USAF C-130J Harvest Hawk

[LJ Driver]

I don't know how big the SOPGM is and don't know how many the new gunpig will be able to carry. But when you consider that the new platform will have a 30mm cannon + ammo and nothing else other than sensors/comm and a few people, I can imagine that there can be quite a few hundred rounds of this new weapon loaded. Current gunpigs are crowded with guns, ammo, sensors, and people. With modern technology there is no reason why personnel on board can be drastically reduced. More room for rounds of whatever you want. We've all (ok maybe not all) seen kill-tv. When it takes 20 rounds of 105 to whack a dude that is running around in a circle I want to pull my hair out. I think one SOPGM could solve that problem rather effectively.

[nsplayr]

I think one SOPGM could solve that problem rather effectively.

Your SOPGMs are only as good as your sensor operators lasing skills, and you have problems guiding the things through trees, power lines, etc. to the point where you might consider not firing. There are also other limitations to some of the munitions they're talking about loading that prevent them from being effective in situations where rapid, flexible gunship fire is needed.

That said, gunship crews should be able to hit what they're shooting at...and everything that I've seen proves that they do on the whole. There's always that one asshole that somehow dodges death multiple times before getting schwacked. Taking away the guns in favor of SOPGMs only is a big mistake IMHO. If the Wombat is gonna have a 30mm + SOPGMs and the supposed AC-130J will have the same load out, what is the difference again? I was always assuming that the true, dedicated gunship would have multiple guns to choose from as it does now. Feel free to correct if RUMINT doesn't back that assumption...

And on crew compliment, who do you propose taking away on the J bird?

Edited April 14, 2010 by nsplayr

[Texaco]

If the Wombat is gonna have a 30mm + SOPGMs and the supposed AC-130J will have the same load out, what is the difference again? I was always assuming that the true, dedicated gunship would have multiple guns to choose from as it does now. Feel free to correct if RUMINT doesn't back that assumption...

I don't think that this will be the case, just one option. (reference below)

Officials also hope a modular design will allow for fast addition of new capabilities for precise close air support and upgrades in the future, Socom Deputy Acquisition Director James Geurts tells Aviation Week. "Instead of having a family of airplanes now, think of it as having a family of precision strike capabilities that we can port onto different [special Operations Forces] platforms," he says. "I can just pick it up and put it on an [MC-130W], and we are going to put it on the [AC-130]J. So that is a mind-set change from a couple of years ago."

With the capability to "roll on" a particular strike package, the user could customize for specific missions and have multiple options for other munitions/big guns.

[Texaco]

Marine KC-130J Harvest Hawk roll-on/roll-off kit. Looks slightly different from the Dragon Spear approach...

Reference from a Marine Aviation Plans and Policies PPT brief: http://downloads.slu...m/mcaa-mags.ppt

[BFM this]

anyone notice in that slideshow that they intend to start stamping out new CH-53's? Interesting...

[JarheadBoom]

anyone notice in that slideshow that they intend to start stamping out new CH-53's? Interesting...

They signed the contract with Sikorsky for the CH-53K in 2006. Prototype is supposed to fly in 2011.

/threadjacking

[dhtut]

Gunship guys don't do night low level terrain following threat penetration airdrop for a reason. The same logic works the other way around as well.

They did for the Desert One debacle and did in the 80s and 90s. It was stopped because of the wing box issues the low level environment created.

Someone on here commented on the "precision package" of the Harvest package...it will be nowhere near as precise as hard-fitted, boresighted guns/sensors,huds with the appropriate Fire Control software. AFSOC is going the cheap route...which is not the best when you want to put a 40 round at someone's feet.

[Murph]

Someone on here commented on the "precision package" of the Harvest package...it will be nowhere near as precise as hard-fitted, boresighted guns/sensors,huds with the appropriate Fire Control software. AFSOC is going the cheap route...which is not the best when you want to put a 40 round at someone's feet.

