AFSOC Would (Almost) Kill for New Gunships

AFSOC Would (Almost) Kill for New Gunships

If Lt. Gen. Donald Wurster, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, could put his hands on one more dollar to spend he would buy a heavily armed version of the new Joint Cargo Aircraft. In fact, he wants them so badly that after spending that dollar, he’d “go down the table, stab the others in the back and take their dollars” for the program. Or at least that’s what he said during a roundtable of four-star generals at the annual Air Force Association conference.

The command, based at Hurlburt Field, Fla., needs a successor to the aging AC-130 gunship, and so it’s asking to redirect about $32 million from its current fiscal year budget to buy a prototype from JCA maker Alenia Aeronautica and its U.S. partner, L3 Communications.

The command hasn’t settled on what size cannon to go in the plane, but it wants something that can take out a truck or tank — probably something between a 25mm and 40 mm weapon, said Jason Decker, a spokesman for L3.


The AFSOC version would be called the AC-27J Stinger II, Decker said this week at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., where he stood before an oversized illustration of the proposed plane. Though it’s being called a gunship — gunship lite, in some quarters — Decker said that reference tends to draw the ire of Lockheed Martin, maker of the AC-130 family of gunships since the 1960s and the –130A and H model Spectre and the AC-130U Spooky.

But the AC-130s are showing their age and need replacing, AFSOC officials have said. Wurster, commander of AFSOC, said during a presentation at the conference that he wants 16 combat JCAs ready by 2015.

In March, in an interview with CBS Evening News, AC-130 pilot Lt. Col. Mark Clawson said the planes are seeing so much action in Iraq and Afghanistan that “it’s hard to keep them flying.”

Another pilot noted that for every hour of flying,the gunship requires 14 hours of maintenance. And cracks in the wings are prompting their replacement five years ahead of schedule, Capt. James May said, according to a transcript of the interview.

The original version of the Stinger was a C-119 manufactured by Fairchild and initially were deployed to Vietnam in 1969 and used by the 18th Special Operations Squadron, 14th Special Operations Group, at Phan Rang Air Base, but also were operated by detachments out of air bases at Da Nang and Phu Cat, according to the National Museum of the Air Force.

Share |

Join the Conversation

BS! Why replace what works well? The AC130 Spectre has been and could continue to be an outstanding airborne weapons platform. The AF is always in such a %$@# rush to blow money on something new! Ask the grunts on the ground who have called for air support from the Spectre if it needs replacing! Ask the pilots who fly them and the men who crew them if they need replacement. Get real, AF and stop wasting money that could be better invested elsewhere!

We are american,Why not they waste it all the time How about We the tax payer I thought We the People own these ask us what you do with the Money I say get to each American,We will be satisfy.

Jim Sorber.….my brother is a AF Combat Controller who is that ground person calling in for his guys under SOCOM teams out on mission. Those planes have been pushed to the limit on many night missions when you hear through him and seals/rangers/green b’s that sometimes you have complications when certain things are asked for. This is AFSOC asking for this not regular military.. These men spend hours and countless times out

@ Jim Sorber

I think you may hve misconstrued the intent of Lt Gen Donald Wurster.

Apparently the “grunts” and the “co’s” BOTH absolutely love gunships. They are not in a rush to get rid of the ac-130 they are in a rush to get more gunships.

If the ac-130 was only a few years old they would continue to use that model of plane for the purpose. But it’s old, so when the order for new gunships gets put through it will necessitate a new plane platform.

Something a little smaller than current platform, will provide: a/ faster arrival times; b/ better turning radius for closer support. closer support means more accurate support. c/significantly less fuel consumption. d/ better armament.

BTW As you say, “ask the grunts”. Cause from what I understand the gunship is one of the most loved weapon in the service. The grunts would LOVE a new gunship.

ps. Where could that $$ be better spent? Cause when generals request funds for an active duty weapons system it is because that system has PROVEN itself. As in “the grunts love it and the strategists love it, and the field commanders love it, and the political generals love it.
That sir is rare in the military world and when that kind of consensus occurs, then that is the money well spent. Another example would be the excalibur artillery round.

So instead of blindly criticizing the AF, think it through. Gun

Jim, with all due respect, calm down. Yes, the Air Force in the past has been technology addicts, but things are changing. We have a new Chief of Staff who was a former AC-130 pilot. He knows what the Air Force needs and what the Air Force must change.

Now as far as the new development of the AC-27J goes, it is a great initiative for the battles we are in today. We need a smaller aircraft that can land on more austere air strips and that can not only act as a CAS platform, but a reconnaissance tool and special ops infiltrator. The AC-27J can perform these jobs. Not to mention, it’s a practical solution fiscally. Why buy 1 new AC-130J when you can get about 3 AC-27J Stingers for the same price? In today’s urban warfare environments, we don’t necessarily need 105mm weapons over the battlefield everywhere special forces are carrying out missions. After all, the 40mm Bofors cannon on the Spectres and Spookies is the most used weapon in combat. We can have the Spectres and Spookies still performing major roles, but the Stingers will act as a complement to the gunships already fielded.

Trust me, this could be one of the best ideas the AF has had in years.

Easy fix, just rehab all the C-123s

More gunships…more gunships…repeat after me.…more gunships.

Aren’t they still making C130’s?
Can’t they just improve the current weapons systems on tried & proven airframe?

Drew is correct…the program is all about gettign MORE Gunships, and one that has capabilities that the very formidiable current Gunships is not capable of performing…There are no plans to retire any of the current fleet of Gunships, only to ADD “Stinger” to the team.

LC is also correct…to better serve the teams on the ground…we need more Gunships, we need more Gunships, we need more Gunships

Finally. we’ve got somebody at AFCOS that has a clue!
We need more gunships — but we are still using AC130A that were built in 1961, Ds an H models that were built in the 66–70 time frame. Only the U models are faily new, and those are still 5–10 years old.
And LC — rehab the C123s? Those have been sold off or turned into razor blades and beer cans loo-ong time ago.
AC-27J is faster than the AC130U and costs half. Hasn’t got the range, hasn’t got the loiter time of a Herk, but we don’t need that in SWA. We aren’t flying out of Thailand to hit targets in RVN, we’re flying entire missions in the one-way time we used to fly.

@ Ed,

Only models in use are H and U-model gunships.

And the loiter time is solved by tankers.

Um, I never said rehab the C-123s.

We desperately need more and new planes of all kinds, from fighters to gunships to tankers. There has been a pathetic effort to recapitalize our older and overused aircraft datingback to the Clinton procurement holiday. It’s time we step up and make sure we maintain our Air Force.

