DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » Pimp My Gunship — 1: Get Smart

Pimp My Gunship — 1: Get Smart

Does a slow, Vietnam-​​era gun­ship have a place on the mod­ern bat­tle­field? Can you upgrade the old warhorse into a 21st cen­tury charger?
The fixed-​​wing gun­ship idea goes back to barn­storm­ing fly­ers who invented to the pylon turn, point­ing one wing at an object such as a pylon on the ground as they turned around it (…there is quite a story behind this one). By exten­sion, if you have weapons fir­ing out of one side of the plane they can main­tain accu­rate fire on a fixed point even though the plane is mov­ing at rel­a­tively high speed. The idea worked well in Vietnam, and now the lat­est ver­sion of the gun­ship is the AC-​​130U Spectre, pack­ing a 105-​​mm how­itzer, a 25mm 1,800-round-a-minute Gatling gun and a 40mm Bofors gun. It can pro­vide impres­sively accu­rate fire sup­port; this video from Iraq appar­ently shows one destroy­ing mov­ing vehices out­side a mosque with­out hit­ting the build­ing.
ac-1302.jpg
To F-​​22 Raptor enthu­si­asts who think air power should be super­sonic and stealthy, the Spectre might look like a dinosaur. Its slow and noisy and has to come in close to the tar­get, mak­ing it vul­ner­a­ble to portable SAMs. But the old-​​style Spectre could be the basis for an ultra-​​modern gun­ship, accord­ing to Bill Elliot of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. His Future AC-​​130 Gunship Integrated Weapons Systems Concept is the cut­ting edge of close air sup­port.
The basic idea is to upgrade from dumb, short-​​range muni­tions to smart long-​​range ones. Out goes the 105-​​mm how­itzer in favor of a 120mm smooth­bore youd call it a mor­tar, except that a downward-​​firing mor­tar is weird. Add to it racks of smart Viper Strike glide bombs. And instead of rely­ing on onboard sen­sors, the Spectre will be able to launch its own fleet of drones to locate and des­ig­nate tar­gets. This increases the range at which tar­gets can be engaged from 3 miles to 15 miles or more, so oppo­nents will no longer be able to hear the Spectre com­ing before it strikes.
Pallet-​​loaded Dominator UCAV/​munitions might also be a use­ful addi­tion to the mix; in fact, the Future Spectre could be a ver­i­ta­ble Arsenal Aircraft car­ry­ing a range of weapons and drones depend­ing on the mis­sion.
Instead of short-​​range, high-​​volume fire­power, it will be deliv­er­ing long-​​range pre­ci­sion strikes. Both Viper Strike and the XM395 120mm smooth­bore rounds can be laser guided, with des­ig­na­tion can come from the air­craft itself, from accom­pa­ny­ing drones or from ground troops. Targets under hard cover can be destroyed rather than just sup­pressed, with “top floor, third win­dow from the left” pre­ci­sion.
There are plenty of other ammu­ni­tion options for the 120mm smooth­bore — it can fire a full range of mor­tar rounds. This includes devel­op­ments like the M971 cargo round, which can sat­u­rate an area the size of a foot­ball pitch with bomblets, a gun-​​launched UAV, and even non-​​lethal rounds deliv­er­ing CS gas and flash-​​bangs for crowd con­trol. New monopack con­tain­ers reduce the pack­ag­ing weight by 60% and sig­nif­i­cantly increase the amount which can be car­ried. This should greatly increase the ver­sa­til­ity of the Spectre. But it is the pre­ci­sion strike which will make the biggest dif­fer­ence, greatly increas­ing the chances of single-​​shot kills and so extend­ing the num­ber of tar­gets that can be engaged.
Instead of orbit­ing around a fixed point and fir­ing at a sngle tar­get, the upgraded Spectre will be able to tackle mul­ti­ple tar­gets at dis­persed loca­tions simul­ta­ne­ously. And the accu­racy of that fire will be enough to destroy tar­gets under cover rather than sup­press­ing them, as well as pre­vent­ing ‘friendly fire’ acci­dents and col­lat­eral dam­age. In effect, Bill Eliot is bring­ing ‘smart bombs’ to the gun­ship, which could increase its effec­tive­ness as much as precision-​​guided bombs have for strike air­craft.
Eliot quotes a memo from the Secretary of Defense:

“We need more weapon sys­tems like the AC-​​130, where the ord­nance can be directed in a more pre­cise way

