Is Spooky safe to take downtown?

[Henry J Cobb]

http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> adverse weather.

Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?

-HJC

[John Keeney]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > adverse weather.
>
> Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?

Probably so.
Since the AC-130 shoots and looks out the side rather than
straight ahead they can spend a lot of time getting a good
look and sorting out targets.
The explosive power of individual rounds from the 105mm is
considerably smaller than that of a most bombs, so -barring
secondaries- the blast radius (read as collateral damage area)
is also much smaller.
The AC-130 and laser guided bombs are both extremely accurate.
The only question I would have is how often do they experience
some kind of guidance/pointing failure.

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

Last week I saw a C-17 Globemaster III making some strange low-altitude
maneuvers around Morristown, Tennessee (which I've noticed has been used as a
practice visual target area before).

I'm wondering if the Air Force has already developed a gunship version of the
C-17. Those quieter fan engines are probably an advantage to the C-130's props,
which can often be heard from miles away.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[John Keeney]

"Stephen "FPilot" Bierce" > wrote in message
...
> Last week I saw a C-17 Globemaster III making some strange low-altitude
> maneuvers around Morristown, Tennessee (which I've noticed has been used
as a
> practice visual target area before).
>
> I'm wondering if the Air Force has already developed a gunship version of
the
> C-17. Those quieter fan engines are probably an advantage to the C-130's
props,
> which can often be heard from miles away.

Not likely. The C-17 is just plain too big and too useful
moving freight around.
More likely the C-17 you saw was just practicing some
kind of low level stuff.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > adverse weather.
>
> Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?

Look at this morning's footage of the AC-130 strikes against that truck and
arms storage building in Fallujah, and then ask yourself this question
again.

Brooks

>
> -HJC

[miso]

I think the opposite question should be asked. Is the crew of the
ac130 safe given the amount of SA gear floating around Iraq. Can the
AC130 maintain a safe distance from the weapons of the resistance?

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > adverse weather.
>
> Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
>
> -HJC

[Kyle Boatright]

"miso" > wrote in message
om...
> I think the opposite question should be asked. Is the crew of the
> ac130 safe given the amount of SA gear floating around Iraq. Can the
> AC130 maintain a safe distance from the weapons of the resistance?
>
> Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
>...
> > http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated
sensor,
> > > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > > adverse weather.
> >
> > Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> > hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
> >
> > -HJC


Spooky flies at night, which makes visual targeting more difficult. In
addition, the most visible thing Spooky does is put out a long line of
tracer fire, which appears to curve as you're watching it. That throws off
visual targeting too. Finally, if you shoot at Spooky, you'd better hit it
quick, because it shoots back and is accurate enough to ruin your whole day.

As far as MANPADS go, Spooky has a decent slant range and effective
countermeasures. MANPADS are not terribly effective under those
circumstances..


KB

[John Keeney]

"miso" > wrote in message
om...
> I think the opposite question should be asked. Is the crew of the
> ac130 safe given the amount of SA gear floating around Iraq. Can the
> AC130 maintain a safe distance from the weapons of the resistance?

Going to war is not safe.
That being said, given how they are used I'ld say they have a real
good chance of coming back from their missions.

> Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
>...
> > http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated
sensor,
> > > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > > adverse weather.
> >
> > Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> > hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
> >
> > -HJC

[Les Matheson]

No tracers these days. Only in training. With all the high tech sensors
you don't need the tracers to aim with (went out with the AC-47), and as you
say, "tracers work both ways."