I wonder how many aircraft we could buy for what the government is spending on bailing out all these private institutions?

I agree that the AF needs some newer airframes. I have been involved in inspection and maintenance of various versions of the C-130 for over 20 years. The older C-130s have serious wing issues that has to be addressed. The problems go beyond simply “patching up” or “beefing up” the problem areas. The wings truly need replacement. Now which would be more cost effective in the long run. Wing changes on an airframe that has a lot of hours on it, or a new airframe that still has 100% service life left and being a smaller airframe would, I believe, a lower cost per flying hour.
Just my 2 cents

Personal experence, I HAVE RECIEVE MORE FRIENDLY FIRE FROM 130 THAN EFFECTIVE FIRE ON THE BAD GUYS. MAYBE THE NAM VERSION DID DO SO WELL BUT THERE ARE 28 PEROERSONEL FRON 2/7 THAT DIED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE TIME MAKE SURE THEY HAD THE RIGHT GUYS.
I always like it when the Army flew over on cloudy or low clow day days and did there recon by fire. When you could not take it any more you would try to take one out with a LAW or try, they would call artty in on you and the 130 had the same habbats.
All you asses the want new toys, buy it and play with it till it brakes.
Why do you think the US is going dowing the shitter. You dont know what a spend billion of anything is but your willing to spend it so we have the best toys. Bush should be tried as a mass murder, his cabnet as well this lie that he has put on us when he had the tween toweres were pulled down and the cover up that has been going on ever sence. We are a poliece state, worse that Russia ever though of being. Once arested for anything they can hurass you foor the rest of your life 2.5 million americans in jales and prisions. A government that is out of contrlo with no answers on how to fix it. What is 11 trillion dollars, tht what you owe the Fedeal Reserve. When you going to pay up. NEVER,NEVER,NEVER.If you think it bad now just waight It just going to get better.

@ Dumb Marine,

Personally, my only advice to you is to shut up. Until you learn to properly address a coherent discussion, you have no credibility.

From what I’ve read by some of these know it alls, another gunship would benefit AFSOC greatly not to mention all the others of the SOF community. SO what if it’s originally designed in Italy. The AC-27J gunship lite will be produced here in the states, give Americans jobs and badly needed gunship support to troops in contact (TIC). Some of you people don’t understand that the AC-130H model gunships have been around since the sixties! The AC-130U gunships have come into service in the nineties, and are wearing down rapidly! Combat takes its toll on gunships real fast when everybody wants a gunship! It you claim that you got more friendly fire from an AC-130, then you should have learned to mark you position better. YES, don’t retire the AC-130s, build new ones but also have the AC-27J on hand to get to those troops who need them the most. The crews who fly them and pull your butt out of a bad situation fast. Your tax dollars, son’s, daughter’s, brother’s, sister’s and father’s lives depend on additional gunships being available. Spectre, Spooky II and now Stinger II
a trifecta!

My personal opinion,
There aren’t enough gunships in our inventory. I have worked the H’s and U’s in the past and they are a great weapon to use in the right situation. They have their drawbacks (they are slow, big easy targets, aging airframes) but they are EFFECTIVE. Now you add another airframe into the mix that gives a smaller target, faster, and a newer proven airframe and things only get better for our boots on the ground.
You can delete the 105 and just have the 25, 30, or 40mm for softer targets on that bad boy and call it a gunship-lite or whatever.Let’s not forget the ac-47’s only had miniguns, and the A model had minigins, two 40mm’s and no 105.
Im just going to go out on a limb here but I bet the troops on the ground will love you for some more close air support.

@ Drew. Dumb Marine is obviously a E-fake. No Marine, Even one who speaks against the war, could have so much hate for the U.S.A. He’s striking out at our Psyche.

Dumb Marine sounds like of those guys who is still VERY VERY ANGRY that the wood-frame M14 is no longer the standard-issue Marine combat rifle.

Im wondering when they are gonna sling some bombs under these things. As long as they can carry the designators, why not?
Some of these single engine turboprops can carry them, that would be a great option to have. They can carry the bombs, they can loiter, and for a fraction of the price, not to mention they have TBOs of thousands of hours, no more of this constant maintenance crap.

@Dumb Marine

I’d recommend some decaf there, devil dog… might make you a little more coherent. But frankly, you’re probably better off drinking ANY kind of coffee; it’d be a damned sight better than that anti-American Koolaid you’re swilling now.

bombs weight to much. The AC-130U Spooky is a CAS platform that can operate with a lot of accuracy. Todays bombs are very accurate but they simply do too much damage when you want to take out a truck for example that’s parked in a street. This aircraft is often used to engage large groups of persons. Once you drop one bomb they scatter and its very hard to hit them all if have only 4 boms on board. Thats when the crowdpleaser comes in :)

Have any of you ever worked on a AC-130u? Until then I dont think you can actually have an opinion on if they need to be replaced or not.

As a former B-52G gunner, and retired cop, I can say that I wouldn’t care who made it, as long as “back-up” is coming in hot and fast, when I need it. When you’re getting shot at, you don’t care whose shoulder patch the guy coming to help is wearing, and you don’t care who made the armament that he is packing. Just get here, and cover my butt. Dead US troops, don’t come home to become US workers, let alone worry about their US jobs going overseas. Bring on the AC-27J’s, keep the AC-130’s as long as possible, and add some “kitchen sinks” to the armament.

Dumb Marine was verrrry entertaining but it is rude to make fun of the handicapped …
If the the Stinger is as fun to ride in as the 130 was, sign me up. As a former USO entertainer, I remember feeling that something was wrong, climbed up the webbing and, sure enough, there was our singer, Liz saying, “Look! I am driving the plane!” Keep ‘em flyin’!
Kavika (1-term USAF veteran)

I worked on the 130 for a couple of years and know it’s a viable airframe in many cases. Now, that being said, it is not a case of one size fits all. what we need are more, yes more but, designed by and built here in the U.S.
the more we go off shore to buy equiptment is the more we will be dependant on supplies from the foreign suppliers. We may end up like we are with the oil situation. The case of cheaper will not hold up with the weaker american dollar. We already have heard of how foreign procurement in the pentagon is out of control and our guys on the ground are paying the price.
We are laying off thousands in the aircraft industries! what ever happened to America first?
Buy American??

Although I have no experience at being on the ground during a fire-fight, I believe we should give the grunt on the ground who is risking his life for our country and way of life all the support we can, regardless what airframe it comes from. Gunships have eyes to see what is happening unlike the UAVs (although I feel UAV have their place too).
Since we now have only limited aircraft for close air support (A-10s) unlike in ‘Nam where we had the A-1s and A-37s that were slow enough and low enough to get the job done, more gunships are definitely needed… especially for TIC.

