If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a next-generation
gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet unbuilt
A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
launchers underwing for Hellfire.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
wrote:

> If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a next-generation
> gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet unbuilt
> A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
> J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> launchers underwing for Hellfire.

We've already had the AC-5 suggested...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> wrote:
>
> > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
next-generation
> > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
unbuilt
> > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
stretched
> > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
>
> We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
>
sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
monstrosity?



I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....


Harley W. Daugherty
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

Stretched J model is a problem, as you can't do assault landings with it,
and I'm sure some minimum field length issues will be in the specs.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:402a7579$1@bg2....
>
> If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
next-generation
> gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet unbuilt
> A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
> J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> launchers underwing for Hellfire.
>
>
> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

When I was in EWO school (in the dark ages) we designed a model of the
EAC-5. Lots of 'trons from that beasty.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


>
> We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:iOyWb.3630$Yj.3407@lakeread02...
> Stretched J model is a problem, as you can't do assault landings with it,
> and I'm sure some minimum field length issues will be in the specs.

Are you sure about that? According to LMCO, the USAF was conducting tests
with the CC-130J back in late 2002 to certify it for assault landing use.

www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar/ pdfs/year02/sep_02.pdf

Brooks


> --
> Les
> F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
>
>
> "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> news:402a7579$1@bg2....
> >
> > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> next-generation
> > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
unbuilt
> > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
stretched
> > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> >
> >
> > Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet
access!
>
>

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:402a7579$1@bg2....
>
> If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
next-generation
> gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet unbuilt
> A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
> J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> launchers underwing for Hellfire.

While I would not argue with your choice of platform, ISTR hearing that the
USAF is going to retire the 40mm due to ammunition issues. The 25mm gatlings
provide a lot of firepower; if it needs more there are always the various
30mm and 35mm options currently available on the market. Hellfire would
provide an improved standoff capability. I'd think unpowered (i.e., gliding)
PGM's might also be an option. And the development of new ammunition for
that M102; the Army is already testing very small thermobaric munitions (as
small as 40mm grenades, IIRC), and such a capability linked to the 105mm gun
might be of value in both urban and cave/bunker fights.

Brooks

>
>
> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:29:37 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>
>If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a next-generation
>gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet unbuilt
>A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
>J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
>launchers underwing for Hellfire.

These days, I'd still start with a herc (why go with the A-400 - it's
not in the US arsenal, and the extra carrying capacity isn't an issue
for a gunship)

For armanent, I'd drop the 40mm (which they are apprently doing
anyway), think about switching to a 30mm for greater standoff than the
25mm (does the US have any 30mm in use apart from the GAU-8, which may
be a little big, and the 30mm from the AAAV?), single rail hellfire
(or the new common missile, depending on timescales) under both wings
(for killing small SAMs and AAA before you roll into geometry), and of
course, the 105. Add in a few racks in the back full of BATs to hurl
off the ramp for any armoured columns you may come across.

Hmm, maybe one of the smaller UAVs ramp mounted, so that you cna if
necessary do a recce for heavy defences?

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:29:37 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
next-generation
> >gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
unbuilt
> >A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the stretched
> >J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> >launchers underwing for Hellfire.
>
> These days, I'd still start with a herc (why go with the A-400 - it's
> not in the US arsenal, and the extra carrying capacity isn't an issue
> for a gunship)
>
> For armanent, I'd drop the 40mm (which they are apprently doing
> anyway), think about switching to a 30mm for greater standoff than the
> 25mm (does the US have any 30mm in use apart from the GAU-8, which may
> be a little big, and the 30mm from the AAAV?),

The AH-64 carries a 30mm chain gun.

single rail hellfire
> (or the new common missile, depending on timescales) under both wings
> (for killing small SAMs and AAA before you roll into geometry), and of
> course, the 105. Add in a few racks in the back full of BATs to hurl
> off the ramp for any armoured columns you may come across.
>
> Hmm, maybe one of the smaller UAVs ramp mounted, so that you cna if
> necessary do a recce for heavy defences?