"Did we just become best friends?! Yep!!!"

AFSOC is trying to do the same thing with crew compliment. And the sopgms/sdbs are good but they are not a replacement for a large caliber gun with a hundred rounds to make things right. Grab a fire control package from the navy and shoot with a 1 mil system and theres your cat 1 accuracy. A bushmaster, 105 and a couple of glider bombs is a perfect combo. Oh and some mx 20s would be nice too.

Edited for clarity.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Murph

[nsplayr]

A bushmaster, 105 and a couple of glider bombs is a perfect combo. Oh and some mx 20s would be nice too.

Yes, yes, and hell yes. Too many slow, unreliable SOPGMs do not replace accurate large-bore gun fire. And shitty balls don't help anyone, MX-20 + ELAP processing is the heat.

[FlyinGrunt]

Best gunship ever (probably impossible, but fun to dream):

1. AC-130J

2. Eng, Nav stay on

3. MX-20s + . . . other sensors

4. Better radar

5. Helmet-mounted targeting, i.e. HUD built into the visor, F-15/JSF-style

6. Avenger cannon + 40mm + 105mm + MORE AMMO

7. Hellfires.

8. Defensive shit we can't talk about here.

What the heck COULDN'T we kill then?? Maybe a concrete bunker 6900 feet underground, but everything else is TOAST.

[tac airlifter]

MX-20D with ELAP. Wow. Too heavy for me but I'm very impressed.

[backseatdriver]

Best gunship ever (probably impossible, but fun to dream):

1. AC-130J

2. Eng, Nav stay on

3. MX-20s + . . . other sensors

4. Better radar

5. Helmet-mounted targeting, i.e. HUD built into the visor, F-15/JSF-style

6. Avenger cannon + 40mm + 105mm + MORE AMMO

7. Hellfires.

8. Defensive shit we can't talk about here.

What the heck COULDN'T we kill then?? Maybe a concrete bunker 6900 feet underground, but everything else is TOAST.

I'm a strong proponent of the enlisted sensor operators staying on as well. AFSOC thinks they need to go, only looking at the money that comes with a larger crew complement. Why have these SOs when we can just have CSOs point and click and run the sensor with all this bright shiny technology we have?

The technology out there IS awesome - and much better than anything on the Gunship now. BUT - technology will NEVER replace the experience of that TSgt that has been a Gunship sensor for 10 years - in the squadron. An officer that has to PCS for career reasons after 4-5 years will just be getting the hang of things and getting experienced. It's those highly experienced SOs that have been running that sensor for YEARS that can tell that those couple of darker pixels on the screen are actually a Muj hiding under cover versus just a hot spot.

[tac airlifter]

The technology out there IS awesome - and much better than anything on the Gunship now. BUT - technology will NEVER replace the experience of that TSgt that has been a Gunship sensor for 10 years - in the squadron.

We'll agree to disagree here. With better technology you don't need 10 years of experience to interpolate the image, you just look at it. This is like people saying the J or -17 needs an FE. Technology compensates for that crew position and in the case of an MX-15 or 20, the image speaks for itself and you don't need an "expert" to determine what it is.

[backseatdriver]

We'll agree to disagree here.

Agreed.

[Carpetbagger]

Best gunship ever (probably impossible, but fun to dream):

1. AC-130J

2. Eng, Nav stay on

3. MX-20s + . . . other sensors

4. Better radar

5. Helmet-mounted targeting, i.e. HUD built into the visor, F-15/JSF-style

6. Avenger cannon + 40mm + 105mm + MORE AMMO

7. Hellfires.

8. Defensive shit we can't talk about here.

9. Sharks with laser beams...

[donkey]

9. Sharks with freakin laser beams...

[Guest]

Best gunship ever (probably impossible, but fun to dream):

6. Avenger cannon

Are you talking about a GAU-8? Can the airframe handle the vibration issues?

With better technology you don't need 10 years of experience to interpolate the image, you just look at it.