Think it says what I wanted to say…

The Black birds where needing major repairs in the late 70’s.
Seeing there condition with my own eye’s then.
The new Stinger II ‘s are needed badly !!!!!
All the money in the world can’t keep our troops safe ‚But these new air craft can.
And for all the people that I read what you left on this site about money money money it’s the troops you need to care about.
The man and women that fight for us so we can be free​.So you people that care for money more then you do the lives of your troops is because of the freedom they give you.

It seems odd that during Viet Nam that one of the reasons for going to the 105’s was the 40 mm could not nail the APC or other armour adequately. So why do they think that that current gen 40 mm’s can do the job? Mod the C130 to take on the mission. God only know the Herc can do just about any thing that is tried.

Why are we again buying a foreign made product? What’s wrong with US made weapons? We should stop supporting off shore economys and bolster our own.
To Dumb Marine, I doubt that you are eve a marine just another flamer. Where’s your profile?

Ya cant fight a war with sticks and stones. Give the General his aircraft. As and old cold war Turbo Prop mechanic I would love to service the new aircraft. They keep telling me the Air Force doesn’t fly Spads any more. What a shot in the chops.

Just means more cross training for me.

we need ulysses air cargo for the philipphines and c-130 for the to figth the bandits and terror philipphines is our allies for against terror„„,

f-35 pilot
rey

we need to use new model airplanes to secure our fellow soldier lives and llife money is nothing but life is everything.…

The AC-27J Stinger II,is meant to increase the Gunship, through increased numbers and provide a more flexiable mix of assets to support the scope of missions the beinf performed. It is not a replacement for the capabilities of the larger gunship, AFSOC is also seeking funding of the next generation gunship.

Dumb Marine. You are full of BS. I agree with the others he must be a fake. It does frost my balls that they want to buy firiegn. What’s wrong with buying new 130’s?

Should be Foreign. Fat fingers.…

I was an infrared tech on the AC-130H, MC-130E, and MH-53J’s at Hurlburt in the early 90’s. I was also given the opportunity to be part of the SOFI modification of what is now the AC-130U. I have not worked ont the U models, but I can tell you the the other models are very dated. Even more dated are the A models. The newest H model at the time was a 1975. The C-130 was introduced, I believe, in 1952. It is a very old airframe, but very reliable. (The AC-130A replaced the C-47 when it was introduced.) My own opinion, I agree there is a need to at least look into a replacement of the AC-130’s. Technology changes and so do machines. Machines, no matter if they are airplanes or not, do wear out. You haven’t been driving the same car/truck (and working it hard) for 30 years, have you?

As for “Dumb Marine”, I don’t believe you are a true Marine. I have yet to meet a Marine who would call himself/herself “dumb”. If you have an opinion, please be an adult about it.

AFSOC, as with any Special Ops group, are elite. They should have elite equipment. If they can’t have elite equipment, then we won’t be able to call them Special Ops anymore.

If we all look at what the article is about, aging and mx on the best ole bird in the sky. How can the General spend less money and expect to get a compairable acft. If something has a problem, why not fix it, not put a bandaid on it.With techno being what it is today, we could have the beefiest “Dirty 30″ ever built. I worked the “A” model bird. Even with 2 motors missing, she still got her crew home. Refit properly is the right answer.

I’m retired now, but flew these aircraft (AC-130H) in the 70’s and cannot believe they are still flying. They take considerably more abuse than a slick C-130, and a new platform will be badly needed in the very near future. Better start putting a new one together now! In response to the dumb Marine’s obvious lack of any formal education, a Gunship Crew’s first rule of engagement in a Troops In Contact (TIC) scenario is to positively identify the friendly position. I (a) suspect HE did not know where he was and most likely called the fire in on himself or (b) the AC-130 just wanted to clean up the gene pool a little. In either case, it’s too bad the AC-130 didn’t hit the target.

This is for sure a C-123 Provider. I was stationed at Da Nang AB 70–71 and spent enough time loading and off loading this bird. It was also used for spraying Agent Orange. They have been put in the scrap yard since then.

As an former 130 engineer, I would say the planes are getting old. But I think that you should go back to the guys that made the first ones and have them make some more. Could help get some people jobs in the US (duh). Other than that, Go Air Force. And for you whiners, How Free Are We !

My son Tech SGT. flys everyday on these AC130 gunships and I welcome new planes. Not only do I want to keep our personel on ground safe, I want my son flying in “safe” planes doing his job. These planes and staff are called on daily, and do a remarkable job keeping our ground troops safe. This county wastes so much money on stupid things, maybe we should put the money to good use! A worried mother!

After working the C-130 for 20 years and having to deal with restricted wing aircraft and their limitations due to structural failure, it is only choice the USAF has, to keep the aircraft in the air. Planes do not fly well with cracks in their wings and limited payloads. Stress on wings is immense and I can imagine what NDI Technicians have found on the wings surface and after dealing with this issue for 20 years i know it’s always in the Aircraft Commanders mind about the condition of the wings structure and will i make it back from mission or not! We can’t afford to not give them the tools they need to do their job! In remebrance of Spirit 03 you will never be forgoten!

Why don’t they just use the same gunship platform we have know on the stronger, faster, and larger J model C-130. Why waste our money on that little POS. A stretch J version of a Gunship would be an awesome piece of machinery. But with all that said they need to put engineers on the J.…

Look at the resupply logistics and parts availability for the new platform. Look at the depot facilities for the new platform. The list could go on. Retired C-130 F.E. last assignment Warner Robins Flight Test.

All this talk about old airframes, the c130J frames can’t be that old

I the AF would quit wasting money of uniform changes (the latest is UGLY) they would have money for aircraft improvements.

What is wrong with buying AMERICAN?

Once again so many of these comments show a complete lack of foresight. Yes, the AC-130 is a great bird, but they’re getting old. Some people can see the writing on the wall and are thinking ahead. If the Air force listened to some of you, we’d wait until AC-130 began falling from the sky and then start looking for a replacement.

The AC-27J would be a great supplement to the AC-130. An AC-130J would be an awesome platform, but it some situations, a smaller platform would be better. Daniel, the J model engineer pipe dream has been shot down so many times it’s not even funny. There is nothing for a FE to do. It has been proven on the EC/WC/C-130J for years now, and the HC/MC-130J engineer position will not exist either.

