Comments on: AFSOC Would (Almost) Kill for New Gunships

By: angel

angel — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:11:31 +0000

That’s OK!But take a closer look following link,It’s great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!
DVD Ripper for Mac,
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
Mac DVD Copy,
Mac DVD Creator,
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
Edit DVD,
Vob Converter for Mac,
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac

By: John

John — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:53:38 +0000

Just a a newbie here,
I would say the military could use more close air support. They could use the 130’s for “hard” targets(buildings, trucks, armor fortifications) and use the 27’s for softer targets(personell). Use it in the gunship “lite” role to compliment the heavy gunships. Like they did back in Vietnam with the seperate ac-119’s. One was anit-personnel, one was antitrucks.
Just a thought.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:49:20 +0000

SMSgt Mac — the frame of the J model and the type of props it has doesnt make it possible to be a gunship. Everything showed that the structual integrety would not hold up to the force of the guns.

By: Ontos

Ontos — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:35:24 +0000

Gary,
Understood re: OPSEC issue, and it’s a valid point. However, if the Army and AF are flying the C-27 in a transport capacity anyways, wouldn’t it be a moot point?
Granted, if the only –27’s in theater are AC-27’s, we’re back to where we started.
Anyone here anything about the Corps buying some C-27’s? I haven’t heard squat, and I would think the flexibility of a smaller airlifter would have a certain appeal. Maybe not a bunch, but certainly enough to keep 2 squadrons busy.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:32:29 +0000

Another consideration of changing to a different air platform than currently seen in the skies is a serious OPSEC issue. Everytime an unfriendly spotter would see one of the new planes take off instead of the workhorse C-130 in whatever configuration, the word can be spread quick, fast and in a hurry. The word on the street is that the IRAQNA telephone system is one of the best gifts given to insurgents in Iraq as they simply hand one over to a ‘kid’ hanging around an airbase with instructions to call when a plane takes off and the direction.
The use of a different airframe that is easily discernible from the C-130 just makes the spotter’s job that much easier. Whatever platform is used, it needs to at least look like the others in the inventory from a distance.
This issue doesn’t even take into consideration how and why we segregate our ‘special’ birds from the true cargo work birds. Everytime one of the ‘special’ birds moves out from the secured area, up goes the flag and spotters are making the phones buzz with numbers and direction.

By: John B Books

John B Books — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:54:11 +0000

The arrival of the first JCA C-27J, has arrived in Georgia. Over the next 5–7 years, selected states of the Army National Guard will put these workhorses through the paces over the next 40 years. It’s a small start to revitalize and reshape, the U.S. Army Aviation community. There is more to the Army than helicopters, tanks, trucks, artillery, etc. Hindsight is 20/20, most people have forgotten there was an Army Air Corp (AAC) until 1947. To the present: thank you, U.S. Army General Cody (retired) for his vision of the JCA program which made this possible. Of course, to the blue-suiters who have tried to sabotage the program or sidetrack it by making it all A.F. Time will uncover your sins and root you out. HOOAH!

By: MG

MG — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:28:18 +0000

It doesn’t matter what the gunship is or the guns it carries… The gunships need to be in the hands of those who have the stones to use them. The AF either doesn’t ever want to use them or are scared to use them.
It usually took 72 hours to get an Air Tasking Order request granted in Anbar when we needed them. Hell, by that time the enemy is gone and the AF can continue playin’ Xbox.
And AF Special Operation–that itself is a bit of a misnomer.
Just load me up and get me on the ground–we’ll take care of the rest. Go boack to playin’ Xbox.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:53:42 +0000

AFSOC wants a new toy eh? Well there’s plusses and minuses to the C-27 as a platform. Hope the general lets the adults crunch the numbers first but lordy, he sounds like a drama queen. Wonder if he gets that from standing too close to the Army all the time (LOL).…Whuut?.…. I thought baseless snide remarks about the sister services were he norm on this thread?
PS: Like your ‘craziness’ Camp. Cool photos I hadn’t seen before
Factoids:
The C-130J is in production now and could be used for a new gunship. It had a heck of a birthing process with the new engines/props and avionics among other things. Everyone and their brother whined about it as being a waste in the early phases, now guess what’s THE in-demand intra-theater airlifter doing the yeoman’s job now?
The only metric that the DoD uses that involves ratio of flying time to anything else that I’m aware of is MMH/FH or maintenance man-hours per flying hour. the 14/1 ratio has to be MMH/FH and that could be 1 guy for 14 hrs or 140 guys for a tenth of an hour (smallest fraction of time tracked throughout the system) or any combination thereof for every hour flown…and that only catches most (almost all– there are exceptions to the accounting process) of the hours of maintenance at the operational unit.
The C-17’s advertised cost was about $200M in 1998. If you wanted to buy more, it depends on how many you buy over how long a time.

By: stempel

stempel — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:10:57 +0000

Didn’t they just update one of the models?
I seem to recall that they just put Bushmaster auto cannons and a 120mm cannon and some other stuff on them.
Does anyone know anything about this?

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:40:55 +0000

Good Evening Folks,
As one who has been on the ground when one of these gun ships did it thing, “Puff” C-47 w/2 20mm Valcans, it is an impressive show. My only problems with them is that they don’t more firpower and that they are not under operational control of the ground commanders.
The Air Force just don’t get, the pilots are to timid, for the grunt is up close and personal and that 1000 meter safety zone is way to big, make these part of the Army and the Marines so there is some a** to chew when they didn’t make their pass low enough or close enough.
When “Puff” was done doing his thing the bad guys were either very dead or had long since de-a**ed the area. There was nothing but body parts and chewed up bunkers and equipment.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner