Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[kalvasflam]

Amazing if somebody managed to put down three migs with one phoenix, those migs must've been flying in very close formation. May be green pilots that didn't know they were getting attacked.

But again, the Iranian Tomcats are kind of a joke in my estimation, they may be able to scare Afghanistan, and may put some concerns nto their neighbors, but against AWACS controlled fighters attacking from BVR, those -14s will be in trouble. In a fight against the U.S., they probably won't even get off the ground.

Edited April 7, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Phalanx]

Damn, I wish I had the chance to pilot an F-14, but it's such a shame that it was retired from service last month, so I'll never be able to fly it if I were to join the navy and or the air force anytime soon, or at the very least, sit in the cockpit of one to get a feeling of what it's like to be an F-14 and have a picture of me in it. I wish that the USAF and NAVY had extended it's service for another 20 years but it's too late. The only way I'm going to get to pilot an F-14 is if win the lottery and buy one from a museum or join the IIAF. Man the F-14 is such a sleek, an able fighter and my two favorite paint jobs on the vertical rudders were the skull and crossbones of course, and the one with Felix the cat on it. I had a picture of that of me standing beside it when I attended the 1997 air show at Andrews AFB when I was 9 years old. BTW,those are still F-14A's that the IIAF still uses right?

[David Hingtgen]

Neat Su-30MKI pic, check the stab deflection and vectoring:

http://www.sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpapers/sm/april2.jpg

[Nied]

Damn, I wish I had the chance to pilot an F-14, but it's such a shame that it was retired from service last month, so I'll never be able to fly it if I were to join the navy and or the air force anytime soon, or at the very least, sit in the cockpit of one to get a feeling of what it's like to be an F-14 and have a picture of me in it. I wish that the USAF and NAVY had extended it's service for another 20 years but it's too late. The only way I'm going to get to pilot an F-14 is if win the lottery and buy one from a museum or join the IIAF. Man the F-14 is such a sleek, an able fighter and my two favorite paint jobs on the vertical rudders were the skull and crossbones of course, and the one with Felix the cat on it. I had a picture of that of me standing beside it when I attended the 1997 air show at Andrews AFB when I was 9 years old. BTW,those are still F-14A's that the IIAF still uses right?

388786[/snapback]

Ah, the Andrews AFB Joint Services Open House. I used to go to that every single year before I went to college. Probably one of the best Airshows you can see on the East coast (those congresscritters need to know what they're paying for). Especially when you take into account all the neat equipment they fly in from Pax river (I remember seeing a pre-production Super Hornet with all sorts futuristic dummy weapons hanging off the wings back in '94 or '95).

[Skull Leader]

Damn, I wish I had the chance to pilot an F-14, but it's such a shame that it was retired from service last month, so I'll never be able to fly it if I were to join the navy and or the air force anytime soon, or at the very least, sit in the cockpit of one to get a feeling of what it's like to be an F-14 and have a picture of me in it. I wish that the USAF and NAVY had extended it's service for another 20 years but it's too late. The only way I'm going to get to pilot an F-14 is if win the lottery and buy one from a museum or join the IIAF. Man the F-14 is such a sleek, an able fighter and my two favorite paint jobs on the vertical rudders were the skull and crossbones of course, and the one with Felix the cat on it. I had a picture of that of me standing beside it when I attended the 1997 air show at Andrews AFB when I was 9 years old. BTW,those are still F-14A's that the IIAF still uses right?

388786[/snapback]

The Tomcat hasn't been retired yet. VF-31 "Tomcatters" still have a stateside readiness deployment this summer. They won't be retired until september. Yeah, the Iranian "Ali-Cats" are F-14As. You can do what I did and volunteer to be a "plane captain" at a museum that has a Tomcat... if they have an open cockpit you can sit inside it whenever you want (I captain for the Tomcat at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, I sit in it every time I'm there). Sure the plane will probably never fly again (ours could if it needed to, we still have both engines and a pair of spares, the plane is completely intact also), but how many people can say they take care of their own 1/1 scale Tomcat?

kalvasflam,

Most of the original Iranian F-14 pilots were instructed in flight use and ACM by Americans based off of American tactics since at least half of their fighter technology is of American origin. Unless I'm mistaken they have their own (if out of date) E-3 Sentry aircraft. Those that have gone on to train today's generation of Iranian Tomcat pilots have that experience as well as a wealth of combat experience from their war with Iraq. They whittled down far more of the Iraqi airforce than we did (Iraq couldn't financially AFFORD to fly most of their airforce by the first gulf war). Their training definately isn't on par with what we have, but they have forward air control units of their own, and the AWG-9 radar system used by those Tomcats is still quite effective. I would say of the nations the US considers "enemies", they offer a considerable airborne threat. Certainly not one to be underestimated.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Skull Leader

[David Hingtgen]

Never forget Iran has KC-747's. A 747 can refuel entire squadrons. Though the US has more in sheer numbers and capacity, a 747 or two can support an entire operation, with such range and time-on-station that it can support them coming and going, morning and night strikes. Talk about mobile support... (747's can go over 22 hours without a problem, and if it draws on the tanking fuel and extra crew, it could go well past that)

Sigh---one of the most common things you see requested/needed is mroe big refuellers for the USAF. Well then why didn't they order KC-11's in the 90's? The MD-11 was an improved, bigger DC-10, it's exactly what they wanted, and MDC had already drawn up how to make a tanker version (since it used 90% KC-10 parts anyways).

Not to mention Boeing should be more than willing to make US KC-747's, since the basic 747 line is just crawling along with almost no orders.

What'd be really neat is tankers based on the new, bigger 747ADV...

[kalvasflam]

KC747.... Yummmm, juicy target.

Is it innie or outie?

I can imagine it now, fighter pilot drives over: "KC747, you will refuel us now, or we will kill you, in fact, fuel our whole squadron."

After refuel, Pilot: "geez, thank, you have fuel left right? Well, I'm asking because I wanna see a nice fireball."

The question on tankers is how much does it cost to operate a KC747 for example, versus a KC-10 or a KC-135. The benefit of smaller tankers is of course, not having all your eggs in one basket, in case an accident does happen.

[David Hingtgen]

Bigger planes are usually more cost-efficient, basic rule of aircraft design. Same reason why bigger planes fly farther with larger loads. A plane twice as big can go three times as far with three times the payload. Square-cube law in reverse, sorta.

If you want X amount of fuel carried, cheaper to use 1 big plane than 2 smaller.

[Nied]

Sculltelbut from some tanker crews over at F-16.net is that the USAF would like to replace their KC-135s with some kind of 737 derivative (I guess that would be a KC-40). Considering the size and range of some of the newer models that might not be a bad idea as a one for one stratotanker replacement). A big 737-900ER based tanker ought to be able to do the same job as the -135. I could see a plan where the oldest Startotankers are replaced by KC-40s over several years until the last few squadrons are replaced by 777 KCs that also start replacing the KC-10.

[David Hingtgen]

Biggest issue I see with using 737's is sheer payload. 737's just don't have the wings to lift anywhere near a -135's load. The super-duper-ultra stretch 739 is almost as long as a -135, but the max weight is way lower, due to smaller wings and a lot less thrust. (Well, a modern 737 has slightly more raw power than a -135A, but far less than a -135E/R/Q etc)

Of course, 737's take up quite a bit less ramp space and are much easier/cheaper to operate. Replacing 3 for 2 is probably worth it.

Edited April 8, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[buddhafabio]

air force should have bought more kc-10s before boeing closed that line

Edited April 8, 2006 by buddhafabio

[David Hingtgen]

DC-10 production ended because it was changed into the MD-11. (And the KC-10's were among the last DC-10's built) But the MD-11 program as well as any chance of a KC-11 was ended because Boeing bought MDC and it competed with the 777. Boeing flat-out cancelled some people's orders, and Lufthansa is STILL ticked at them, because they wanted to order a lot more. Instead of the MD-11 being a fleet mainstay and the majority of the cargo fleet, they could only get a dozen and are practically orphans. (Few things more expensive to operate than having a small fleet of something unique)