I believe the current approach is to develop data sharing with UAV's, and
allow airborne control of UAV's from platforms like the AC-130. Anything you
drop off the tailgate is on a one-way trip, and wile UAV's are more
affordable than manned aircraft, we have not yet gotten to the point of
fielding truly disposable ones.

Brooks

>
> Peter Kemp

In article >,
"Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...

> > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> >
> sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> monstrosity?

Everything.

Just... everything.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote in message >...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> next-generation
> > > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
> unbuilt
> > > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
> stretched
> > > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single rail
> > > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> >
> > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> >
> sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> monstrosity?
>
>
>
> I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
>
>
> Harley W. Daugherty
> > --
> > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
> > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > Slam on brakes accordingly.


C-17 has 3x the max takeoff weight of a AC-130, C-5 5x. Even with
structural strengthening, that is a lot of leftover weight to play
with. However, not a chance in hell are C-5s getting used as gunships.
If anyone is an AFA member, read last month's magazine. The Air Force
is doing everything it can to keep the cargo C-5s hauling as much as
possible, and with little or no prospect of new construction of them,
they aren't going to divert airframes from Air Mobility Command to
Spec Ops. The C-17 is still in production, so that is another story. A
C-17's MTW is around 500000 lbs versus about 150000 lbs for an AC-130.
Even with the weight to strenghten the airframe, that is a lot of
volume and lift to use for guns, ammo, sensors, jammers, missiles
etc...

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
> > > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> > >
> > sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> > monstrosity?
>
> Everything.
>
> Just... everything.

Yea, if not some 8" cannon with Copperhead I understand there's
still some 16" guns in depot. Probably not have more than one of
either and the 16 would have to fire straight ahead. Think of it like
the B-25G but with the 16" replacing the 75mm.

Possibly an airborne reloadable rotary launcher for MLRS rounds;
if we have spare development cash at the end a special version with
3/4s of the propellant traded for more HE.

A couple of Phalanx systems for self defense. Or, again, if the
development budget is big enough an adaptation of THEL for the job.
Could give THEL the role of defending troops in contact from
mortar rounds too. Hmm, come to think of it, THEL would make
a nice "danger close" antipersonnel weapon too.

Ah heck, let's just stuff the thing full of THEL, COIL and/or the
solid state systems that are about ready and go pure directed
energy. We'll call it the "Death Star", er, make that the "Death Galaxy".

Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the regular
one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon, but
when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer I
got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.

Les



"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> news:iOyWb.3630$Yj.3407@lakeread02...
> > Stretched J model is a problem, as you can't do assault landings with
it,
> > and I'm sure some minimum field length issues will be in the specs.
>
> Are you sure about that? According to LMCO, the USAF was conducting tests
> with the CC-130J back in late 2002 to certify it for assault landing use.
>
> www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar/ pdfs/year02/sep_02.pdf
>
> Brooks
>
>
> > --
> > Les
> > F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
> >
> >
> > "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> > news:402a7579$1@bg2....
> > >
> > > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> > next-generation
> > > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
> unbuilt
> > > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
> stretched
> > > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single
rail
> > > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> > >
> > >
> > > Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet
> access!
> >
> >
>
>

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:hsKWb.3680$Yj.1623@lakeread02...
> Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the regular
> one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
> you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon, but
> when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer I
> got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.

Things have changed. The USAF is indeed buying the stretched CC-130J--IIRC
the first ones went to the Rhode Island ANG. I doubt they would be buying
them if they could not perform assault landings.

