Boeing $188 million side-firing AC-130U gunship contract

[Larry Dighera]

BOEING CO. has won a $188 million contract to modify three
C-130H2 aircraft into a side-firing AC-130U gunship, the Air
Force said on Monday. The Air Force said work on the contract
would be completed by September 2006. The AC-130U "Spooky"
gunship provides close air support, air interdiction and armed
reconnaissance for the U.S. military. It is one of the most
complex aircraft weapon systems in the world today, containing
more than 609,000 lines of software in its mission computers
and avionics systems. Although it still uses the Lockheed
Martin Corp. C-130 airframe, the AC-130U gunship incorporates
the latest sensor technology, along with an entirely new
fire-control system, to substantially increase its combat
effectiveness.
(Reuters 06:28 PM ET 12/08/2003)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=898637&m=100623fd65c9005023062a&s=rb031208

================================================== ==============

[Tony Williams]

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> BOEING CO. has won a $188 million contract to modify three
> C-130H2 aircraft into a side-firing AC-130U gunship, the Air
> Force said on Monday. The Air Force said work on the contract
> would be completed by September 2006. The AC-130U "Spooky"
> gunship provides close air support, air interdiction and armed
> reconnaissance for the U.S. military. It is one of the most
> complex aircraft weapon systems in the world today, containing
> more than 609,000 lines of software in its mission computers
> and avionics systems. Although it still uses the Lockheed
> Martin Corp. C-130 airframe, the AC-130U gunship incorporates
> the latest sensor technology, along with an entirely new
> fire-control system, to substantially increase its combat
> effectiveness.
> (Reuters 06:28 PM ET 12/08/2003)
>
> More:
> http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=898637&m=100623fd65c9005023062a&s=rb031208
>
> ================================================== ==============

Last I heard, they were thinking of replacing both the 40mm Bofors and
the 25mm GAU-12/U with the 30mm GAU-8/A, on the grounds of commonality
with the weapon and ammunition in the A-10. Anyone know of a source
dealing with this?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

> Last I heard, they were thinking of replacing both the 40mm Bofors and
> the 25mm GAU-12/U with the 30mm GAU-8/A, on the grounds of commonality
> with the weapon and ammunition in the A-10.

They could put in four or five and have the world's first
sideways-flying C-130.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Greg Hennessy]

On 13 Dec 2003 12:43:34 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>>
>> More:
>> http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=898637&m=100623fd65c9005023062a&s=rb031208
>>
>> ================================================== ==============
>
>Last I heard, they were thinking of replacing both the 40mm Bofors and
>the 25mm GAU-12/U

I wonder are they running out of WW2 stocks of L/60 ammo for the bofors ?
LOL!

>with the 30mm GAU-8/A, on the grounds of commonality
>with the weapon and ammunition in the A-10. Anyone know of a source
>dealing with this?


Now that would be impressive with some form of smart fuzing.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Les Matheson]

The 25mm is going to be the standard. Eventually they plan to put them on
the AC-130H also. The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is being
purchased.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)



/

[Eric Moore]

Are we ever gonna see an AC-130 based on the C-130J?

[Ragnar]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> BOEING CO. has won a $188 million contract to modify three
> C-130H2 aircraft into a side-firing AC-130U gunship, the Air
> Force said on Monday.

Nice. But when do we get the AC-5?

[Jim Atkins]

I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath. Come
to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
thing.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:52:35 -0600, "Les Matheson" >
wrote:

> The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is being
>purchased.

Really ? I thought I was joking when I posted earlier ?

Did the US ever have the Bofors L/70 in service to replace the L/60s with ?


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
> wrote:

> I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath. Come
> to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
> thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
> > wrote:
>
> > I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath. Come
> > to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
> > thing.
>
> Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
> because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
>
> But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the back...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath.
Come
> > > to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
> > > thing.
> >
> > Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
> > because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
> >
> > But I'd like to see it in action, too.
>
> Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
> GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
> system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the back...