The MD-11 is among the most desired planes today for cargo conversion, and I'm sure we'll see tanker conversions in the future. UPS wants them so bad they even buy ones with incompatible engines. Boeing refused to build any more despite orders coming in, but they'd love to offer you a 777...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Boys  I have quite possibly found thee BEST Tomcat site on the web aside from MATS.

tomcat-sunset.org

Its got MANY pilots that flew the thing, including some from the first squad...VF-1 Wolfpack! So many topic threads in its forum!  Tom Cooper posts there as well. And I did say Dave Venlet there as well(one of the black ace crews who shot down SU-22s in 81)

You can find paraphanelia including newspaper scans from its introduction in the early 70s, accounts of flying it, analytical descriptions from both F-14 and non F-14 pilots concerning its ACM and DACM capabilities, accounts from IRIAF pilots and how the current IRIAF is now with their tomcats, and such.

So far from what I read Iran has a couple tomcat aces with the leading ace scoring between 10-15 kills....( think its listed as 12.....)

But tom Cooper did a bunch of research....so I do trust his work. VERY interesting stuff. Its also very interesting to hear what all the pilots had to say.

388628[/snapback]

I'm a member there as well (as well as a paying member of the Tomcat and Tailhook associations). Since I plan to be there in September for the ceremony I've tried to stay on top of things there.

While Tom Cooper offers up information that no one else has, be careful with it. He's going by what the government of Iran has TOLD him (and what few pilots he was able to interview have heard). He has next to no official paper evidence to back up any of his claims. Some of it may be true, other parts of it may not. There is an infamous "3-way" Phoenix missile kill he speaks of where an Iranian Tomcat managed to splash 3 MiGs with one AIM-54. The circumstances and possibilities are a near mathmatical impossibility (I'd give it about a 2% chance). He claims that almost their entire run of tomcats (minus those that Iraq managed to shoot down and a few accidents) are still completely functional. I take issue with this because just after the new year, I was made privy to the unclassified parts of an intelligence threat-assesment briefing held at McConnell AFB where basically the US reviews pretty much anything and everything it has to fear around the world. In that briefing, it was said that the US has eyes watching approximately 20 functioning Tomcats left in Iran. The rest are either mothballed or have been parted out. At any rate, they don't have the means to fly more than 20 or so without some parts-swapping between airframes.

His book on Iranian Tomcats is awesome, it's just about the only resource available for Ali-Cats, but beware his facts and figures, because he's the only one spouting them and they don't match up at all with what pretty much every other government sees.

388758[/snapback]

Oh I'm definitely aware. I tend to think the Iranian kills are lesser than what is stated in books, but much higher than the naysayers say(there are those that try best to diminish whatever success the cat did in that war and downplay it in favor of hyping the eagle or falcon).

He himself did acknowledge that info was VERY hard to come by, and from what I recollect, the Iranian govt. wasn't very forthcoming at all. Not to mention they try to downplay any success by aircrews who were prerevolution IIAF and acknowledge the kills as SAM kills rather than cat. Also some of the crews themselves were hard to come by because they fear for their lives, same reason it was hard to get assistance from former IAF pilots. The recent posts he had shed a LOT of light. I was very skeptical at first and thought it would be just a neat book but after reading his long post on how hard it was to get info and the hurdles he went through(didn't seem like the US or IRanian govt. was very forthcoming at all) I am beginning to think that a lot of his info may be correct. From what I understand most of it was cross referenced between the sources he could get.

And...I think its quite sad how everyone just says the tomcat just had 5 a2a kills....knowing truthfully that the numbers are much higher than that and it wasn't the giant stalling mess a lot of naysayers tried to make it out to be.

[Skull Leader]

Oh I'm definitely aware. I tend to think the Iranian kills are lesser than what is stated in books, but much higher than the naysayers say(there are those that try best to diminish whatever success the cat did in that war and downplay it in favor of hyping the eagle or falcon). 

Yeah, like most other "rumors" in life, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Not to mention they try to downplay any success by aircrews who were prerevolution IIAF and acknowledge the kills as SAM kills rather than cat.