The C-130s are fine aircraft, but the point here is; why send in a Mack truck when a 3/4 ton Superduty can get in there faster & get the job done with fewer crew, fuel burn and stand-down maintenance time? The AC-27 is half the size, more maneuverable, faster, has only two engines to maintain & feed, costs less & has every weapon except the 105mm. The only reason for buying a foreign aircraft is that there is no American equivilent. Neither should the C-130s be dropped, as you do need a Mack truck for some jobs.

In responce to “Dumb marine“
My father, grandfather, and brother are formere Marines, and after reading the propaganda that you shot off my grandfather is probaly turning over in his grave, YOU ARE A FAKE!!!!!! DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOUR MOTTO IS?!?! Probaly not, here let me tell you, SEMPER FI, remember what that means? no? ALWAYS FAITHFUL!! YOU ARE NOT!!

Dumb Marine needs to go back to school as he sure didn’t learn anything there. That said, The C-130x was a very reliable platform in Vietnam and has served it’s time. Newer aircraft should be brought into the service of our country but they should be AMERICAN BUILT with parts supplied by American companies. How can we continue to send jobs overseas?

Forget it,get ready to make do with what You have. Wallstreet has higher Priority, and what You think You have in the pipeline, dont count on it. wcarter41

We need to be fighting the next war, not the last one. Every SOF mission that needs air support should have their own unmanned (UAV)gunship (fixed or rotating wing) that they have control over either directly or indirecly via a datalink. Much cheaper and more effective than old airframes or multi-billion dollar new aircraft programs.

Interesting discussions. First I would like to adress “dumb Marine”. I can see you chose an appropriate tag for yourself, but I seriously doubt you are now or have ever beeen a U.S. Marine. You most likely were a “wanna be” or at the very least a reject.

Now for the C-130 issue. Yes they are old and slow. They do require more maintenance down time post mission than most airframes. The true value of these giants is not from their ground time but their air time and I know there can be no argument of their success there. I still believe there is a use for these “workhorses” and to simple replace them would be a mistake. I believe this new A/C would serve better as an augment to the C-130’s. There are some armament issues that need to be worked out with the gunships and replaccement parts are not readily available any longer, most have to be fabricated by AFSOC personnel to keep these A/C in the air. I believe we should spend the dollars on the new platform and also spend a few more to ensure the gunships remain.

Now for the money issue, can’t remember the poster who brought it up, but in any case. Do some homework before making moronic statements about spending. “Give it to the taxpayers” …what a pipe dream. By putting the “Budgeted funds” into the DoD and our military we are giving it to the taxpayers and at higher value that a dollar…your freedom.

If you want to know what is truly needed, listen to the the pilots, mission planners, maintainers, weapons crews and ground pounders. If you do I can assure you, what is needed will become clear. You will of course have to weed out the idiots, such as “Dumb Marine”, but you will get the picture of what is needed.

Bottom line for me: We do not need to replace we need to augment. If in time this new A/C proves to be the “New Gunship” then we retire our old friends “Spooky” and “Spectre”. Until that timeas has always been the case…Any Place, Any Time.

Let’s let wall street fall on it’s ass and use half of the the 700 Billion dollars to rebuild our aging aircraft, and the other half to deport illegal aliens and their achor babies and take our country back from illegals and immigrants.

AC-27 ?!? Screw that, bring on the AC-17 with a dozen 105’s, two dozen Bofors, and 25mm autofeeders between all of them. Now that’s a gunship. Oh yeah, don’t forget that the gunners will have to wear patches over one eye, carry knives in their teeth, and keep pet parrots that can curse when they smell cordite. Arrgh!

I worked with Alenia/LMAero/LMATTS even before the first flight of the C-27J. There are dozens of very good reasons that they referred to it as “Half a Herc”!

Once the AC-27 is fully loaded how well can it fly on one engine. I witnessed a AC130A come home with only 2 engines on the left side. The new version C130J has greater power and burns less fuel then the old models. As of yet, the AF has not ordered replacements for the older modelH & U’s. They are running on a wing and a prayer. AF get off your butt and order both.
The 105MM is still needed for higher elevation flight from ground fire. The smaller wepons are not functional at higher elevations and leave the aircraft vonerable at the lower platform.

This is what could happen with the stress of the center wing box failing.
http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​4​b​D​N​C​a​c​2​N1o

Check it out!

I agree with FvDwn1up–Let WSt fall, give it to the military and get rid of the Illegals– Take America Back!!!!!!! LR-SMSgt, USAF, retired C-130 C/C & Flt Engr.

I maintained and flew aircrew in the 1970s on USCG HC-130H models and continue to use my military training(NATTC, Memphis NAS AMH & AMS ‘A’ schools)The strong/weak point in a C-130 from A models on up is the rigid wing. It allows for good weight capacity and great stability in flight but due to being rigid the stress is focused at the attach point to the fuselage. It requires diligent NDI to detect cracks and regular depot level maintenance at least every five years. That was always the case and likely still is. I am a tooling and fabrication tech and there have been no major allow changes at the stress points that I am aware of.

I find it very hard to believe that BUFFs can be cost effective to maintain well into the 21st century but not C-130s. The wing flex on B-52s is atrocious but it works and has done so for over 60 years now.

As to the remark about Blackbirds needing any structural upgrades, Ben Rich the successor to Kelly Johnson at the Skunk Works and a thermodynamicist, stated that at retirement every last one (A-12s and SR-71s)was stronger structurally then when new due to the odd fact that titanium gets stronger with heat and they got very hot every time they flew (beats leaking!). Baring display modification damage, any of them could be upgraded with new avionics and engines and still do very well.

Opps, alloy not ‘allow’

I think this is great news for AFSOC! I only wish they were going to keep the 105 cannon! It is time for an upgrade all these birds have flown in many fights and well the stress on them is really showing. Wicked Wanda needs a new sister! :)

Here is a novel idea instead of buying an airframe that is built overseas in Italy and sending our money overseas, how about we buy some more AC130’s from Lockheed to replace the AC130’s that are getting old and need to be replaced, maybe that way we can keep some American’s employed here at home by buying American Made Airplanes.

I was wondering what all the flak was about Dumb Marine. Someone can’t be that far gone, if he is there is now living proof that Uncles and Brothers have been wading around in the family gene pool. Go Hercs — Logged time on the C-130A (Aeroproducts) Then did the FCF’s on the A models converted to Hamilton Standard. Also logged time on the C, E, H, P, N versions of the C, EC, JC, AC. Retired C-130 FE.