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


"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "miso" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I think the opposite question should be asked. Is the crew of the
> > ac130 safe given the amount of SA gear floating around Iraq. Can the
> > AC130 maintain a safe distance from the weapons of the resistance?
> >
> > Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
> >...
> > > http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > > > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed
aircraft
> > > > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated
> sensor,
> > > > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower
or
> > > > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > > > adverse weather.
> > >
> > > Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs
or
> > > hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
> > >
> > > -HJC
>
>
> Spooky flies at night, which makes visual targeting more difficult. In
> addition, the most visible thing Spooky does is put out a long line of
> tracer fire, which appears to curve as you're watching it. That throws
off
> visual targeting too. Finally, if you shoot at Spooky, you'd better hit
it
> quick, because it shoots back and is accurate enough to ruin your whole
day.
>
> As far as MANPADS go, Spooky has a decent slant range and effective
> countermeasures. MANPADS are not terribly effective under those
> circumstances..
>
>
> KB
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.670 / Virus Database: 432 - Release Date: 4/27/2004

[Tex Houston]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
> Going to war is not safe.
> That being said, given how they are used I'ld say they have a real
> good chance of coming back from their missions.


For whoever originated the thread...sure these aircraft aren't AC-130
gunships, callsign 'Spectre' rather than the 'Spooky in the title? AC-47
'Spooky' aircraft might indeed have a little trouble downtown.

Tex Houston

[Yeff]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:50:33 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:

> For whoever originated the thread...sure these aircraft aren't AC-130
> gunships, callsign 'Spectre' rather than the 'Spooky in the title?

<http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/ac130.asp>

The AC-130U, commonly referred to as "U-Boat", is the most complex aircraft
weapons system in the world today. It has more than 609,000 lines of
software code in its mission computers and avionics systems. The newest
addition to the command fleet, it is the latest in a long line of
heavily-armed, side-firing gunships and is named "Spooky II" in honor of
the first gunship model, the AC-47D. All other AC-130s are referred to as
"Spectre".

-----

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Tex Houston]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:50:33 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:
>
> > For whoever originated the thread...sure these aircraft aren't AC-130
> > gunships, callsign 'Spectre' rather than the 'Spooky in the title?
>
> <http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/ac130.asp>
>
> The AC-130U, commonly referred to as "U-Boat", is the most complex
aircraft
> weapons system in the world today. It has more than 609,000 lines of
> software code in its mission computers and avionics systems. The newest
> addition to the command fleet, it is the latest in a long line of
> heavily-armed, side-firing gunships and is named "Spooky II" in honor of
> the first gunship model, the AC-47D. All other AC-130s are referred to as
> "Spectre".
>
> -----
>
> -Jeff B.


Interesting, wasn't aware of the rename. Probably use a tactical callsign
for missions anyway. We probably have too many 'II' aircraft what with
Lightning, Texan and others. Sure confuses the issue when the "II' or 'III'
is omitted.

Thanks,

Tex

[miso]

I watched the weapons school at Nellis shoot up range 61 at night.
They used tracers, which were just barely visible from 10 miles
(estimated) away with the naked eye. With binoculars, the tracer fire
was quite easy to see. Conclusion: I was damn glad they were on our
side. I also concluded the "no trespassing" signs on the bombing
ranges are a good idea.

If it is flying blacked out and no tracers, then it shouldn't be easy
to target. Depending on distance, you could probably see it block out
the stars and sky glow with NV gear. I've seen this with blacked out
pavehawk (or similar shape) helicopters, and something the size of a
herc would make it easier.

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message news:<KT5kc.3556$pJ1.650@lakeread02>...
> No tracers these days. Only in training. With all the high tech sensors
> you don't need the tracers to aim with (went out with the AC-47), and as you
> say, "tracers work both ways."
>
> --
> Les
> F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)
>
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "miso" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I think the opposite question should be asked. Is the crew of the
> > > ac130 safe given the amount of SA gear floating around Iraq. Can the
> > > AC130 maintain a safe distance from the weapons of the resistance?
> > >
> > > Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > > > > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed
> aircraft
> > > > > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated
> sensor,
> > > > > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower
> or
> > > > > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > > > > adverse weather.
> > > >
> > > > Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs
> or
> > > > hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
> > > >
> > > > -HJC
> >
> >
> > Spooky flies at night, which makes visual targeting more difficult. In
> > addition, the most visible thing Spooky does is put out a long line of
> > tracer fire, which appears to curve as you're watching it. That throws
> off
> > visual targeting too. Finally, if you shoot at Spooky, you'd better hit
> it
> > quick, because it shoots back and is accurate enough to ruin your whole
> day.
> >
> > As far as MANPADS go, Spooky has a decent slant range and effective
> > countermeasures. MANPADS are not terribly effective under those
> > circumstances..
> >
> >
> > KB
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.670 / Virus Database: 432 - Release Date: 4/27/2004