Sure. :)

[Tony Williams]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:52:35 -0600, "Les Matheson" >
> wrote:
>
> > The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is being
> >purchased.
>
> Really ? I thought I was joking when I posted earlier ?
>
> Did the US ever have the Bofors L/70 in service to replace the L/60s with ?

Not that I know of. They nearly made it with the Sgt York DIVADS SPAAG.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[James Hart]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
>>> breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns from
>>> the Iowa on that thing.
>>
>> Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
>> because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
>>
>> But I'd like to see it in action, too.
>
> Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
> GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
> system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the
> back...

Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"James Hart" > wrote:

> Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might
> have a bit of a wide loiter area.

Or an A-71 to replace the A-10. You wouldn't even need a gun, just push
some bullets out in a fast dive.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Michael Williamson]

James Hart wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
>>>>breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns from
>>>>the Iowa on that thing.
>>>
>>>Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
>>>because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
>>>
>>>But I'd like to see it in action, too.
>>
>>Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
>>GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
>>system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the
>>back...
>
>
> Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
> bit of a wide loiter area.
>

Several problems with the C-17, the most immediate being that we
don't have as many as we need to fill the transport role, so there
won't be any available for quite some time. Secondly, do we gain
enough capablity over the C-130 to warrant replacing them, at huge
cost in procurement, development, and training?

Mike

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Michael Williamson > wrote:

> James Hart wrote:

> > Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
> > bit of a wide loiter area.
> >
>
> Several problems with the C-17,

He said AC-71.

Like SR-71.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Michael Williamson]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael Williamson > wrote:
>
>
>>James Hart wrote:
>
>
>>>Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
>>>bit of a wide loiter area.
>>>
>>
>> Several problems with the C-17,
>
>
> He said AC-71.
>
> Like SR-71.
>

My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)

Mike

[B2431]

>From: Michael Williamson
>Date: 12/14/2003 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Chad Irby wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michael Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>James Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
>>>>bit of a wide loiter area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Several problems with the C-17,
>>
>>
>> He said AC-71.
>>
>> Like SR-71.
>>
>
> My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
>come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
>
>Mike
>
Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
this case it can be any letter combination?

In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the C
stands for RD making it a B-1RD.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: Michael Williamson

> > My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
> >come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
> this case it can be any letter combination?
>
> In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the C
> stands for RD making it a B-1RD.

Ow. That's almost as bad as the original B-One.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 12/14/2003 6:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>> >From: Michael Williamson
>
>> > My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
>> >come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >
>> Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
>> this case it can be any letter combination?
>>
>> In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the
>C
>> stands for RD making it a B-1RD.
>
>Ow. That's almost as bad as the original B-One.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
Or the GU-11.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Michael Williamson
> >Date: 12/14/2003 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Chad Irby wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Michael Williamson > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>James Hart wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might
have a
> >>>>bit of a wide loiter area.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Several problems with the C-17,
> >>
> >>
> >> He said AC-71.
> >>
> >> Like SR-71.
> >>
> >
> > My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
> >come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number.
In
> this case it can be any letter combination?

Except the USAF has a meaning for those letters.

Oh well, Dan is a kook again. :)

[John Keeney]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath.
Come
> > > to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
> > > thing.
> >
> > Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
> > because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
> >
> > But I'd like to see it in action, too.
>
> Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
> GAU-8s,

The old 105mm tank main guns now tanks have gone to 120mm.
Wait a minute, which tube was the Copperhead guided round for,
155mm? That would be the ticket.

>Sidewinder launchers for self-defense,

CIWS for self defense I tell you, why won't you people listen? ;-)
That and it's a new home for the Phonix inventory.
No sense being shy about it.

> a small AWACS-type
> system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the back...

Why something so small, an F-16 should be workable.

[Chad Irby]

"John Keeney" > wrote:
> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> > > "Jim Atkins" > wrote:
> > > > I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
> > > > breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns
> > > > from the Iowa on that thing.
> > >
> > > Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
> > > because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
> > >
> > > But I'd like to see it in action, too.
> >
> > Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
> > GAU-8s,
>
> The old 105mm tank main guns now tanks have gone to 120mm.
> Wait a minute, which tube was the Copperhead guided round for,
> 155mm? That would be the ticket.