The C should be the B model

The AC-27J…
I can talk about side firing gunships, their uses, and needs for hours, been around them since the mid-1970s.
Bottom lines:
1. The gunship is what we need to fight the irregular war because it solves the ISR, command and control, and strike problems in a single, on-site aircraft. Much like the AC-47 did 44 years ago.
2. There weren’t enough gunships to fill operational taskings prior to Sept 11th. The shortfall today is even higher.
3. The gunship fleet has been operating ABOVE JCS/AF maximum combat surge levels since the mid 1990s. We laugh every time a five-sided playpen denizen comes down and tells us we must absolutely comply with AF standard utilization rates.
The AC-27J will give us a tailored capability in the near term future. Built for today’s irregular warfare fight it cannot and does not replace the capabilities of the AC-130s. The gunship community and the forces we support knew that going in. For what it would take, dollars and manning wise, to field another AC-130 squadron we can field at least two AC-27 squadrons. That provides coverage to a lot of teams that aren’t getting it today. All too often that coverage makes the difference between coming home and not.
I have worked on four different AC-130 replacement studies over the last 20 plus years. The dollars required are, to say the least, extensive. A smart cross decking involving the current fleets and a customized C-130J is the only financially responsible way to go. It was offered up and rejected a decade ago. I have to wonder….

Yes, The AC-27 will be great in 5 –6 years. However next year AFSOC needs a C-130 with HEAVY lift wings, COTS Glass Cockpit and STOL capability with 10+ percent fuel savings. Buy the C-130M (MOD) that provides all the above at half the price of a C-130J gunship.

I commanded Spectre crew #1 at Ubon in 68–69 when the 16th SOS was formed. Our 5 A models were all 1954 production aircraft except for 43–3129 which was a 1953 production airplane. Although the C-130 gunship was in its infancy and ours were old high time airplanes, we flew up to 6 mission each night by turning some of the early airplanes to fly the late flights. It would seem to me that the U models should have many more years a serviceable life and the H models should be replaced by J models. It is alway comforting to have four engines.

Interesting discussion.

The 1st unit to which I was assigned flew AC-130A’s; great planes with good capabilities — long since retired.

My wife was on the development and test team for the U-Boat; great plane made better with superb capabilities.

As for a twin-turbo, anyone remember the Twin Hercules?

American design, American built…Herkie’s the Goonie of its time, and with improvements in the materials used to build ‘em, could well be flying at the century mark…

Much as I love the Air Force, too much emphasis on missions other then making sure our soldiers are able to take and HOLD the ground.

Does any one out there drive a fifty year old car and think it performs as well or is as safe as a new model. I would rather think we could spend some of our tax dollars providing modern equipment for men and women who volunteer to stand between us and the dumb marine who I doubt is actually a marine but more likely wears a white wrap on his head.

Boys, The Gunships have saved a lot of butts. Granted a few have tagged the friendlies but I would much rather have an AC-130 or three in orbit over me than a fleet of Fast Movers trying to see me. Major Weaver, Jim May and the boys on Spirit 03 kept us safe where the A-10’s were just kickin’ up sand. The 10’s were not effective at all. The technology now is much better for the fast movers but the security and show of strength of a Spectre over head would comfort me most! The new proposed platform is nice but with the J mods already having a lot of combat time maybe more talk of their conversion to extend the life of the AC130 angel of Death. I don’t believe we could completely steer away from the “Fabulous Four Engine Fighter” just yet.

From a logistics standpoint, the 23J sounds like a good deal… Aren’t “new” C130s re-fab’d from boneyard older model acft (such as the JSTARS E-8C). Like your POV, you take care of it as long as you have it, but when its time to change vehicles — do you wait until you’re stranded to buy a new one? Or use only one punch in a boxing match — nah, mix it up & keep the idiot wondering what’s next (not to mention where its coming from)!!
As a logistic war planner, the C130 has a good sized footprint. After bedding down SOS folks I can say they cut down the size of that footprint but its still fair sized. If you can reduce the footprint by dropping the number of acft mechanics, support equip & still get the weapon when & where its needed it benefits the ground-pounders.

Hey Folks,
Has anyone ever thought that we should ramp-up back to the military we had in the days of Ronald Reagan? We are spending a pittance of our GNP on what should be our #1 National Priority, even with a financial crisis. China, NK, and a resurgent Nazi-like Germany loom large in our review-mirror!
We could, and do, need a Full-Spectrum approach to integrated warfare which would include both ‘light’ AND ‘heavy’ gunships with electronic interfaces to Army & Marine helo-gunship assets for real-time targeting in ANY battlefield environment. We have become SO miopic that we can’t see that ‘The Middle East’ is NOT the whole threat spectrum.
Anyone notice that the Russian’s are in Venezula with the Chinese?
We can, and must, have adult leadership that puts Service above Selfishness for this Nations Survival. And don’t tell me that we don’t have the money when billions can go for ‘bailouts’, Senatorial gyms & perks, and Flag Officer pedistals!
Too many have sacrificed for this non-stop bickering by Pentagon Pukes @ the expense of out front-line fighters in all Services.
Enough! Get the job done, get the equipment, and field it…NOW!

Deicer boots & windshield wipers, wow the C-47 had them too? If it’s that backward, maybe we should ask an American company to build us one.

This really shows how bad the AF system is. (This doesn’t mean the guys out there making the mission happen) If they are bringing the AC-27 in to replace the older AC-130s, they have to be looking at the AC-130H. The airplane is 40 years old.
The question is: If they are going to replace them in a couple of years, why are they spending the money to move them from Florida to New Mexico? Why not leave them there until it is time to bring them to the bone yard? Would be a hugh money savings.
I agree they need to be replaced though. There are very few C-130s still being used that are that old, nevermind the abuse of a 105mm gun going off in it.

Wow! We got fake posters who can’t spell Anglish. We got angry posters who can’t spell bailout. We got old aircraft ready to shake apart at the seams. Boy, we got it all! C-130’s were great–but they are antiquated airframes. New aircraft with low miles and better fuel mileage are what we need. 105’s are a bigger punch–but we need a higher rate of fire. And new designs will also include the latest technology–digital displays, fly-by-wire, all that good stuff. Any new tech will enhance survivability. And would someone call Homeland Security and have that phoney ‘dumb marine’ hauled off to Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists?

The 130J is a new improved air frame ready for the next 20 years. What is the Air Force and gov. afraid of.….….….….….

Why don’t we take a lesson learned from Southwest Airlines? They only have one type of aircraft in their entire inventory. How about the AF keep the same plane Cargo / Gunship? Its got a real good track record.