Brooks

>
> Les
>
>
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> > news:iOyWb.3630$Yj.3407@lakeread02...
> > > Stretched J model is a problem, as you can't do assault landings with
> it,
> > > and I'm sure some minimum field length issues will be in the specs.
> >
> > Are you sure about that? According to LMCO, the USAF was conducting
tests
> > with the CC-130J back in late 2002 to certify it for assault landing
use.
> >
> > www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar/ pdfs/year02/sep_02.pdf
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Les
> > > F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
> > >
> > >
> > > "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> > > news:402a7579$1@bg2....
> > > >
> > > > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> > > next-generation
> > > > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
> > unbuilt
> > > > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
> > stretched
> > > > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single
> rail
> > > > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet
> > access!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault landings.
I've broken teeth.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> news:hsKWb.3680$Yj.1623@lakeread02...
> > Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the
regular
> > one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
> > you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon,
but
> > when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer
I
> > got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.
>
> Things have changed. The USAF is indeed buying the stretched CC-130J--IIRC
> the first ones went to the Rhode Island ANG. I doubt they would be buying
> them if they could not perform assault landings.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> > > news:iOyWb.3630$Yj.3407@lakeread02...
> > > > Stretched J model is a problem, as you can't do assault landings
with
> > it,
> > > > and I'm sure some minimum field length issues will be in the specs.
> > >
> > > Are you sure about that? According to LMCO, the USAF was conducting
> tests
> > > with the CC-130J back in late 2002 to certify it for assault landing
> use.
> > >
> > > www.lmaeronautics.com/lmaerostar/ pdfs/year02/sep_02.pdf
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > Les
> > > > F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> > > > news:402a7579$1@bg2....
> > > > >
> > > > > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> > > > next-generation
> > > > > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
> > > unbuilt
> > > > > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
> > > stretched
> > > > > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add
single
> > rail
> > > > > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet
> > > access!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Les Matheson wrote:
> I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
> landings. I've broken teeth.

I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of that.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Les Matheson wrote:
> > I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
> > landings. I've broken teeth.
>
> I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
> assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
> orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:nxXWb.4716$Yj.2563@lakeread02...
> Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of that.
> --
> Les
> F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
>
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Les Matheson wrote:
> > > I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
> > > landings. I've broken teeth.
> >
> > I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
> > assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
> > orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> > special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


Baltimore was the first US unit to get the 130J but they were shorties. So
are Keesler's I believe. Rhode Islands and ours are stretches, and as far as
we've been told all the new J's will be stretches. There was talk of sending
the shorties back to be stretched. We were doing assault landings with a
stretch out in the desert by Yuma back in the fall of 2002. As far as I know
it all came out good.
Steve R.

I guess that is good news, but is contradictory to what I was told. Maybe
they did something to the frame.

Les

"Steve R." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> news:nxXWb.4716$Yj.2563@lakeread02...
> > Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
that.
> > --
> > Les
> > F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
> >
> >
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Les Matheson wrote:
> > > > I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
> > > > landings. I've broken teeth.
> > >
> > > I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
> > > assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
> > > orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> > > "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> > > special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
> Baltimore was the first US unit to get the 130J but they were shorties. So
> are Keesler's I believe. Rhode Islands and ours are stretches, and as far
as
> we've been told all the new J's will be stretches. There was talk of
sending
> the shorties back to be stretched. We were doing assault landings with a
> stretch out in the desert by Yuma back in the fall of 2002. As far as I
know
> it all came out good.
> Steve R.
>
>

"George" > wrote in message
m...
> "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you had been given the task of choosing the plaform for a
> > next-generation
> > > > gunship, would the C-130J be the platform base, or would an as yet
> > unbuilt
> > > > A400M be chosen? I'd take an AC-130 based on the J, but use the
> > stretched
> > > > J, with two instead of one 25mms, one 40mm, and the 105. Add single
rail
> > > > launchers underwing for Hellfire.
> > >
> > > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> > >
> > sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> > monstrosity?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
> >
> >
> > Harley W. Daugherty
> > > --
> > > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> > >
> > > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > > Slam on brakes accordingly.
>
>
> C-17 has 3x the max takeoff weight of a AC-130, C-5 5x. Even with
> structural strengthening, that is a lot of leftover weight to play
> with. However, not a chance in hell are C-5s getting used as gunships.
> If anyone is an AFA member, read last month's magazine. The Air Force
> is doing everything it can to keep the cargo C-5s hauling as much as
> possible, and with little or no prospect of new construction of them,
> they aren't going to divert airframes from Air Mobility Command to
> Spec Ops. The C-17 is still in production, so that is another story. A
> C-17's MTW is around 500000 lbs versus about 150000 lbs for an AC-130.
> Even with the weight to strenghten the airframe, that is a lot of
> volume and lift to use for guns, ammo, sensors, jammers, missiles
> etc...