[John Keeney]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Going to war is not safe.
> > That being said, given how they are used I'ld say they have a real
> > good chance of coming back from their missions.
>
>
> For whoever originated the thread...sure these aircraft aren't AC-130
> gunships, callsign 'Spectre' rather than the 'Spooky in the title? AC-47
> 'Spooky' aircraft might indeed have a little trouble downtown.

"Spooky", Tex, seems to have become a synonym for
"fixed wing gun ship". The few times we trained with
an AC-130 supporting, the grunts all referred to it as
"Spooky".
Besides, it is as official as such things get that the
AC-130U is "Spooky" instead of "Specter".

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:16:41 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > adverse weather.
>
>Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
>hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?

One thing I saw in Janes Defence Weekly recently was that Hunter UAVs
armed with Viper Strike munitions (BAT with laser rather than
acoustic/IR sensors) has been cleared for use in Iraq - now that
should be damn useful for low collateral damage urban ops.

Peter Kemp

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:16:41 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>
> >http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm
> > > The newest addition to the command fleet, this heavily armed aircraft
> > > incorporates side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor,
> > > navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or
> > > area saturation during extended loiter periods, at night and in
> > > adverse weather.
> >
> >Is Spooky safer for the surrounding civilians than laser guided bombs or
> >hellfire missiles for attacks on point targets in urban areas?
>
> One thing I saw in Janes Defence Weekly recently was that Hunter UAVs
> armed with Viper Strike munitions (BAT with laser rather than
> acoustic/IR sensors) has been cleared for use in Iraq - now that
> should be damn useful for low collateral damage urban ops.

Another nice tool, but it does little to address the problem of the
mortar-crew-in-the-courtyard (I don't think the BAT submunition (which uses
a SFF, IIRC, as its killing mechanism) would be particularly lethal against
anything other than a vehicle, but correct me if I am wrong), nor will it be
particularly useful against an enemy position in a building. The AC-130 is
good at taking out both.

Brooks

>
> Peter Kemp

[Henry J Cobb]

Frank Vaughan wrote:
> In message >, "John Keeney"
> > wrote:
>>"Spooky", Tex, seems to have become a synonym for
>>"fixed wing gun ship". The few times we trained with
>>an AC-130 supporting, the grunts all referred to it as
>>"Spooky".
>>Besides, it is as official as such things get that the
>>AC-130U is "Spooky" instead of "Specter".
>
> Spectre
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
> Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships

Yes, you served on a Spectre, but the AC-130U is "Spooky".

Would you believe the Air Force on this?

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71
> The AC-130H's call sign is "Spectre." The AC-130U's call sign is
> "Spooky. "

-HJC

[Les Matheson]

Frank was correcting the spelling of "Spectre" not saying that the U model
is not "Spooky"

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


"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Vaughan wrote:
> > In message >, "John Keeney"
> > > wrote:
> >>"Spooky", Tex, seems to have become a synonym for
> >>"fixed wing gun ship". The few times we trained with
> >>an AC-130 supporting, the grunts all referred to it as
> >>"Spooky".
> >>Besides, it is as official as such things get that the
> >>AC-130U is "Spooky" instead of "Specter".
> >
> > Spectre
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
> > Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships
>
> Yes, you served on a Spectre, but the AC-130U is "Spooky".
>
> Would you believe the Air Force on this?
>
> http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71
> > The AC-130H's call sign is "Spectre." The AC-130U's call sign is
> > "Spooky. "
>
> -HJC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.684 / Virus Database: 446 - Release Date: 5/13/2004