Aren’t they “revamping” the C-130’s at Hill AFB, Utah. My son is at Tech School at Sheppard AFB in Aircraft Fuel Systems and his orders are for Hill. I did some homework about Hill and found that they are a major base for the Air Force and they are currently revamping the C-130’s and A-10 Warhogs. So, I think that is more economical than buying new ones.

As a technology and market analyst (layman, not military); I am curious (please don’t gang up on me as I value your discussions); why if they need new gunships (preferably American made) can’t they find the funds by reducing the proposed and controversial tanker fleet funding; by both a fewer number of new tankers, and outfitting many existing 767’s sitting in the desert (recent too; as out of airline service) into tanker duty; with far lower cost. Then use that money on modern new gunships, possibly with the new laser target acquisition equipment that eliminates friendly fire risk and enhances ability to nail your enemy with the first shot… just curious..
gene

When I was in Iraq, we got hit by one of these on accident. I lost a leg and half of my squad. Then they dropped a moab on us and I lost both my hands so I can’t type anymore. Of the 22 men in my tank squad, I alone survived to drive that tank back to the shop.

Just a little update from a UH-1 driver. The first gunship was the C-47 Puff The Magic Dragon (DC3) with three mini guns. I had a few occasions to see them in operation West of Saigon during the 1st Tet Offensive, but fire power was limited to the 7.62 round.
Dave

Yes, my friends I am a former ghostrider for 12 years, AC103A Gunship, stationed at Duke Fld Florida..AF special Operations for 20 years,started out as a gunner and got out as First Sgt…they retired the A-models in 1995. Special Ops now fly the H model and new U model. We flew the first c-130 the air force recieved in 1954, “The First Lady” 129, which now sits at the entrance to Robins AFB, GA.
The dumb marine is lying about being hit by friendly fire from a gunship, unless he was being dumb…soldiers wear glint tape on them somewhere which a Gunship can pick up with it’s IR system, friendly fire from a gunship I never heard of any in my 20 years. I flew with Nam aircrew members when i first joined in 83, a gunship is good for one thing, killing something, they do not strafe, do not blindly shoot, they lauch after dark and are down before sunup and can aerial refuel, when you have a gunship over head you are secure in knowing no one is going to sneak up on you, when you see a gunship open up someone is dying…Gunship pilots can kill a truck going fifty miles an hour, first shot may be long, second short, the third is going to kill you…and bad guys on the ground can’t hide from them, and if they hear them its to late..and to Ironman who had a Moab dropped on him impossible, gunship couldn’t load a moab..they are dropped by c130e combat talons now flown by my former squadron after the gunship retirement…and guys this was a reserve unit. You don’t hear about special ops from the war but trust me they are creating a lot of martyrs nightly…as for the new gunship it would help with close air support…want to read more check out the best Af Reserve unit in the AF go to 919SOG. Been in every shooting war since Nam..

I’ve have been (22+yrs) and sometimes still do work on the Herk. I cut my military aviation teeth on a C-130E (circa 1968) at POPE AFB, NC (317th FMS). Since then I have worked on all versions A to J(young’un) (“A” model was a Rode Island Reserve bird). From trash (cargo) hauler to gun ship and everything in-between in addition to every other cargo hauler in the US military. She is one hell of a ship so don’t count her out yet (Washington has tried several times and got their teeth kicked in).

As for you who think the Herk is obsolete think again. Mother AF and the JCS both thought the C-17 Globemaster II would replace the Herk. They found out the hard way a GE vacuum cleaner can take only suck so much FOD, where as the Herk loves it in the dirt and mud. And yes she’s been around a good long time, so has the B-52 (Buff) and if my memory hasn’t failed me yet they are the only two war birds still on active duty with their original airframe designs. I’d like to see EADS, BAE Systems, Thales, Dassault, SAAB, Oboronprom, and Finmeccanica come up with one that has lasted as long and as reliable as the Herk.

don’t worry, hussein obama will kill it

In short, the B-52 is an old weapons delivery platform, but no one is in a hurry too replace this beast of the air. It has survived years of budget cuts and so forth. Although I’m definitely in support of any troop who is on the ground in harms way, the C-130 is a very reliable delivery platform and has survived due too the advancements in technology and up-grades as with the B-52.

As a B52 Tail Gunner who went to war in a combat aircraft that was over 20 years old I can tell you we need the new aircraft. Most of the systems on that aircraft have had their modifications modified more than once and you can only put bandaids on for so long. The C130 is not like the plane you take to go on vacation, it is, by design and by necessity, used hard and done its job magnificently. It is time to give it a rest.

I worked Fire Control Radar on the H’s in the 90’s. As with any aircraft, age is not kind. C27’s would make an excellent compliment to the 130’s. It could not be a replacement. It would take some of the load off the 130, so they can stand down longer, to get the best refit and overhaul possible. Maybe even retrofit the engines with those from C130J program. I do think they should build a newer, upgraded version of the “U” model on a brand new airframe to eventually replace the AC130H eventually. I spent 23 yrs in the A.F. and was born as an F4 WCS Radar tech,(Phantom Phixer) and have worked many old and abused aircraft. There is a serious need, now for and the C27J and do hope that it is built/ moded only in the U.S. As for the “Dumb Marine”, I think he is one of the really bad ragheads(terrorists) monitoring what we talk about and just trying to get a rise out of us! It worked here! It smacks of broken English and ignorance through a lack of education from a radical Muslim! I have known many Marines and this guy cannot be further from what a true Marine believes in and stands for!!! Period!!!!!

It’s not a question of whether or not the AF just wants to blow money on something new, it’s a matter of necessity. Planes like most things in the military do wear out and need to be replaced. You can only upgrade so much and then it becomes to costly. A new platform is needed. Even an interview with the Pilot Clawson said they are being used so much they are having a hard time keeping them in the air.…wake up it’s time to up grade some of this flying junk.

@ Ironman

I’m pretty sure you’re being sarcastic, but just for the record, a MOAB has never been used in combat.

I just want to say to those who have been severely injured and lose buddies on the battlefield that no matter what, you are a tough bunch and am very sorry that good men have died. Collateral damage is inevitable, when any war is drug out so long. Fatigue sets in and mistakes are made ALL AROUND. Worn out airframes can make a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE in weapons accuracy! Ground troops, too tired or inexperienced can make mistakes, improperly marking a target. I wish that we never lost a good warrior to collateral, but that shows what can happen when airframes, aircrews and ground troops are used way beyond any expected or trained for situations. I know from experience on F4’s how worn out parts as simple as a shock mount can throw bombs or guns off by hundreds, if not thousands of feet off target, so you can see why AFSOC needs new equipment. TO BETTER SERVE OUR BRAVE GROUNDPOUNDERS!!!! WHATEVER SERVICE YOU MAY BE, WE ARE ALL AMERICANS and nothing is too good for our troops!!!!