So a AC-17 is a serious possibility!?

THEL. hmmm, any one got a mass/Weight break down on that? It would make a
intrewsing add on.

Harley

Les Matheson wrote:
(boy, top-posting is a pain)

> Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
> that.

Perhaps. If so, there's no reason the AC and MC replacement scould not use
different fuselage lengths. All the important systems are common.

OTOH, they might decide not to use the same airframe if they adopt an exotic
design for an MC-103 replacement (quad tiltrotor, tilt-wing, etc).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Hi!

> I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
> Harley W. Daugherty

The "lets have a cloud of redundant sensor and weapons drones
decending on the enemy while our drones mothership is out of harms
way" is definately the best solution when you can get it to work.

I have the impression that one of the main ideas of the AC-130
gunships is that they are cheap to use, a fairly small crew, fuel and
cheap ammunition. This means that a true visionary replacement also
has to have cheap drones to realy be a good replacement.

If you do not get this visionary system to work and the small sam
threath gets worse I would guess that an AC-17 might make sense. You
would anyway like to keep the C-17 production line open. Delete all
the smaller arms used on the AC-130:s and arm it with two or three 105
mm guns and fly higher to make it harder to reach. You do of course
also have to mount every SAM countermeasure you have in your
inventory. It might require active SAM countermeasures that shoot
down SAM:s.

But it would be even easier to delete everything but the 105 mm gun on
AC-130:s and fly them higher. And two or three AC-130:s for each AC-17
gives bigger margins for attrition and forces the enemy to use more
SAM:s.

If the C-130 is not good enough for a combat landing I doubt that
anything reasonable would be good enough for landing at that airfield.
I guess the solution is to choose a better airfield, that is you need
more of them to choose from. I thus think that the best C-130
replacement for tough combat landings is a bigger osprey that lands
vertically. And if that is to expensive to develop a lot more standard
ospreys. When you then have a secured area move in and secure an
airfield capable of recieving C-130:s or C-17:s.

I think more C-17:s, more ospreys and perhaps more C-130:s is best and
if you need to develop something new develop a bigger osprey.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:27:57 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Les Matheson wrote:
>(boy, top-posting is a pain)
>
>> Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
>> that.
>
>Perhaps. If so, there's no reason the AC and MC replacement scould not use
>different fuselage lengths. All the important systems are common.
>
>OTOH, they might decide not to use the same airframe if they adopt an exotic
>design for an MC-103 replacement (quad tiltrotor, tilt-wing, etc).

Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
without the single point of failure of the gun itself.

Peter Kemp

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:22:41 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> wrote:

>In message >, Peter
>Kemp > wrote:

>> Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
>> Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
>> view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
>> 105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
>> without the single point of failure of the gun itself.
>>
>Interesting, and I don't dispute the facts.
>
>I do, wonder, however, just how often that single point of
>failure has failed.
>
>I flew as a gunner on the AC-130E in VN, and never had a single
>mission failure of the 105 (or the 40mm for that matter).

Fair enough - as an alternative theory (just off the top of my head) -
are there any more of the type of the 105mm used in the AC-130 left in
inventory to alter for the 4 new AC-130U they just announced?

Maybe they're forced to do it, or maybe they like the idea of not
having to roll into geometry over a convoy, merely fly along it,
lobbing a canister out every couple of seconds (though the trials
involve a downward firing launcher - not sure where it's mounted).

Anyway, thanks for weighing in Frank, always nice to get an expert
opinion.

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:22:41 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Peter
> >Kemp > wrote:
>
> >> Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
> >> Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
> >> view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
> >> 105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
> >> without the single point of failure of the gun itself.
> >>
> >Interesting, and I don't dispute the facts.
> >
> >I do, wonder, however, just how often that single point of
> >failure has failed.
> >
> >I flew as a gunner on the AC-130E in VN, and never had a single
> >mission failure of the 105 (or the 40mm for that matter).
>
> Fair enough - as an alternative theory (just off the top of my head) -
> are there any more of the type of the 105mm used in the AC-130 left in
> inventory to alter for the 4 new AC-130U they just announced?

