Is Spooky safe to take downtown?

"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

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

"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

"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".

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

http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...ft/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

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:16:41 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...ft/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