Of course God doesn't fly at the side of Infidels by their beliefs.

(didn't seem like the US or IRanian govt. was very forthcoming at all)

Well, both sides have pretty much begun staring one another down. One side saw Cooper as "consorting with the enemy", while the other side saw him as "spying for the enemy"... pretty much wound up as a mexican standoff for him, hence no backup.

I am beginning to think that a lot of his info may be correct.  From what I understand most of it was cross referenced between the sources he could get.

Most of it probably is, in terms of the Tomcats themselves, battles they took part in, etc... it's really only the number of kills I question.

Another thing that has been a constant source of debate in regards to Ali-Cats is whether or not they still have any phoenix missiles. Pretty much the entire world believes they don't, while Tom swears up and down on his dead grandmother's grave that they do. I'm not so sure what to believe. I think it's entirely possible that they have some still, but probably not in any great numbers... unless they've found a way to reverse-engineer them.

And...I think its quite sad how everyone just says the tomcat just had 5 a2a kills....knowing truthfully that the numbers are much higher than that and it wasn't the giant stalling mess a lot of naysayers tried to make it out to be.

It's made all the sadder by the simple fact that we'll NEVER know a true, accurate total of it's air to air record. It's difficult to discuss this with most true aviation enthusiasts because they laugh at Cooper and Bishop's book. I won't except their book as divine-wrote, but it's better than nothing and currently all we have to go on. I figure between that book and my contact within the intelligence community of the air force, I can draw my own conclusions and be happy with that

And for those who just might want to know.... as of THIS writing, it is exactly 5 months, 11 days, 21 hours, 55 minutes, and 10 seconds until the Tomcats are officially retired from USN service. (chew on that for a bit....)

[buddhafabio]

any one care to speculate the next airframe in line for succession to "gunship" after the c-130?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I am guessing C2 or V-22. A V-22 would look awesome but I assume the space inside isn't large enough to wield guns. Who knows?

guys go to patricksaviation.com, a TON of videos! Quality varies but they have most of the Fighter fling vids, and some hornet ball. They have a TON of sukhoi videos, they look like vids sukhoi put out in Russia. Very cool. The Russians got a thing for technoclassical music.

The best vid I have seen is the strihzi vid of the MIG-29 acrobatic team stationed at Kubinka. Knight if you don't already have this I think you'll get a kick out of it. Very cool, a must have for any fulcrum fan.

The SU-30MKI demos on there are MOUTHWATERING. God that thing can move! If that thing had american avionics....man that thing would kick more ass than it already does.

[Mislovrit]

I am guessing C2 or V-22.  A V-22 would look awesome but I assume the space inside isn't large enough to wield guns. Who knows?

V-22 internal space is microscopic compared to similar sized helos and too expensive, fragile and short ranged to use in such a manner. There was a Viet Nam era proposal to use CH-53s as gunships but the expense and the arrival of the AH-1 Cobra killed that idea off immedatiely.

[Phyrox]

I would actually imagine that the concept will be retired. At least for a while, maybe to be "re-invented" in a generation or so. I know it's good at what it does, and all that jazz, but realistically I don't see the concept being continually updated as it has been for the last half century.

[David Hingtgen]

The Su-30MKI already has "western" avionics, in the form of ones based off of the Rafale. You won't do a whole lot better than the best France has to offer. It's FAR superior avionics-wise to any other Flanker. And 98% of aircraft out there.

PS---F-14D currently scheduled to arrive in Bloomington at noon on Thursday, I still plan to drive out to see it.

[Skull Leader]

any one care to speculate the next airframe in line for succession to "gunship"  after the c-130?

389260[/snapback]

The concept is nowhere NEAR being retired... the AC-130H and U gunships are still in heavy use in the gulf right now.

I'll wager the next variant is simply based off a C-130J (a -30 stretch variant would be cool). The Osprey has next to no interior by comparison which in turn, means less ammo, fewer weapon systems, and less loiter time. The diversity of the weapon systems on an AC-130U allow it to assault a wide variety of targets very efficiently. What's more, they can hang around the target area pretty much all night long (only leaving to refuel a couple of times) Just about the only limiting factor on fixed-wing gunship ops is night-time. Unless they have to (and it's happened often enough), the SOS wing MUCH prefers to operate at night, and they do so with deadly efficiency.