As SF on standby, old, fat screwed up leg and medically retired but if they call I will go, and a pathfinder for 8 years I find it hard to call 40 MM as lite. The C130 is a great plane but at 50 years old it is showing its age. As for buying overseas I want the best available when the s### hits the fan. As a FYI Puff started as a physiological weapon using 100% tracers. Goes to a legend about a dragon and the only thing it was sure to hit was the ground and things had to be really bad if it was used for close air support. As a pathfinder bringing the C130 gunship was better than commercial sex. Last worked with C130 in the 80s and I suspect that close air support now means within 10 feet, OK 3 meters for the new Army.

A few months back..a C-130E that was used during the Khe Sahn action was recently retired.. yes.. the AC-130’s might be more maintenance intensive.. but still a viable aircraft.. I think the maintenance headaches is due to just in time supply chain and other factors.

i saw the new 6 bladed ac130 a few years back.… it looked good and is MADE IN AMERICA!!!

There are plans to put weapons on the KC-130J Herk. The Marines want the war all to themselves.

Come on people. The Herky Bird is real. Why are we so ready to buy from the Europeans? Has anyone contacted the Herky folks in Georgia for a smaller version of the Herky? Hamilton Sundstrand has a new 8 blade prop called the NP2000 which has been introduced to the USAF to update the Herk. Would give give plenty of power in any condition to a 2 engine version of a Herk. Why aren’t we bulding this new AC 27? I do not remember hearing that the USA went out of the aircraft business? Sounds like another Euro influenced Tanker deal to me.

iam in cameroon,wishing tojoin the military.please help me.thanks .
tell

We do need a new platform. BUT, it does NOT need to be made by another country. I worked for a major Defense Contractor near Hurlburt (DRS Technolgies) and was disgusted at the number of Chinese parts used in our Military hardware. U.S. tax dollars should only be spent on U.S. goods. PERIOD!

Hi All,
Well seems like there are alot of Ideas and views on the subject. I have a son in SOS. Can’t say where or what but we pray every time he has o climb into a 130! It works too. More than once they have had to abort a mission, T.O. or call out the crash turcks… The new 130 J’s are going to be around along time. The AF just needs o get enough of them to replace what they have. The AC 27 would be a great addition to the AF inventory; altough I would like to see it built by an American Manufacture in the U.S.. Anyway I think that we’ll all get the chance to talk about this for a long time, because the next Admin. isn’t going to buy SQUAT.
Keep-Em Flying…

Take a look at the specs of the C-27. EW is 39,500 and T.O. weight is about 58,000. Now start to factor in fuel at 6.5 lbs per gallon. Not knowing what thw fuel consumption is at loiter or cruise I will guess each engine is drinking about 1700 PPH. Now load in guns, ammo, crew and any additional night viewing optics, pretty soon you will have an aircraft that will not have the legs to make it to target. These look like the same birds that the German Air Force has been flying for years. I have seen a lot of them on rotations to Europe.

Although I never had too privilege of being a Special Operations warrior, I did give the USAF 25 and a half years of service. The C-130 is a remarkable aircraft ut realistically it is aging. If I were a SOF member and I were called upon for my input I would not want any less armament covering my posterior than what the AC-130 has. Friends of mine who were in combat in Vietnam routinely said they always took as much ammo as they could carry. Next they took all the water they could carry too. Timely, accurate, devastating firepower rules the battlefield and saves American lives. I am not particularly concerned about the damage we inflict on opposing forces. Personally, I believe they get what is coming to them if they are stupid enough to start a war with us. By the way Osama dumb marine you will get yours eventually too. You would do well not to castigate the U. S. Marine Corps in such an unintelligent way. If we are going to buy a successor to the AC130 let’s meake sure we have equal to or better armament, targeting, sensors, reliability, ease of maintenance, and as the Good Lord lives buy American. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo people.

gene inger,

There are a number of problems with what you propose.

1) EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers would never go for it so it won’t happen.

2) Despite some people not being convinced how bad a shape the KC-135Es were in, all 133 will be grounded by the end of the year so we will ALREADY be down 133 tankers.

3) Even though your proposal would cost less in the short term, too many people can’t or won’t see that & will kill it because it would cost more in the long run since the converted 767s would not have as much life as new airframes & thus they themselves would have to be replaced sooner & the existing recapitalization plan ALREADY has us having to start replacing the KC-X shortly after receiving the last KC-Z.

Note that these are not really problems with your proposal but problems that some people (particularly EADS/KC-30 supporters) would have with it that would prevent it from happening.

Gentleman, I have read all your posts, pretty interesting indeed! I am an Air Commando, I supported and worked with the guys that Fly & fix them; I also worked with the guys that utilized their fire power and not a one of those people ever had anything bad to say about them! I’m pretty sure we all agree on that, as for the upgrade; I’m gonna have to go with our AFSOC General on this and given the fact that Gen Schwartz was here, I think he has a good handle on what we need. This Command is so unlike any other in the AF, so for those whom have never been in it may be hard to understand how well we work together and know our equipment. We are a small community and very close family and the big boys know this and there first thought is how we complete our mission which directly involves protecting our customers! AS for Dumb Marine, I would have to say that by looking at the spelling errors in his words it is a good possibility that he is one of the bad guys being shot at! In which case we missed him but got the majority of his gang. Honestly, the rest of you please read the words that he wrote! I’ve seen enough scammers on websites pretending to be one of us only to know they are from another country! Just a little food for thought when chatting. Maybe I should say OPSEC/COMSEC:) Thanks for the great read guys I really appreciate it!

JC

The idea that all C-130 aircraft are old and worn-out is bogus.
First, the C-130J Super Hercules is a extreme revision of the C-130 with same basic airframe design but different props and engines, along with new technology in avionics, etc. And they are being built new today. They are not refurbished from older aircraft.
Second, I was a crew chief on C-130B in PI and Nam in the ‘60s & C-130A in Germany in ‘70, and when properly maintained they were VERY reliable and low maintenance. Fatigued metal is a fact of life on ANY aircraft and inspection must tend to repairs. When properly serviced and parts properly replaced (NOT cannibalized), a good aircraft should last a LONG time.
Third, there have been a lot of aircraft designed and built, but few (or perhaps none) are as good a design as the C-130. It has proven itself. So change the avionics if you need to, upgrade the powerplant, upgrade the props, but leave the airframe alone — it is proven.
As far as the ordinance, put in whatever will fit and is needed — to fit the mission.