What bet­ter solu­tion than an upgraded AC-​​130? The Future Spectre is still doing the same job as before, pro­vid­ing close air sup­port to those who need it most, but doing it bet­ter. But it would be the heart of a net­work which includes drones, muni­tions and ground troops. It will con­tinue to pro­vide the per­sis­tence, fire­power and high pre­ci­sion that has earned the Spectre its rep­u­ta­tion. And it will be able to do it all from a range that greatly reduces risk to the air­craft.
It may not be the vision of those who want to con­duct airstrikes from mach 1 and 50,000 feet, but when things get messy on the ground, then a gun­ship with smart weapons looks like a very good invest­ment.
– David Hambling

Share |

November 24th, 2006 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 228728 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/11/24/pimp-my-gunship-1-get-smart/Pimp+My+Gunship+-+1%3A+Get+Smart2006-11-24+16%3A07%3A31jimmy_wu You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Fighting Shadows: Military Holograms | The “Deadlies”: Atomic Automobile » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Solomon says:
    November 24, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Great Idea but to add to it a bit…
    1. Why stick with that legacy plat­form??? An AC-​​17 would poten­tially give greater endurance, improved response/​transit time and allow for a much improved pay­load.
    2. The choice of 120mm Mortar seems odd. A series of 30mm Type Gatling guns (with appro­pri­ate ammo) would seem to deliver the proper destruc­tive capa­bil­ity with­out the inher­ent risk of unproven tech­nol­ogy.
    3. In keep­ing with the weapons theme, a low recoil, hyper veloc­ity weapon in the range of a 90mm or even the (i believe) 76mm hyper veloc­ity gun the Israeli’s were attempt­ing to mar­ket, might be an even big­ger boon against a wider array of tar­gets.
    Thanks, responses are appreciated…

    Reply
  2. CPT J says:
    November 24, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Soloman,
    The C-​​17s a great air­frame, for trans­porta­tion. The C-​​130 is the pre­ferred plat­form because it can go low and make tight turns over the tar­geted areas. Jets can not, or will not (com­pare Marine CAS cul­ture with the Airforce CAS cul­ture) do that.
    The AC-​​130 is an incred­i­ble plat­form for deliv­er­ing effects. When the Jihadi masses, and is fixed, then noise doesn’t mat­ter. The AC-​​130 ter­mi­nates the engage­ment, always, in our favor. Those media servers down­range are stuffed with gun­sight videos tes­ti­fy­ing to that fact.
    Glad to see some think­ing about recap­i­tal­iz­ing the ships. Our Air Force brethren often seem overly attracted to bright, shiny, metal­lic objects.
    For my money, more AC-​​130s, A-​​10s and even met­al­storm equipped Blimps (a DT fav). I think our Air Marshals would ben­e­fit from watch­ing the last fif­teen mintues of “We Were Soldiers Once…”, the “Broken Arrow scene” in par­tic­u­lar.
    The LTs and SGTs fight­ing this war would appre­ci­ate it, if they did.
    Just my REMF opinion.

    Reply
  3. Byron Skinner says:
    November 24, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    Good Afternoon David,
    Good arti­cle, but you failed to under­stand the role of a gun­ship. It is hang around, espe­cially after dark and be on call for the ground troops.
    The tar­gets a gun­ship usu­ally engages can be only a few hun­dred meters from the 911 call. It is a very strong moral fac­tor when the guys on the ground can see the source of fire and brim­stone when the “Spookys” are lay­ing a world of hurt on the unfriend­lies.
    The AC-​​130 like the gun­ships before it, the AC-47’s and AC-119’s, are the right weapon for the mis­sion they are tasks to do. Longer range weapons and more stand off pos­ture by the gun­ships would destroy a lot of it effect. “Some things, like Gunships, Pizza, Fish Tacos and a cold beer, “…just don’t need no improvin’”.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  4. Robot Economist says:
    November 24, 2006 at 10:13 pm

    The AC-​​130 is proof of a con­cept that some Air Force-​​types just don’t under­stand. Many of the R&D fly­boys I inter­act with are given to whin­ing about the age of their cur­rent fleet. They always talk about how the Air Force needs “planes of the future” or they will get left behind in a decade.
    My retort is: Why do you need new weapons plat­forms when the weapons are get­ting smarter every day? Flight tech­nol­ogy hasn’t changed nearly as much in the last 50 years as muni­tions tech­nol­ogy has. It would make sense that a durable bird like the BUF can remain rel­e­vant on the bat­tle­field because it can still deliver the most accu­rate muni­tions.
    The AC-​​130 is in the a sim­i­lar sit­u­a­tion. The bird’s design is solid, but it could use some new weapons. 130 gun­ners are pretty good shots, but I bet they would appre­ci­ate some­thing a lit­tle smarter that doesn’t heat up the gun cabin as much.

