Boeing $188 million side-firing AC-130U gunship contract

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
wrote:

I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath. Come
to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the back...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
wrote:

I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my breath.
Come
to think of it, they could probably put the guns from the Iowa on that
thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the back...

Sure.

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:52:35 -0600, "Les Matheson"
wrote:

The 40mm has run out of ammunition and no more is being
purchased.

Really ? I thought I was joking when I posted earlier ?

Did the US ever have the Bofors L/70 in service to replace the L/60s with ?

Not that I know of. They nearly made it with the Sgt York DIVADS SPAAG.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
wrote:

I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns from
the Iowa on that thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the
back...

Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might
have a bit of a wide loiter area.

Or an A-71 to replace the A-10. You wouldn't even need a gun, just push
some bullets out in a fast dive.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

James Hart wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:


On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
wrote:


I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns from
the Iowa on that thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the
back...


Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.


Several problems with the C-17, the most immediate being that we
don't have as many as we need to fill the transport role, so there
won't be any available for quite some time. Secondly, do we gain
enough capablity over the C-130 to warrant replacing them, at huge
cost in procurement, development, and training?

Mike

In article ,
Michael Williamson wrote:

James Hart wrote:

Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.


Several problems with the C-17,

He said AC-71.

Like SR-71.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Michael Williamson wrote:


James Hart wrote:


Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.


Several problems with the C-17,


He said AC-71.

Like SR-71.


My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)

Mike

From: Michael Williamson PAM
Date: 12/14/2003 5:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Michael Williamson wrote:


James Hart wrote:


Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.


Several problems with the C-17,


He said AC-71.

Like SR-71.


My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)

Mike

Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
this case it can be any letter combination?

In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the C
stands for RD making it a B-1RD.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Michael Williamson PAM

My bad- read it wrong. But then where would the "C" in AC-71
come from? (see, I've got an exuse for almost everything...)

Mike

Think of integral calculus where C is a constant that can be any number. In
this case it can be any letter combination?

In that case if they ever make a B-1C you can mess with people and say the C
stands for RD making it a B-1RD.

Ow. That's almost as bad as the original B-One.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.