C-5 Gunship Idea

[jcf]

Alivis is correct, and if y'all remember they had to rewing the Galaxies because the structure was cracking after only a few years of use.

An AC-5 is daft and it would be a useless, big fat target as it is way too big to maneuver the way a Spectre does. The C-17 is the only jet transport airframe that could possibly be used as a gunship, however it is also too large.

Anyhow gunships are useless unless you have total air superiority. The AC-130s for instance would not have been used against the Warsaw Pact if the balloon had gone up in Europe. They are a very specialized weapon for specialized circumstances.

[Maverick]

Jon,

Whilst I agree with much of what you've said, the gunship concept is a good one in a given circumstance.  Air superiority is one important factor, but you must also consider AAA & SAM or MANPADS threats.  Losses of ACs have been primarily due to the situation changing rather than their inital deployment.  If the airframe (whether a C-5 or C-17) is large, why does that necessarily discount the type as a platform?  Air superiority and a less-than-stellar equipped enemy, particularly without radar, NVDs or SAMs seems like a happy hunting ground for a nocturnal gunship regardless of size.  Larger aircraft could theoretically heft larger, longer ranged weapons, lifting the platform above the threat envelope posed by HMGs.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

There are low recoil 155mm guns available.  Through the utilisation of clever trunnion design, utilising ramps and recoil buffers, the carriages are only a half the weight of older guns.   However, low recoil impulses are only gained through the use of space - space in which to allow the gun to recoil.

However, I'd have to question the point of having a 155mm gun when a 1,000 lb laser guided bomb can offer better accuracy and can be dropped from an altitude which puts the aircraft doing so outside the range of most light to medium AA guns.  Further, if coupled with GPS and a glide kit, the same bomb can be dropped from a much greater range, which effectively puts the aircraft outside the range of even heavy AA guns.  Finally, such a bomb means that any airframe which can carry such a weapon can be used, without having to resort to specialised airframes which need to be heavily modified to mount weapons such as a 155mm gun which would be, even at the best of times, marginal in their accuracy and range in comparison.

Considering the cost of an aircraft in the C-5 class or even in the C-17 class, is it necessarily the best utilisation of resources bring it within range of enemy AA defences?  As the use of first each successive generation of "gun ship" converted cargo aircraft has shown, the aircraft have had to fly higher and mount increasingly heavier weapons and finally resort to only flying in darkness to protect them against enemy AA defences to enable them to be employed.  The time for such aircraft has passed.  Better to replace them with a "bomb truck" which can loiter for the same amount of period but at a height which is safer for it and utilise weapons which are safer for those they are trying to support IMO.

[Maverick]

Rick,

LGBs and other PGMs are great for point-targets, but what about infantry attacks or softskin vehicles?  Given that CBUs (perfect for infantry or other soft targets) are outlawed, do you really want to drop a PGM on a platoon or individual truck?

There's also the issue of cost.  An artillery shell or belt of cannon ammo is quite a bit cheaper than a PGM, otherwise you get the 'tank-plinking' that F-111Fs did during the first Gulf War with 500lb Paveways against Iraqi armour.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

[deleted]

[Cobra]

Guys, Let's keep this a Civil Matter. Why Not Build a Model of the C-5 as a Gunship to Prove Your Point? Dan

[rickshaw]

Fair enough.  I withdraw and apologise for my remarks.  I think its a dumb idea but if you want to do it, go ahead! 

[Cobra]

Thanks for Understanding. Rick, i was Talking about a Men's Adventure Book Series Called WINGMAN. the Hero has a Name that Sounds like Someone Got a bit Cheeky. his name was Hawk Hunter! in one Novel They Converted a pair of C-5's into Gunships with 6 Cannons in the Nose! That's what Inspired the Idea. Would You take a Crack @ that kind of Project? Just asking.Dan

[beowulf]

just cos its not practical in the rw dosnt mean it shouldnt be built on here!........id like to see it anyway 

[proditor]

As additional context for those who have not read these ripping yarns, the hero upgrades his F-16, rebuilding it from scratch basically, but it's okay because before he was a potential Shuttle pilot, before he was the best pilot in World War 3, before he was the hottest stick in the Thunderbirds, he was the youngest graduate in Aeronautical Engineering in the history of MIT.

He was SO good, he found room to install hard points for up to 20 sidewinders, and added an internal "Six-pack" of M-61a Vulcans in his F-16's nose...

[McColm]

Remember guys this is a whiff,
the AC-130s move closer to the target by four feet when the heavy guns are fired, smoke, carbon and soot. All need to be extracted, along with the shell casings. Hot metal, flying around, of course health and safety goes out the window. 150feet is the lowest you can fly that bird.
The buccaneers were cleared at 50 feet and those crews moved onto the tornadoes, which is why they win at the Red Flag exercise.

[philp]

I have loved the Gunship concept ever since I saw Puff work on The Green Berets movie.  Also seen lots of footage of them used real time during 'nam and even some of an AC-130 working over Afghanistan.

While I don't see a C-5 or even a C-17 actually being armed up this way, would still make a very cool whiff.  Much more practical to take the new C-27 kit or even the coming A400 and convert them into gunships.  Plus, they would make pretty neat looking whiffs also.

Some interesting info on an AC-17:
http://www.outlawperformance.com/AC-17.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-41161.html

And some other Future gunship ideas:
http://defensetech.org/2006/11/24/pimp-my-gunship-1-get-smart/
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/07/meet-the-future/
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31110
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709gunship.aspx

[deathjester]

Think we're overlooking something here chaps: one of the main headaches for artillery batteries is getting packed up and gone before counter - battery fire arrives.  However, with a flying artillery battery, thousands of feet above the battlefield, and always on the move, it solves quite a few problems, as well as effectively increasing the range of the weapons.  For added fun, use guided shells as well !!

[McColm]

If all your heavy guns are all on one side, won't it flip over when fired?
What's to counter-balance this?

[Maverick]

McColm,

Gunships of various types have been flying since the 60s with the type of weapons (all left firing) going up in calibre to 105mm howitzers on the AC-130H & U.  That would suggest that the mechanics of the recoil impulse has been somewhat sorted already, wouldn't you say??

Regards,

Mav