Sure. It is a modified M102. Last I knew there were still some of those in
service with some ARNG light units who had yet to field the M119 light gun,
and a bunch of them have been recently taken from the units that have
already recieved the new guns.

>
> Maybe they're forced to do it, or maybe they like the idea of not
> having to roll into geometry over a convoy, merely fly along it,
> lobbing a canister out every couple of seconds (though the trials
> involve a downward firing launcher - not sure where it's mounted).

Can't see why they can't have both capabilities in place (replace a few
105mm rounds with a few BAT canisters). The 105mm has some possible uses the
BAT's can't fill. Using a BAT against a bunker with a four or five foot
thick roof would seem to be kind of iffy; a couple of direct hits with that
105mm can do the trick. The 105mm could be configured to fire thermobaric
rounds if so desired--don't think a BAT could do that very well.

Brooks

>
> Anyway, thanks for weighing in Frank, always nice to get an expert
> opinion.
>
> Peter Kemp

Let's just say it wasn't quite that simple.

> Of course when it did happen (Kenya), the result could/did prove
fatal.
>


--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:55:10 -0700, Frank Vaughan wrote:

> Far from and expert,

Aren't you the guy whose old website was taken down from bandwidth
over-usage when the war in Afghanistan started and everyone wanted
information on AC-130s?

You might not consider yourself an expert but apparently your public thinks
otherwise.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> > wrote:

> >
> > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> >
> sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> monstrosity?
>
>
>
> I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
>
>
> Harley W. Daugherty
> > --
> > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> >
> > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > Slam on brakes accordingly.
>
>
An AC-5? Man, I can see it now....20 Mavericks, twin Gau-8 30mm's...and a
kaboodle of new doo-dads to play with:)..
PLUS capability to drop off the kiddies at the pool.....or 3rd world country
of their choice. :-)

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> >

> A couple of Phalanx systems for self defense. Or, again, if the
> development budget is big enough an adaptation of THEL for the job.
> Could give THEL the role of defending troops in contact from
> mortar rounds too. Hmm, come to think of it, THEL would make
> a nice "danger close" antipersonnel weapon too.
>
> Ah heck, let's just stuff the thing full of THEL, COIL and/or the
> solid state systems that are about ready and go pure directed
> energy. We'll call it the "Death Star", er, make that the "Death Galaxy".
>
One vote for Death Galaxy here...it's befitting the ole bird.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Puppinator" > wrote in message >...
> "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> > >
> > sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> > monstrosity?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
> >
> >
> > Harley W. Daugherty
> > > --
> > > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> > >
> > > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > > Slam on brakes accordingly.
> >
> >
> An AC-5? Man, I can see it now....20 Mavericks, twin Gau-8 30mm's...and a
> kaboodle of new doo-dads to play with:)..
> PLUS capability to drop off the kiddies at the pool.....or 3rd world country
> of their choice. :-)

Sorry, never gonna happen. The AF is trying to keep as many cargo
C-5s running as possible. They'll never sacrifice the airframes for
gunships.

sorry, it was a joke..I picked that up from someone else in the newsgroup.

"George" > wrote in message
m...
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Harley W. Daugherty" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > In article <402a7579$1@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > We've already had the AC-5 suggested...
> > > >
> > > sweet Jesus..................... What kinda loadout you put on that
> > > monstrosity?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd prefer a AC-17 variant....
> > >
> > >
> > > Harley W. Daugherty
> > > > --
> > > > cirby at cfl.rr.com
> > > >
> > > > Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> > > > Slam on brakes accordingly.
> > >
> > >
> > An AC-5? Man, I can see it now....20 Mavericks, twin Gau-8 30mm's...and
a
> > kaboodle of new doo-dads to play with:)..
> > PLUS capability to drop off the kiddies at the pool.....or 3rd world
country
> > of their choice. :-)
>
> Sorry, never gonna happen. The AF is trying to keep as many cargo
> C-5s running as possible. They'll never sacrifice the airframes for
> gunships.