Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AC-130 Replacement?  
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1618 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9928 times:

I was reading an article yesterday discussing the high frame cycles on the current AC -130 Gunships. What is going to replace it? I would think a C-17 is too large.

The A400 seems a good fit? Will there be a C-130J replacement?


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2766 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9880 times:

An A400M as a gunship would be pretty cool. Big grin

AC-400U?  Smile



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9877 times:



Quoting Glideslope (Thread starter):
The A400 seems a good fit? Will there be a C-130J replacement?

The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too..


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9874 times:

More C-130s? The Marines are busy arming their KC-130Js with Hellfires and 30mm cannons...

This business of Gucci MDS numbers for manufacturers is retarded and needs to stop. C-27J should really be C-27B, A-400m if it ever comes on strength should be something in the C-46-C-50 range. And don't get me started on the F-35/F24 thing.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1618 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9866 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too.

Yes, the HellFire as mentioned in the previous reply. The A400 is not that long is it? Are you referring to it's girth?



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9844 times:



Quoting Glideslope (Reply 4):
Yes, the HellFire as mentioned in the previous reply. The A400 is not that long is it? Are you referring to it's girth?

Its fat.. at some point future "terrorists" / "freedom fighters" (depends on your position) might have a gatling gun too..

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3):
This business of Gucci MDS numbers for manufacturers is retarded and needs to stop. C-27J should really be C-27B, A-400m if it ever comes on strength should be something in the C-46-C-50 range

C-43 maybe?  Wink http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...TransportAircraft.jpg?t=1237334904


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9803 times:

Sorry guys, they already beat you to the punch for a AC-130 replacement: Big grin

Big version: Width: 450 Height: 338 File size: 40kb


Big version: Width: 431 Height: 292 File size: 24kb



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12592 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9797 times:



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 6):
Sorry guys, they already beat you to the punch for a AC-130 replacement:

Love it!  Smile



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9793 times:

The pilots just have to be sure not to press "jettison," otherwise....yeesh.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1618 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9770 times:

Love it. Nice Straps!!!  Cool


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9669 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Quoting Glideslope (Thread starter):
The A400 seems a good fit? Will there be a C-130J replacement?

The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too..

There is a proposed AC-27J concept for SpecOps. It won't carry the fire power of the current AC-130s, but it would be slightly faster. Of course it would also be easy to do the AC-130J, as Keesje suggests.

A gunship version of the A-400M could actually work well. It would be able to carry more ammo and have a longer station time (not counting air refueling) than today's AC-130s. But could you build a version with the 105 mm Howrzer some AC-130s carry? I don't know what the firing shock/recoil would do to the composet stringers. In the AC-130, that whole section is beefed up.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 5):
C-43 maybe?

It would have to be something above a C-45 (the KC-45A was already assigned to the A-330MRTT last year). I don't think they will use designation C-46 or C-47 as both were famous WWII airlifters, and there are still flyable examples around. So, the next available would be a C-48, which may be assigned to the KC-767AT (unless the KC-767 was already designated with an MDS, which is possible), if it wins this coming year. That would leave the C-49 or C-50 designation avaialbe for an A-400M, under the US Military MDS designation system.

Don't forget, the US Military puts an MDS on all commerical freighter aircraft, too. For example, the B-747-400F is the C-33A.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9651 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
There is a proposed AC-27J concept for SpecOps. It won't carry the fire power of the current AC-130s, but it would be slightly faster.

Unfortunately, the future of the Stinger II is not very clear - despite the funding for the prototype and Alenia's optimism.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.../italians-re-discover-america.html

Quote:
"Separately, the Air Force Special Operations Command could resume pursuit of a gunship variant. AFSOC planned to buy 16 AC-27Js to 'complement' the much larger AC-130J, but cancelled the programme last year. The requirement for the aircraft still lives, however, Giordo says.

'I believe that the push [to restart the AC-27J acquisition] will be given directly by the special operations forces,' he adds. 'It will come from outside the corporate air force'."


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...dent-of-further-spartan-sales.html

Quote:
"Meanwhile, Giordo is also confident that a current order for 38 C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft for the US military 'is a starting point, as more are needed for homeland security/disaster response and irregular warfare.'

The US Air National Guard is expected to deploy its first C-27Js to Iraq in the second half of 2010, with Giordo expecting them to provide 'valuable data to define the right mix of [Lockheed Martin] C-130Js and C-27Js for the intra-theatre airlift mission'."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9600 times:

The AC-130 may go the way of the mammoth unfortunately. ATM the doesn't seem to be a AC-130U upgrade in the works, the AC-27J seems to be iffy at best. Even the Advanced Tactical Laser being developed for the AC-130 is looking like it wont get past the R&D phase.

A laser AL-130 would be freaking awesome!



User currently offlinePlayloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

An AC-130J seems obvious. Why isn't that really being considered?

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9348 times:



Quoting Playloud (Reply 13):
An AC-130J seems obvious. Why isn't that really being considered?

As I said in my earlier reply, the Marines are going ahead with an AKC-130J. Give it time and watch the USAF evaluate what the Jarheads can do. No sense in running two paralel programs for now.

USAF has already tried to incorporate the 30mm Bushmaster on the AC-130U fleet, but had poor results. The 40mm is near unsupportable anymore, and the M-61s have been deleted for a long time. Basically all they are left with is the 105 and the 25mm rotary cannon. One wonders that witht he 105, would you actually get improvement with a 120mm mortar like proposed, or would a slew of Hellfires and SDB's be better?