    Reply
  5. james says:
    November 25, 2006 at 12:19 am

    Going from dumb short range fire­power to smart long range fire­power is a mis­take. It appears that some­one is falling in love with a power point pre­sen­ta­tion.
    There is a need and use for each. The AC-​​130 is near per­fect. Not that it could use to some improve­ments. Personally, I would like it to have some SDB racks for hard tar­get attacks.
    Electronic-​​wise, hav­ing it able to link & share with UAV’s and ground troops would be a plus. Going to a jet ver­sion is waste. That said, going to a ducted fan con­fig­u­ra­tion would have advan­tages in noise reduc­tion and survivability.

    Reply
  6. David Hambling says:
    November 25, 2006 at 6:15 am

    Solomon,
    The AC-​​130 is a proven plat­form for gun­ship oper­a­tions and the air­frames are already there. Turning a C-​​17 into a gun­ship (can it make low-​​speed pylon turns?) would be a totally dif­fer­ent propo­si­tion.
    30mm Gatling guns would give no improve­ment in range over the exist­ing weapons and can­not fire smart ammu­ni­tion. The 120mm has greater range and guided rounds.
    Hypervelocity weapons again are not the answer when you want low recoil and guided rounds.
    Bryan,
    I think the per­sis­tence aspect is brought out, espe­cially with the need for a deep mag­a­zine and the the abil­ity to hang around and deal with mul­ti­ple tar­gets.
    The upgraded ver­sion can retain the 25mm Gatling and Bofors, and can pro­vide the morale effect of close-​​in fire­power wehere needed. But it can also deliver long-​​range attacks when sur­prise and stand-​​off are important.

    Reply
  7. Byron Skinner says:
    November 27, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    One aspect of the con­verted cargo car­ri­ers to gun­ships is what it’s like on the ground. As any Combat Infantry can atest to, their is no bet­ter feel­ing that a sol­dier can have then at 0100 when the bad guys are snip­ping and lay­ing H&I fire on you all night to see those Xeons go on.
    For a brief sec­ond after the place is light up and before “Puff” cast his breath there is hush then the enemy finds Christainlty and is intro­duced to what Revalations is all about. After the gunship(s) is/​are done there is Peace in the Valley.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  8. Dave N. says:
    November 29, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    One advan­tage of longer range smart weapons for a gun­ship is improved “stand off” capa­bil­ity.
    Seems to me that a big, slow air­craft is a sit­ting duck for a shoul­der fired SA mis­sile…
    But if you’re out of range of the SAM and one of our grunts has eyes on tar­get… Sayonara, sucker!
    Better muni­tions are only part of the solu­tion, how­ever. As James noted, ducted fans would pro­vide bet­ter speed and noise reduc­tion. This allows you to be out of sight of tango b*st*rds plant­ing road­side IDEs.
    Sniper detec­tion sys­tems http://​www​.defensere​view​.com/​m​o​d​u​l​e​s​.​p​h​p​?​n​a​m​e​=​N​e​w​s​&​a​m​p​;​f​i​l​e​=​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​&​a​m​p​;​s​i​d​=​903
    are another part.
    Once those are imple­mented, the only thing left for the bad guys are car bombs and the­ater weapons (bio­log­i­cals and nukes). For that, tech­nol­ogy will help… But the only other thing I can think of at the moment to fill the gaps is intelligence.

    Reply
  9. Eric Lundy says:
    May 15, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    If you have never needed “PUFF” to come to res­cue your ass, you will never know just how val­u­ble a machine like this can be. I’m almost deaf now, but still kickin!!! UURRAAHHH!!!!!
    Eric

    Reply
  10. Don Meaker says:
    June 6, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    Don’t for­get the C-​​47 Spooky and the C-​​119 Shadow ver­sions.
    The 120mm is big enough for guid­ance, antenna, optics and con­trol mech­a­nisms. A 30mm would have a tough time with that, and so the ship would have to use the ‘many bul­lets’ tech­nique of engage­ment, lead­ing to unwanted frat­ri­cide and let­ters home to Momma.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage