Register

APACHE CLIPS IS A NOT FOR PROFIT SITE DEDICATED TO OUR ARMED FORCES.

ALL PROFITS GENERATED WILL BE DONATED TO THE WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT OR THE SEMPER FI FUND.


WELCOME GUEST, BE SURE TO REGISTER AS A MEMBER, SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE FEATURES WE HAVE TO OFFER!
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT FAQ SECTION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    First Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,565
    Like
    1,802
    Dislike
    51

    Default What Aircraft Would You Replace AC-130 with and What Armourment Should It Have

    For fun I'd love to hear what you think should succeed the AC-130 and what would you add or leave? Let me start by deciding which aircraft that I would choose as a successor to the AC-130, and that would be the C-17. First I would use the C-17 because it has almost the identical amount of flying time before refueling as the AC-130. Second the C-17 can fly almost twice as fast as the AC-130. My final reason for choosing the C-17 is it's massive payload of 302,500 lbs ( empty it weighs 282,500 lbs and max take off weight of 585,000 lbs ) which lets it have more armourment, ammo, and more surveillance and targeting equipment. Now that I have the aircraft I think should replace the AC-130 what should it be armed with? First I'd replace the 20mm Gatling guns with the a-10's 30mm gau-8 Gatling gun (probably 2 of them). Then if possible ( should be able to fit when unneeded parts removed) replace the 105mm howitzer with a 155mm howitzer but if it can't be done then have two 105 mm. Finally add two 40 mm bofors, also I'd add hard points under the wings to hold hellfire missles. What do you think and what plane and armourment would you use in what aircraft you think should replace the AC-130. -Lets

  2. Likes

    gutro (07-14-2014)
  3. #2
    Warrant Officer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    T-Dot
    Posts
    588
    Like
    223
    Dislike
    11

    Default

    I more or less would agree with you. I like the idea of hellfires too. However, I am terribly depressed at the thought of losing the C-130. It's such an amazing bird, and the sound.... it's such a unique sound. Sad to see her leave.
    Canadian Content Posted Above

  4. Likes

    LetsTripOutAndDie (07-14-2014)
  5. #3
    First Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,565
    Like
    1,802
    Dislike
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gutro View Post
    I more or less would agree with you. I like the idea of hellfires too. However, I am terribly depressed at the thought of losing the C-130. It's such an amazing bird, and the sound.... it's such a unique sound. Sad to see her leave.
    Quote Originally Posted by gutro View Post
    I more or less would agree with you. I like the idea of hellfires too. However, I am terribly depressed at the thought of losing the C-130. It's such an amazing bird, and the sound.... it's such a unique sound. Sad to see her leave.
    It's more then sad it's bureaucratic bullshit!!! I agree there has never been, in my humble opinion a better fusion of a non offensive ( object ) aircraft, and multiple devastating offensive weapons. When you see an AC-130 gunship you'd think it was meant to be that way and not pieced together. As I said in my thread the Army, Marines, and every Special Force group are always almost begging for the government to build more AC-130's and at least build more spare parts ( but that will only help in the short term since the AC-130's main structural components like wings, wing connecting points, and fuselage can't be replaced they must build new ones). You'd think when the elite of the elite Special Forces say they are so important that if they had enough AC-130's they would never go on any operation without one. No wonder they love AC's considering every attack where an AC-130 was above the attacks were utterly defeated. Personally I think if they built new AC-130's it could stay with us easily for a good amount of years to come before needing a replacement. Every year though more and more c-130's, and AC-130's are decommissioned and scavenged for spare parts for the few still fly able. It is a sad time when money is more important then the lives of our military men and women. - Lets
    Last edited by LetsTripOutAndDie; 07-16-2014 at 07:27 AM.

  6. #4
    Warrant Officer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    T-Dot
    Posts
    588
    Like
    223
    Dislike
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LetsTripOutAndDie View Post
    It is a sad time when money is more important then the lives of our military men and women.
    You can now call yourselves Canadian. We haev among the best troops/pilots in the world, but lack the government funding for adequate tools to do the job. Hell, we still use shit from WW1
    Canadian Content Posted Above

  7. Likes

    LetsTripOutAndDie (07-16-2014)
  8. #5
    First Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,565
    Like
    1,802
    Dislike
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gutro View Post
    You can now call yourselves Canadian. We haev among the best troops/pilots in the world, but lack the government funding for adequate tools to do the job. Hell, we still use shit from WW1
    I agree when we spend half a trillion dollars on the f-35 JSF's (the most money ever spent on any military program) that has been delayed years over the most ridiculous things that should of been solved before the first plane even was built like the tire and FAA standard wing tip light problems, they actually didn't make the hundred dollar wing lights to FAA standards so a hundred dollar mistake cost millions in delays and fines because of a stupid light was overlooked and the tires they fall apart 5 times faster then any tire on any plane and after more millions in delays to fix that the best they could do is make the tires now only fall apart 3 to 4 times faster then any other planes tires do. If it wasn't so costly it would be hilarious but it's sad instead. They even delivered a f-35 to the marines with its stealth panels an inch or more apart when they were supposed to have no gap at all between them, they were supposed to be seamless but again to fix it another couple million just like the v-22 osprey overruns but we can't spend a couple million to build new C-130's or AC-130's, it just boggles the mind. - Lets
    Last edited by LetsTripOutAndDie; 07-28-2014 at 01:40 PM.

  9. #6
    First Lieutenant
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,383
    Like
    2,051
    Dislike
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gutro View Post
    You can now call yourselves Canadian. We haev among the best troops/pilots in the world, but lack the government funding for adequate tools to do the job. Hell, we still use shit from WW1
    Your not lying Gutro, Canada is a talent rich environment. I always thought it has something to do with all the rednecks for lack of a better word. If you can shoot a moose or caribou or even a rabbit once in a while you got a far better chance in war than somebody who hasn't shot shit. Also if you don't mind being out in the elements or out of your element that's a whole other battle won that all the other dip shits still have to warm up to.
    I don't know if that sounds crazy just my thoughts..

  10. Likes

    LetsTripOutAndDie (08-01-2014)
  11. #7
    First Lieutenant
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,383
    Like
    2,051
    Dislike
    19

    Default

    On the C-130 note, the fuckin US forest service fire putter outer guys, some of the planes are the C-130-A models, the first planes to be put on the flight line. I can't imagine the amount of hours those fuckers have logged. Which means the plane is a brick shit house, it is so reliable and useful it is a shame all this is going on. Those planes don't go down because of mechanical failure almost ever!

  12. Likes

    LetsTripOutAndDie (08-01-2014)
  13. #8
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland, USA
    Posts
    169
    Like
    133
    Dislike
    12

    Default

    The C-130 and C-17 have similar low end airspeeds, so this is a possibility. The downward angle of the wings to a position next to the fuselage might screw your plan over. Center of gravity is everything for flight, so some ingenuity will be needed for weapon placement and ammo storage. Especially if the wing is in the way. I have been very interested in the APKWS II rocket system. Laser designated by the platform or ground troops. Similar concept as the JDAM adaption of dumb bombs. Same motor, same warhead, just screws on between them to provide front fins for steering and optical receiver. The 155 in interesting also. When used for a known position, GPS coordinates for hardened buildings and parts of those structures could be preprogrammed for massive effect. I love the GAU cannon idea! A beefy mount would be needed to handle the recoil and still be able to hold for accuracy.

    The C-17 entered service in 1993. Is it getting too old also? I wonder how long the service window is? Do we need a new aircraft with this "AC" role in mind?

  14. #9
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland, USA
    Posts
    169
    Like
    133
    Dislike
    12

    Default

    You got me brainstorming for a new aircraft... The wing placement is key when using high lift design and angles. How about using a front and rear wing to open up the center of the fuselage? It would look like an "H" or pleiseasaur. This would go along with the uglier is deadlier theme. 2 smaller engines on each wing which could be shut down to increase range and loiter time after takeoff thrust was needed. How about an enclosed bomb bay filled with designated large and small diameter bombs, or even cluster bombs for antipersonnel and armor? No, that would take up fuselage real estate. Put them on the wings. This plane would be large enough to be able to deploy paratroops after an initial softening assault by the aircraft, or drop supplies or even vehicles to any recon troops on the ground to assist them with exfil or intelligence gathering. I sure wouldn't want to hump a full assault load if I didn't have to.

    The whole problem is the number of missions to platform ratio, so this can't be a dedicated aircraft design. The features of this design idea would still make for a beastly cargo plane.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top