[Phalanx]

How about taking a C-17 and outfitting it with gun turrets or would that be overkill and disadvantagous in terms of making one? Also, are gunships restricted to just being propeller based cargo planes like the Hercules and possibly the V-22 even though it wouldn't make a good gunship? Maybe in about 30 years, the C-17 would make a good gunship platform to replace the aging the C-130?

[Guest Bromgrev]

Gunships are pretty good at what they do, as long as there is no danger from anti-aircraft fire or interceptors. Threats to US air superiority have been diminishing since WWII, and I don't think anyone sees another big war with evenly-matched sides in the near future. I'm sure the concept will continue on.

I'm not sure how effective jet-engined platforms would be, though, as they might be too fast to get a good volume of fire into the target area.

[buddhafabio]

from what i read of the AC-130Us they stopped short of adding hellfires to them. why not they could sling 20+ under those wings

[Coota0]

Jets would probably be too fast and I believe the Prop-engine is more effiecient at the slower speeds a gunship needs to fly.

[Mislovrit]

How about taking a C-17 and outfitting it with gun turrets or would that be overkill and disadvantagous in terms of making one?

C-17 are too few and valuable to misuse as a gunship, and adding turrets just make the whole project even more expensive and pointless when all ACs need to do is circle-strafe (I need it is a overgeneralization) a target.

Also, are gunships restricted to just being propeller based cargo planes like the Hercules and possibly the V-22 even though it wouldn't make a good gunship?

Again V-22 is too small to mount anything of value and then it is well within range of MANPADS which even AC-130s are vulernable to. Link to an thread on the ACH-47 prposel. AChttp://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15536

Maybe in about 30 years, the C-17 would make a good gunship platform to replace the aging the C-130?

Aging C-130 will just be replace by newly built C-130s.

[Knight26]

Never forget Iran has KC-747's.  A 747 can refuel entire squadrons.  Though the US has more in sheer numbers and capacity, a 747 or two can support an entire operation, with such range and time-on-station that it can support them coming and going, morning and night strikes.  Talk about mobile support...  (747's can go over 22 hours without a problem, and if it draws on the tanking fuel and extra crew, it could go well past that) 

Sigh---one of the most common things you see requested/needed is mroe big refuellers for the USAF.  Well then why didn't they order KC-11's in the 90's?  The MD-11 was an improved, bigger DC-10, it's exactly what they wanted, and MDC had already drawn up how to make a tanker version (since it used 90% KC-10 parts anyways). 

Not to mention Boeing should be more than willing to make US KC-747's, since the basic 747 line is just crawling along with almost no orders. 

What'd be really neat is tankers based on the new, bigger 747ADV...

388813[/snapback]

Last I heard about the old KC-747 concept was that the Aussies were looking to bring that old 60's concept back. However, I thought that everyone was pushing that aside in favor of the KC-767 concept, at least until the next big refueling/cargo concept plane gets developed.

[Skull Leader]

Aging C-130 will just be replace by newly built C-130s.

389660[/snapback]

Just my point. C-130Js have quieter, cooler running engines with a higher top speed and more loiter time. The Gunship conversion program could easily work one over into a wicked killing machine. Add on the Heat-sink/IR Baffles that ACs use on their engines, and I'm betting an AC-130J would be pretty hard to track.

[kalvasflam]

For gunships, I'm not too enthusiastic about using hellfire missiles.

According to some of what I've read, hellfires can take up to a minute for lock on to occur. Then you have that inevitable time frame of vulnerability where your hellfires has to track the laser beam you put on target. At which point, the firing platform needs to be tracking target (i.e. minimal movement), and becomes fairly vulnerable to AAA.

This is part of the reason why you have Kiowa type scouts, they do independent lasing for you. Heck, if all you need is a launch platform, a UH-60 will be just as good. There had been modifications along those routes.

For gunships, I like the idea of having a couple of gatling guns, a howizter, may be an intermediate solution would be a high speed grenade launcher of some type. Missiles and rockets aren't the type of armament for the AC-130 types. But gunships typically operate in a lower threat environment, where there might be MANPADS, but not lots of SAMs and radar guided AAA.

[Noyhauser]

any one care to speculate the next airframe in line for succession to "gunship"  after the c-130?

389260[/snapback]

I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that you might one day see a A-400M version of one... however given where the EU Security policy is going, its unlikely at best.

[Knight26]

Actually most new Spectre gunships will probably be AC-130Us that have been given the AMP upgrade, I doubt they will convert brand new AC-130Js. THough I could be wrong, I can ask around here as my squadron also encompasses the C-130 CTF which busy getting ready for more C-130AMP and C-130J testing this summer.

[Skull Leader]

For gunships, I like the idea of having a couple of gatling guns, a howizter, may be an intermediate solution would be a high speed grenade launcher of some type.  Missiles and rockets aren't the type of armament for the AC-130 types.   But gunships typically operate in a lower threat environment, where there might be MANPADS, but not lots of SAMs and radar guided AAA.

389717[/snapback]

Gunships already have an "intermediate" weapon. the 40mm Bofors cannon. In fact, the U boats are the only Spectres operating with 3 weapons systems right now:

1 25mm "Equalizer" 5-barrel cannon

1 40mm Bofors light cannon

1 105mm Howitzer artillery cannon

The H models USED to have this:

2 20mm Vulcan cannons

1 40mm Bofors light cannon

1 105mm Howitzer artiller cannon

Since about the mid/late 1990s, the Hotels did away with the 20mm vulcan cannons though, it was decided that with the advancements in AAA and MANPAD technology, the gunships had to get dangerously close for the 20mms to be of any real effect (within around 9,000-10,000 feet, the gun's MAXMIMUM range is around 12,000 ft). The Equalizer autocannon on the U-boats has a longer effective range (around 15,000 ft), hence the reason it still has them.

For a little more AC-130 gunship weapons history:

When the first AC-130As went to Southeast Asia in the late '60s, they were mounted with 4 20mm Vulcan Cannons and 4 7.62 miniguns. "Project Surprise Package" and the "Pave Pronto" program removed a pair of the miniguns and a pair of the vulcans in favor of a pair of the 40mm Bofors cannons. This was the heaviest any service AC-130A would be armed (around 1980, the miniguns were removed, for the same reasons the 20mms would LATER be removed).

When the AC-130E models came to Asia, they were armed the same as the "Pave Pronto" AC-130As. When the "Pave Aegis" program came along, they removed one of the 40s and bolted a 105mm howitzer to the deck.

..... instant tank killer. It could also work over a hardened building pretty good.

The 105s and 40mm were later put on trainable mounts, giving them added flexibility. When the AC-130Es rotated through the upgrade program to AC-130H standards, they all received the 105mm gun. AC-130H models of arounf 1971 or 1972 were probably the most heavily armed gunships ever (a pair of 20mm Vulcans, a pair of 7.62 miniguns, a 40mm, and a 105mm), although the gunships of today are FAR more accurate, needing much less ammo to get the job done. They're also currently packing a serious amount of highly-classified ECM gear that renders them pretty invisible after the sun goes down.(although it's seriously "uglied up" the gunship's appearance...)

Edited April 10, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Noyhauser]

For gunships, I like the idea of having a couple of gatling guns, a howizter, may be an intermediate solution would be a high speed grenade launcher of some type.  Missiles and rockets aren't the type of armament for the AC-130 types.   But gunships typically operate in a lower threat environment, where there might be MANPADS, but not lots of SAMs and radar guided AAA.

389717[/snapback]

Gunships already have an "intermediate" weapon. the 40mm Bofors cannon. In fact, the U boats are the only Spectres operating with 3 weapons systems right now:

1 25mm "Equalizer" 5-barrel cannon

1 40mm Bofors light cannon

1 105mm Howitzer artillery cannon

The H models USED to have this:

2 20mm Vulcan cannons

1 40mm Bofors light cannon

1 105mm Howitzer artiller cannon

Since about the mid/late 1990s, the Hotels did away with the 20mm vulcan cannons though, it was decided that with the advancements in AAA and MANPAD technology, the gunships had to get dangerously close for the 20mms to be of any real effect (within around 9,000-10,000 feet, the gun's MAXMIMUM range is around 12,000 ft). The Equalizer autocannon on the U-boats has a longer effective range (around 15,000 ft), hence the reason it still has them.

For a little more AC-130 gunship weapons history:

When the first AC-130As went to Southeast Asia in the late '60s, they were mounted with 4 20mm Vulcan Cannons and 4 7.62 miniguns. "Project Surprise Package" and the "Pave Pronto" program removed a pair of the miniguns and a pair of the vulcans in favor of a pair of the 40mm Bofors cannons. This was the heaviest any service AC-130A would be armed (around 1980, the miniguns were removed, for the same reasons the 20mms would LATER be removed).

When the AC-130E models came to Asia, they were armed the same as the "Pave Pronto" AC-130As. When the "Pave Aegis" program came along, they removed one of the 40s and bolted a 105mm howitzer to the deck.

..... instant tank killer. It could also work over a hardened building pretty good.

The 105s and 40mm were later put on trainable mounts, giving them added flexibility. When the AC-130Es rotated through the upgrade program to AC-130H standards, they all received the 105mm gun. AC-130H models of arounf 1971 or 1972 were probably the most heavily armed gunships ever (a pair of 20mm Vulcans, a pair of 7.62 miniguns, a 40mm, and a 105mm), although the gunships of today are FAR more accurate, needing much less ammo to get the job done.

389754[/snapback]

Whats the general accuracy of the 105? It would seem to me that putting Hellfires on it would actually be a pretty big waste of money when you have a Howitzer which can do similar, if not more damage, with similar accurracy as well (allbeit with a limited arc of fire.)

[Skull Leader]

Well, obviously it's far more accurate now (with upgrades in computer technology) than it was in Vietnam. That said, sighting-in the guns was the initial priority after takeoff. Once and if the guns were properly sighted in, they could generally put a 105 shell within about a 10-15 foot area, pretty much wasting anything within that radius. Adding the 105 was a resounding success. It's my understanding that the 40mms that went on the gunships in vietnam weren't as easy to sight in, and differed from gun to gun on how well they did (the rule was, if your gunship got a good pair of 40mms, you did everything you could to keep those guns in top shape. And if you only had one good 40mm, that gun got top priority. The autocannons were never as precise... they still got the job done well though.

Nowadays they could target a quarter laying in the middle of a field and proably put the 105 shell directly on it. Computer target-aquisition-gear/fire control systems have become so advanced...

[kalvasflam]

Interesting stuff... hmmm, almost makes me wonder if they could've mounted a pair of GAU-8 on it. If it's good enough for a Hog, it might be good enough for a -130. I suppose though that the 25mm is probably sufficient to kill most armored vehicles. I wonder what is the upper limitation on the type of cannon that can be loaded.

Too bad, you couldn't load up a AC-130 with all the guns and a MOAB to boot.

Heh heh heh heh. But I know it would be kind of a waste.

[Skull Leader]

Interesting stuff... hmmm, almost makes me wonder if they could've mounted a pair of GAU-8 on it.  If it's good enough for a Hog, it might be good enough for a -130.  I suppose though that the 25mm is probably sufficient to kill most armored vehicles.  I wonder what is the upper limitation on the type of cannon that can be loaded. 

Too bad, you couldn't load up a AC-130 with all the guns and a MOAB to boot.

Heh heh heh heh.  But I know it would be kind of a waste.

389762[/snapback]

I would imagine a pair of GAU-8 tank-busters would probably have seriously adverse effects on the flight performance of a side-firing gunship. Just a guess though. If it were a forward firing weapons system it might be different... but the primary benefit of having a side-firing weapons platform, is that they ALWAYS have the enemy in their gunsight.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Skull Leader