Hypothetical AC-130 replacement

"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...

"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".

Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the regular
one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon, but
when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer I
got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.

Les



"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"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!

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:hsKWb.3680$Yj.1623@lakeread02...
Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the regular
one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon, but
when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer I
got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.

Things have changed. The USAF is indeed buying the stretched CC-130J--IIRC
the first ones went to the Rhode Island ANG. I doubt they would be buying
them if they could not perform assault landings.

Brooks


Les



"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"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!

I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault landings.
I've broken teeth.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:hsKWb.3680$Yj.1623@lakeread02...
Well that's what I was told as to why the USAF is only buying the
regular
one and the Brits aren't buying them for their Spec Ops squadrons. Like
you, I thought the stretch J was a great upgrade for the Combat Talon,
but
when I proposed it as an option (in the late '90s ) that was the answer
I
got from some pretty high up in AFSOC.

Things have changed. The USAF is indeed buying the stretched CC-130J--IIRC
the first ones went to the Rhode Island ANG. I doubt they would be buying
them if they could not perform assault landings.

Brooks


Les



"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"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!

Les Matheson wrote:
I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
landings. I've broken teeth.

I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of that.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
Les Matheson wrote:
I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
landings. I've broken teeth.

I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:nxXWb.4716$Yj.2563@lakeread02...
Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of that.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
Les Matheson wrote:
I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
landings. I've broken teeth.

I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


Baltimore was the first US unit to get the 130J but they were shorties. So
are Keesler's I believe. Rhode Islands and ours are stretches, and as far as
we've been told all the new J's will be stretches. There was talk of sending
the shorties back to be stretched. We were doing assault landings with a
stretch out in the desert by Yuma back in the fall of 2002. As far as I know
it all came out good.
Steve R.

I guess that is good news, but is contradictory to what I was told. Maybe
they did something to the frame.

Les

"Steve R." wrote in message
news

"Les Matheson" wrote in message
news:nxXWb.4716$Yj.2563@lakeread02...
Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
that.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
Les Matheson wrote:
I doubt they do assault landings like Spec Ops 130s do assault
landings. I've broken teeth.

I'm somewhat confused. Why would the AC-130 replacement *need* to do
assault landings. An MC-130 replacementr, sure, but the AC should be
orbiting somewhere, not landing, if I understand their roles properly.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


Baltimore was the first US unit to get the 130J but they were shorties. So
are Keesler's I believe. Rhode Islands and ours are stretches, and as far
as
we've been told all the new J's will be stretches. There was talk of
sending
the shorties back to be stretched. We were doing assault landings with a
stretch out in the desert by Yuma back in the fall of 2002. As far as I
know
it all came out good.
Steve R.

"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