If we're doing that, go with pure rockets. Downrated MLRS, maybe (don't
need the range). Just put full-width tubes across the fuselage for the
exhaust. Don't have to deal with recoil, then.

Not to mention a lot of guided anti-tank missiles.

> >Sidewinder launchers for self-defense,
>
> CIWS for self defense I tell you, why won't you people listen? ;-)

Even better, although a longer-ranged one would be nice. And the
Sidewinder would give a little more range. Maybe a dozen or so slung
under the wings, to fill in between the long-range and CIWS.

> That and it's a new home for the Phonix inventory.

Have we got many left? Toss in a couple of Genies, while you're at it.
The heck with tactical, let's go with strategic arms.

> No sense being shy about it.

Exactly. More, bigger, louder.

> > a small AWACS-type system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two
> > to toss out the back...
>
> Why something so small, an F-16 should be workable.

Wingspan. The cargo compartment's only 19 feet wide. The F-16 is 32
feet. Or we could hang one under one of the wings.

Although an updated F-104 might fit, with a reduced wingspan (right at
22 feet). Catapult launch, maybe.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tony Williams]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message news:<nvOCb.818$Fg.276@lakeread01>...
> The 25mm is going to be the standard. Eventually they plan to put them on
> the AC-130H also. The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is being
> purchased.

Well, 40mm L/60 ammo is still in production in various countries, so
that is hardly a strong reason for dumping the gun.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[B2431]

>From: Frank Vaughan
>Date: 12/15/2003 1:26 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, Michael Williamson
> wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Michael Williamson > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>James Hart wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have
>a
>> >>>bit of a wide loiter area.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Several problems with the C-17,
>> >
>> >
>> > He said AC-71.
>> >
>> > Like SR-71.
>> >
>>
>> My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
>> come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
>>
>
>Attack-Camera-71 ?
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"

Assault with a deadly camera is a felony in The People's Republic of South
California.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Les Matheson]

Hey, I only am telling you what I know.

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


"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:<nvOCb.818$Fg.276@lakeread01>...
> > The 25mm is going to be the standard. Eventually they plan to put them
on
> > the AC-130H also. The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is
being
> > purchased.
>
> Well, 40mm L/60 ammo is still in production in various countries, so
> that is hardly a strong reason for dumping the gun.
>
> Tony Williams
> Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[James Hart]

Michael Williamson wrote:
> Chad Irby wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michael Williamson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> James Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might
>>>> have a bit of a wide loiter area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Several problems with the C-17,
>>
>>
>> He said AC-71.
>>
>> Like SR-71.
>>
>
> My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
> come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)

Err, it tows a trailer so it can be used as a transport as well.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Tony Williams]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message news:<aZhDb.3828$Fg.2383@lakeread01>...
> Hey, I only am telling you what I know.


I wasn't criticising what you said - just thinking that they couldn't
much want to hang on the gun, because if they did they could always
get more ammo.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

> --
> Les
> F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
>
>
> "Tony Williams" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Les Matheson" > wrote in message
> news:<nvOCb.818$Fg.276@lakeread01>...
> > > The 25mm is going to be the standard. Eventually they plan to put them
> on
> > > the AC-130H also. The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is
> being
> > > purchased.
> >
> > Well, 40mm L/60 ammo is still in production in various countries, so
> > that is hardly a strong reason for dumping the gun.
> >
> > Tony Williams
> > Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> > Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
> > http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Alan Minyard]

On 15 Dec 2003 01:07:27 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Chad Irby
>>Date: 12/14/2003 6:40 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In article >,
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>
>>> >From: Michael Williamson
>>
>>> > My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
>>> >come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)
>>> >
>>> >Mike
>>> >
>>> Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
>>> this case it can be any letter combination?
>>>
>>> In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the
>>C
>>> stands for RD making it a B-1RD.
>>
>>Ow. That's almost as bad as the original B-One.
>>
>>--
>>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>>
>Or the GU-11.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

That wasn't as bad as the "cargo" variant, the
C-GU11

Al Minyard