Hypothetical AC-130 replacement

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
news
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.