2

[slacker]

Best gunship ever (probably impossible, but fun to dream):

1. AC-130J

2. Eng, Nav stay on

3. MX-20s + . . . other sensors

4. Better radar

5. Helmet-mounted targeting, i.e. HUD built into the visor, F-15/JSF-style

6. Avenger cannon + 40mm + 105mm + MORE AMMO

7. Hellfires.

8. Defensive shit we can't talk about here.

What the heck COULDN'T we kill then?? Maybe a concrete bunker 6900 feet underground, but everything else is TOAST.

Well, I guess the Eng could play cards with the Nav because there's nothing else for them to do. Two people to make/get coffee seems wasteful.

[dhtut]

Well, I guess the Eng could play cards with the Nav because there's nothing else for them to do. Two people to make/get coffee seems wasteful.

There is a LOT for the NAV in a AC-130...J or not. The Nav is the liaison between the ground party and the aircraft...in addition to being the navigator and working with the FCO to confirm the actual target in the 1)NAv system, 2) on the chart and 3) on the LLLTV or IR. the FE - nothing for that person to do..correct.

[LockheedFix]

Well, I guess the Eng could play cards with the Nav because there's nothing else for them to do. Two people to make/get coffee seems wasteful.

2...I guess they could put extra ACAWS Caution and Warning lights in reach of the jumpseat so the engineer could silence them when they go off. Besides that, I'm not sure what use you would have for an Eng.

[Texaco]

Current AC-130U crew (13): pilot, co-pilot, navigator, fire control officer, electronic warfare officer

flight engineer, TV operator, infrared detection set operator, loadmaster, four aerial gunners (enlisted)

I would think the AC-130J could down size to (8-9?): Pilot, co-pilot, CSO (take over Nav, EWO, FE up front), FCO, sensor operator (take over both IR and LL TV operators), loadmaster, and a couple gunners.

With all the new sensor/targeting toys and automation in the J, I think it could be done.

[dhtut]

Current AC-130U crew (13): pilot, co-pilot, navigator, fire control officer, electronic warfare officer

flight engineer, TV operator, infrared detection set operator, loadmaster, four aerial gunners (enlisted)

I would think the AC-130J could down size to (8-9?): Pilot, co-pilot, CSO (take over Nav, EWO, FE up front), FCO, sensor operator (take over both IR and LL TV operators), loadmaster, and a couple gunners.

With all the new sensor/targeting toys and automation in the J, I think it could be done.

Based upon the workload of the Nav in a CAS/TIC situation..and based on what I dealt with over certain countries in the AC130 in the past, I'd want both the Nav and EWO.

[Murph]

2...I guess they could put extra ACAWS Caution and Warning lights in reach of the jumpseat so the engineer could silence them when they go off. Besides that, I'm not sure what use you would have for an Eng.

That's because you've (neither have the other nay sayers on this board) never flown a gunship in combat. I can think of plenty of reasons to have an engineer, especially if AFSOC is going to cut down the number of gunners.

[Murph]

Are you talking about a GAU-8? Can the airframe handle the vibration issues?

2

1. Maybe, maybe not. Dhtut comes from the old school of the 2x20mms so he may disagree, but I don't think we need an area suppression weapon... at least right now. Bringing a bushmaster w/ 200 rounds per minute and a 105 prox on the line at the same time should do the job, in my opinion.

2. Sorry, but technology will never fully replace experience. Doesn't matter if you threw a james cameron 3d FMV avatar system on the airplane. In the hands of the wrong guy, it won't save him from reporting a dog as a dude on a motorcycle. Same reason why crusty old warrants flying 64s in the korengal valley are almost always right about whats going on.

[LJ Driver]

They did for the Desert One debacle and did in the 80s and 90s. It was stopped because of the wing box issues the low level environment created.

No. They didn't. I can say with certainty that they absolutely did not do TF, and with 99% certainty that they didn't do threat pen. 500-1000' NVG contour, maybe.