Comments on: Pimp My Gunship — 1: Get Smart

By: Don Meaker

Don Meaker — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:50:37 +0000

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.

By: Eric Lundy

Eric Lundy — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:25:26 +0000

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

By: Dave N.

Dave N. — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:14:20 +0000

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.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:16:19 +0000

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

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:01 +0000

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.

By: james

james — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:19:43 +0000

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.

By: Robot Economist

Robot Economist — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:13:30 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:51:38 +0000

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

By: CPT J

CPT J — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:25:33 +0000

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.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:09:59 +0000

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…