The cost of most aircraft is in the development. So if you think you can develop a cheaper NEW weapon system than one that has 50 years of usage (and amortized development), then you are not properly accounting the cost. It’s good to keep developing new weapon systems, but don’t be deluded into thinking you can change weapon systems like car models.

i retired in 1985 and those AC-130s were oküld and needed replacement then, C-123s ha ha what is that person smoking??..i am an old crew chief and i know that those AC-130s are to keep flying we had the same problem with the old vietnam era F-4s they were a plain in the—– to keep flying. so go ahead and get thoe aircraft the AIR FORCE needs and save some americam GI live, but buy american please

This AC-27J looks a lot like the C-123K I flewin ‘Nam that had been gunship modified in ASCOC with exception of 5-bladed prop. Why not bring the C-123 airframe back?

If the government would quit sending money overseas, we could afford a fleet of these aircraft, and give our current and retired soldiers a raise.

YAY more gunships!

Maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

If we have a widespread war tomorrow , what would we do without the AC 130 ? How long would it take to mock-up just to start reproducing a similar plane, build a prototype and then work the bugs out of it?

Why not authorize a prototype now, just for the sake of prosperity, and continue to work the bugs out in the near future. Newer electronic packages are nice , if they can function 24 hours a day 7 days a week under adverse conditions .

A wide spread war would require a plane that would be available when you need it, and smaller but plentiful might be the answer.I think firepower when you need it is what the issue is.

TOO LATE IS NOT AN ANSWER.

Actually, SmedleyButlerRVN, they are taking 130s from the 70s and 80s and it’s still costing around $60 million/plane to update them. It’s not just weapons systems, it’s nav systems, it’s counter-measures (they gotta be updated too), it’s stronger wings to go w/the bigger engines, it’s the reinforced props to keep them lasting longer, and so so much more! So they aren’t just cranking out new stuff, they’re working w/what they know holds true. Any plane that can work off of fly-weights isn’t going anywhere in the “need sturdy” AFSOC world. So instead of finding a totally new platform, they’re doing exactly what you asked about:
Aren’t they still making C130’s?
Can’t they just improve the current weapons systems on tried & proven airframe?

Now fighters are a whole other issue…and we won’t get into that here.
The new ‘gun ship’ would be smaller (i.e. can land in more places, less to break, possibly less crew, etc.) and that’s exactly what tax payers are looking for. More efficient. This is one of the smarter things the AF is spending $$ on. New uniforms, manned fighters, etc. could be taken off of the list of debts…but one thing at a time.

It would be nice if they had a picture of a C-130 with the article but they have a C-23 pictured instead. Couldn’t they find a picture of a C-130 somewhere?

Chas:
We could afford a lot of things if the AF wasn’t driven by a Dem. majority congress and we could ditch the “Fighter mentality.” Instead of looking at things like the F22 and CV22 and saying, maybe that’s not the answer (UAVs are), we say, “We’ve already spent a butt load and nobody’s gonna like if we say it’s not gonna work like we wanted, so we’ll sink WAY too much $$ into trying to make it work for awhile.” That’s where the major $$ waste is.

(Sorry, I’m done then…promise!)

@ Dumb Marine
Thanks for the good giggle. Whatever you gotta tell yourself…and do yourself a favor, change your name. Any Marine ever finds you and they’ll make sure you shut it (and we’ll gladly help).

You guys are scary, y’know. Spooky had major psyche impact and softened Charlie well and good. I liked walking the zone after…it looked like somebody’d come through with a tiller.
Struck by a MOAB? I almost bought it by Naval Eight-inch walking in while we were driving through the Impact Zone…took a wrong turn while touring the Vieques countryside. But MOAB, I seriously doubt that if you lost your hands in that that you’d have much else left, including eyeballs.
I spent eight years of my twenty-seven as a Marine Corpsman in varying capacities. In all that time I got to know A LOT of Marines; they romped, stomped, kicked ass, took names once every so often, and generally lived up to the very essence of what it meant to be the controllers of the gates of hell…they played just as hard. So ‘Rag Head’, you just go right on thinking they’re dumb; you’re gonna need help to let go!! Ooo-rah!
All I can say about ‘Herk’ in any configuration is it never ceased to out-perform in every respect. It always put it where you wanted it.

maybe if they hadn’t spent so much on Golf Courses, civilian run Messing and pretty O clubs they’d have the money to buy the equipment they actually need.

well personally, i love the 130. lol!! especially on Call of duty 4!!! but i read about it alot, and would love to fly one ‚one day. But i know someone has an answer to this question. If i enlist to be an arial gunner. I could be shooting gatling out of helos, or 25mm 40mm and 105mm out of the gunships? or how does that work?

WTF Over! AC130 is the only solution. It has the legs to get where it needs to be, and MOST importantly it has the full Death Delivery system, why dumb it down to 25MM and 40MM instead of a 105MM??? Kill corporate welfare do not dumb down the Spectre mission to pork barrel An Italian air frame that carries much less in firepower and capability AND so you need MORE aircrews and airframes to deliver the firepower and it will STILL be unable to knock out a tank with 25MM and 40MM, WTF are they smoking, what a nutjob, pork barrel ideal, I say lock and load and blow this moronic idea out of there

Why not put the money into new AC-130s. Buy American for petes sake, the alternative is EROTRASH!

m60hog is totally right — and it’s also the pratriotic thing to do… That kind of money should stay “in the family”…

Has the Airforce looked into getting the c-130 j airframe to replace it’s aging fleet of gunship?

I have been on the AC-130H for 16+ years as a gunner, so I know a little about gunships. Maybe not as much as Emmett “Otis” Redding, but not many folks do. My hats off to you Otis. Anyway, AFSOC does not want to replace either AC-130, but rather augment them at a lower cost than a new C-130. Both AC-130s have their limitations, but are still more than capable of safely accomplishing their missions. Yes, the H-models are all 1969 models and yes they will need replaced eventually, but not anytime soon. The AC-27J would be a great addition to the gunship family and with modern (read smaller/lighter) fire control, nav, comm, and weapons systems it will still have good performance. Plus, it has a lot of C-130J commonality, so a lot of gunship specific systems used on it could be used on a C-130J later down the road when the H model finally needs replacing. Bottomline, there just are not enough gunships to cover our guys on the ground and we need more. Most of the time the ground team does not need a flying armada, but they do need precision CAS and the AC-27J will fit the bill.

hay if any you guys wana give me a shout im thinking of becoming an ac-130 arial guner…

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement