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.

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.

"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".

"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
__________________

"Harley W. Daugherty" wrote in message k.net...
"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...

"George" wrote in message
m...
"Harley W. Daugherty" wrote in message
k.net...
"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

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

"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
__________________