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

By: Derrik

Derrik — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:22:29 +0000

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

By: 130Gunner

130Gunner — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:45:32 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:31:22 +0000

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

By: wb6dks

wb6dks — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:15:35 +0000

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

By: m60hog

m60hog — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:10:36 +0000

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

By: HerkPhlyer

HerkPhlyer — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:43:25 +0000

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

By: 130uspooky

130uspooky — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:28:34 +0000

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?

By: Will

Will — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:03:28 +0000

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.

By: Wardoc64

Wardoc64 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:30:51 +0000

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.

By: Leddy54

Leddy54 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:54:49 +0000

(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).

By: Leddy54

Leddy54 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:40:46 +0000

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.

By: martyh

martyh — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:38:47 +0000

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?

By: Leddy54

Leddy54 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:36:47 +0000

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.

By: old bellhop

old bellhop — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:30:57 +0000

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.

By: Jcckl

Jcckl — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:56:43 +0000

YAY more gunships!

By: Chas

Chas — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:54:32 +0000

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.

By: JUSMAG

JUSMAG — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:39:02 +0000

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?

By: Tsgt Nicholas Nieves ret

Tsgt Nicholas Nieves ret — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:32:35 +0000

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

By: j_pat

j_pat — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:20:03 +0000

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.

By: JC

JC — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:09:06 +0000

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!