Hypothetical AC-130 replacement

Les Matheson wrote:
(boy, top-posting is a pain)

Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
that.

Perhaps. If so, there's no reason the AC and MC replacement scould not use
different fuselage lengths. All the important systems are common.

OTOH, they might decide not to use the same airframe if they adopt an exotic
design for an MC-103 replacement (quad tiltrotor, tilt-wing, etc).

--
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)

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

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:27:57 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Les Matheson wrote:
(boy, top-posting is a pain)

Because they are going to use the same airframe, I'm pretty sure of
that.

Perhaps. If so, there's no reason the AC and MC replacement scould not use
different fuselage lengths. All the important systems are common.

OTOH, they might decide not to use the same airframe if they adopt an exotic
design for an MC-103 replacement (quad tiltrotor, tilt-wing, etc).

Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
without the single point of failure of the gun itself.

Peter Kemp

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:22:41 -0700, Frank Vaughan
wrote:

In message , Peter
Kemp wrote:

Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
without the single point of failure of the gun itself.

Interesting, and I don't dispute the facts.

I do, wonder, however, just how often that single point of
failure has failed.

I flew as a gunner on the AC-130E in VN, and never had a single
mission failure of the 105 (or the 40mm for that matter).

Fair enough - as an alternative theory (just off the top of my head) -
are there any more of the type of the 105mm used in the AC-130 left in
inventory to alter for the 4 new AC-130U they just announced?

Maybe they're forced to do it, or maybe they like the idea of not
having to roll into geometry over a convoy, merely fly along it,
lobbing a canister out every couple of seconds (though the trials
involve a downward firing launcher - not sure where it's mounted).

Anyway, thanks for weighing in Frank, always nice to get an expert
opinion.

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:22:41 -0700, Frank Vaughan
wrote:

In message , Peter
Kemp wrote:

Something to add to the mix - the USAF is testing the launching of
Viper Strike (BAT with an additional laser seeker) from C-130s, with a
view to replacing the 105mm on the AC-130 fleet. The idea being a
105mm round is about the same size, so you get more stored kills
without the single point of failure of the gun itself.

Interesting, and I don't dispute the facts.

I do, wonder, however, just how often that single point of
failure has failed.

I flew as a gunner on the AC-130E in VN, and never had a single
mission failure of the 105 (or the 40mm for that matter).

Fair enough - as an alternative theory (just off the top of my head) -
are there any more of the type of the 105mm used in the AC-130 left in
inventory to alter for the 4 new AC-130U they just announced?

Sure. It is a modified M102. Last I knew there were still some of those in
service with some ARNG light units who had yet to field the M119 light gun,
and a bunch of them have been recently taken from the units that have
already recieved the new guns.


Maybe they're forced to do it, or maybe they like the idea of not
having to roll into geometry over a convoy, merely fly along it,
lobbing a canister out every couple of seconds (though the trials
involve a downward firing launcher - not sure where it's mounted).

Can't see why they can't have both capabilities in place (replace a few
105mm rounds with a few BAT canisters). The 105mm has some possible uses the
BAT's can't fill. Using a BAT against a bunker with a four or five foot
thick roof would seem to be kind of iffy; a couple of direct hits with that
105mm can do the trick. The 105mm could be configured to fire thermobaric
rounds if so desired--don't think a BAT could do that very well.

Brooks


Anyway, thanks for weighing in Frank, always nice to get an expert
opinion.

Peter Kemp

Let's just say it wasn't quite that simple.

Of course when it did happen (Kenya), the result could/did prove
fatal.



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

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:55:10 -0700, Frank Vaughan wrote:

Far from and expert,

Aren't you the guy whose old website was taken down from bandwidth
over-usage when the war in Afghanistan started and everyone wanted
information on AC-130s?

You might not consider yourself an expert but apparently your public thinks
otherwise.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"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
__________________

"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
__________________

"Puppinator" wrote in message ...
"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. :-)

Sorry, never gonna happen. The AF is trying to keep as many cargo
C-5s running as possible. They'll never sacrifice the airframes for
gunships.