Lockheed AC-130

RavenOne

RavenOne

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
18 June 2008
Messages
865
Reaction score
1,963
Looks like the AC-130J Ghostrider gunships may lose their main teeth in the form of the 105mm gun with emphasis on stand off weapons

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force may remove 105mm cannon from AC-130 gunship

Other changes under consideration to prepare the Ghostrider for a high-end fight include adding small cruise missiles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Anyhow couple of times from last year and this year have seen AC-130J depart from here RAF Mildenhall (my pics below)

1699457445726.png

1699457470249.png

1699457517795.png

1699457540703.png

cheers
 
Sounds like they are trying to get away from orbiting at low altitudes and depend more on cruise missiles with long stand-off ranges.
Orbiting is only practical when you enjoy complete air-superiority and the target only has un-guided AAA.
OTOH, they are busy hanging smart bombs under A-10s, crop-dusters and even Cessna 208 Caravans to allow them to loiter well above light AAA.
 
Hobbes said:
The AC-130 used a 105mm howitzer, not a tank gun.
Click to expand...

Originally, the 105 was a M102 howitzer tube and its M137A1 variable-recoil mechanism in new mount. That piece was replaced by the NSWC Dahlgren 'GAU-XX' mentioned in RavenOne's linked article.
 
Seems to me that when you strip the guns from the gunship you have to start wondering what sort of capability it would provide that isn't done better by more survivable aircraft. The gunship has always been a niche aircraft with a lot of limitations, I don't think it can be made survivable in a fight against someone like China or Russia. If the goal is to keep it higher by only using these precision munitions then it would just become a target for radar-guided SAMs such an enemy would have.

I'm guessing GAU-XX is just a program name and not an official designation?
 
The current consideration is to keep the 30mm and smaller on all AC-130Js - and to keep the 105 on about half, with the rest being fitted for longer-ranged guided weapons.

Originally 37 AC-130J were ordered, but the purchase was later capped at 30.
17 have received the updated GAU-XX, so perhaps the remaining aircraft will see their 105 removed.
 
riggerrob said:
Sounds like they are trying to get away from orbiting at low altitudes and depend more on cruise missiles with long stand-off ranges.
Orbiting is only practical when you enjoy complete air-superiority and the target only has un-guided AAA.
OTOH, they are busy hanging smart bombs under A-10s, crop-dusters and even Cessna 208 Caravans to allow them to loiter well above light AAA.
Click to expand...
Not like the 105mm needs to be all that close to the target... I'd sooner recommend that the USAF replace that 30mm Bushmaster with the new 50mm Bushmaster 3, to give more standoff range.

Bluntly, I don't think that the AC-130 has any contributions to a fight against China. Not without a whole lot of other aircraft that wiped out every single large SAM system in the area.
 
Weird. I was talking to a AC-130J crew just a few weeks ago at the Little Rock Air Show.
They were raving about the new J model, and the new 105 especially. Along with all of their
Whiz-bang PGM options. I wish this tid-bit had come out before then, I would've been curious
to ask about it.
 
More apparent confusion. If they want to be ejecting cruise missiles or decoys out of the back of a C-130 that has potential but that aircraft is a missile truck. Don't pretend it's a gunship. The basic nature of the gunship made it a very specialized aircraft only suitable for certain scenarios. Trying to reconcile that with a desire to be useful against an enemy with large numbers of modern fighters and air defense systems would seem to be a lost cause.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
More apparent confusion. If they want to be ejecting cruise missiles or decoys out of the back of a C-130 that has potential but that aircraft is a missile truck. Don't pretend it's a gunship. The basic nature of the gunship made it a very specialized aircraft only suitable for certain scenarios. Trying to reconcile that with a desire to be useful against an enemy with large numbers of modern fighters and air defense systems would seem to be a lost cause.
Click to expand...
Or even just against an enemy with a large number of MANPADS...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom