comparatively cheap for taking out low-flying helicopters and land-based vehicles if you're willing to accept how vulnerable it makes the operator. Of course I suppose it could be made remote through use of camera systems. Can't jam a device that relies on the good old Human Eyeball Mk1 for guidance.

As far as a ground attack weapon, it could work. But a better and far more interesting use is to knock down helicopters/slow planes. RC jets are COTS aren't regulated in any way. A manually guided RC jet with a explosive charge could be flown by a ground controller into a slower moving helicopter. Its use depends on their max altitude though.

Its a decent idea. Wouldn't be man portable if you want to use standard sized MANPADS rockets. Could sit in the back of a pickup or on an armored vehicle though.
Even better fam. Video game console controller or actual joystick.

A simple radar guided gas operated 20mm or 30mm cannon is all that is needed to knock out transport and some attack choppers. Most don't fly very high. Those that do are SAM bait. Missiles and their launch systems are cheaper and less controlled than cannons. The problem with missiles is that unless they are wired guided, they can be jammed.

Modern MCLOS anti-aircraft guided by trained operators with non-shit controls would have a higher success rate than IR missiles. Combine that with pattern recognition/tracking software, and it could be fully autonomous. Weren't there IED makers incorporating PS3 cameras into IEDs to make them selectively targetable?

spotterrf.com/products/counter-drone-radar/
They also have a 3D version. Range seems lacking, but that's probably on purpose.

archive.is/V7wZQ

Archive of the link since I'm a faggot who didn't do i the first time.

I like the idea of splitting the tracking job up. Make a three-man team: One fires the missile, one tracks the target and keeps a set of crosshairs centered on it, and a third operator flies the missile, keeping it in the center of the crosshairs. Simple, cheap, and the workload on each of the three is small enough to eliminate errors and give good accuracy.