Quoting Oroka (Reply 12):
A laser AL-130 would be freaking awesome!

I can't look at that pic and not hear "Kent, this is God. Have you been touching yourself again?"



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9104 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14):
USAF has already tried to incorporate the 30mm Bushmaster on the AC-130U fleet, but had poor results. The 40mm is near unsupportable anymore, and the M-61s have been deleted for a long time. Basically all they are left with is the 105 and the 25mm rotary cannon. One wonders that witht he 105, would you actually get improvement with a 120mm mortar like proposed, or would a slew of Hellfires and SDB's be better?

They could replace the old Bofors L/60 with the L/70 (faster rate of fire, longer range), or, they can try the Bushmaster III in place of the Bofors and the 25mm gatling gun.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9032 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3):
The Marines are busy arming their KC-130Js with Hellfires and 30mm cannons...

I believe the Hellfires will be on wing monted hardpoints, eliminating the inboard external fuel tanks, the outboard hardpoints are for the refueling pods. Instead of the 30mm guns, I would stick with the 25mm gatling guns that are already proven effective on the AC-130s, and the Marines already use the 25mms, too. I don't think they have a 30mm gun, yet.

The problem with modifying the KC-130J to a gun ship is the limited amount of room in the cargo hold, unless the extra fuel tank is removed, then the guns installed. It would seem better to me for the USMC to order some USAF/ANG standard "slick" C-130J cargo haulers, then modify them into gunships, like the USAF has done for 40+ years now.

Or better yet, get some USMC crews qualified in the USAF AC-130s and fly their own missions in them. This has been done before with USAF crews flying USN and USMC EA-6Bs.


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8961 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I believe the Hellfires will be on wing monted hardpoints, eliminating the inboard external fuel tanks,

How are they going to do that? Hellfires come straight off the rail I think.... will the hardpoint be low enough to launch missiles between the two props? I realize there is a bit of a space there, just seems a fine line.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alan Lebeda




Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8900 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 17):
How are they going to do that? Hellfires come straight off the rail I think.... will the hardpoint be low enough to launch missiles between the two props? I realize there is a bit of a space there, just seems a fine line.

Sneaky marines, the left outboard pylon will be wired for munitions, the right pylon retains the tanker pod.

"Harvest Hawk Capability II involves mounting an M299 missile rack for 4 AGM-114 Hellfires and/or up to 16 DAGR laser-guided 70mm rockets to the left wing, in place of the left-hand aerial refueling pod. This leaves the left wing carrying the weapons and some fuel, while the right wing retains full aerial refueling capabilities."


Check out the article here:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...SMCs-KC-130J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
and the Marines already use the 25mms, too. I don't think they have a 30mm gun, yet.

“While the Mk 44 Bushmaster II [30×173mm] and M230 Chain Gun [30×113mm] are both nominally 30mm, their cartridges are very different….There is a major difference in size, power, and range. The Mk 44 Bushmaster II has already been adopted by the US Navy and USMC for other applications…. The 30×173mm uses a heavier projectile with a larger explosive filling, and is fired at a higher velocity [which] should have a noticeable maximum range advantage. Perhaps it would be easier to fabricate a stable mount for the less powerful M230 than the Mk 44… M230 and its ammunition are also lighter and more compact.”



The last of the famous international playboys
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AC-130 Replacement?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
U.S.A.F AC-130 posted Fri Nov 10 2006 17:13:32 by KC135TopBoom
Why No New AC-130 Gunships? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 01:51:31 by CX747
AC-130 Gunship Targeting Video, Afghanistan posted Sun Dec 22 2002 20:17:36 by Mirage
AC-130 Book-what Was It? posted Wed Oct 30 2002 00:30:54 by Avt007
How Do You Aim The AC-130? posted Mon Nov 5 2001 04:13:50 by YKA
Help Needed - FAR Unidentified AC posted Thu Dec 10 2009 16:29:05 by Skysurfer
V-22 As A C-2 Greyhound Replacement? posted Wed Nov 11 2009 20:30:02 by 747400sp
Soyuz Replacement Unveiled posted Fri Apr 3 2009 07:34:51 by RedFlyer
Who Does This AC Belong To? posted Sat Feb 21 2009 14:33:11 by Kiqaboy
C-130 Being Blown Up posted Mon Feb 2 2009 19:44:50 by Spudsmac
CDN Forces C-130 Replacement posted Sat Nov 11 2006 07:47:25 by Kearney
U.S.A.F AC-130 posted Fri Nov 10 2006 17:13:32 by KC135TopBoom
Why No New AC-130 Gunships? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 01:51:31 by CX747
AC-130 Gunship Targeting Video, Afghanistan posted Sun Dec 22 2002 20:17:36 by Mirage
AC-130 Book-what Was It? posted Wed Oct 30 2002 00:30:54 by Avt007
How Do You Aim The AC-130? posted Mon Nov 5 2001 04:13:50 by YKA
Russia Sells Syria 36 YAK-130. posted Mon Jan 23 2012 05:15:15 by notaxonrotax
C-130, RAF Typhoon Photo Op posted Sat Jan 14 2012 17:26:17 by geezer
C-130 AMP Cancelled(?) posted Fri Jan 13 2012 19:13:50 by SSTeve
Q400/Elta To Make P-3 Replacement posted Mon Dec 5 2011 09:56:15 by JoeCanuck

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format