Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Marine gunships
Crusader    8/22/2003 10:10:13 AM
The bit about the Marines wanting AC-130s got me thinking. Could they make a gunship out of C-2s or even rebuild C-1s so that the Marines would have gunships that could be launched from carriers? 25mm Vulcans, the same sensor package as the Spectre, just based a whole lot closer? I wasa thinking of the C-1, only because they may be able to rebuild those that are left, and I am not sure if Grumman could build anymore C-2s, which would be the better plane. Add inflight refueling, and ammo would be your only limiter, with much quicker respnoce time and less crew wear and tera than a AC-130 having to fly great distances. Is it feasable? Thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
WinsettZ    RE:Marine gunships   8/22/2003 10:38:33 AM
If it can take off from those Marine amphib vessels (LHDs?), then it might be a good idea. Unsure if the Navy would be willing to use their C-2s to support ground units ashore...but the Marines might have good use for it. In any case the "Light Gunship" has its merits, in any case it frees up the bigger AC-130s and allows the USAF the luxury of retiring the older chassis' rather then risking them as they are replaced by newer, smaller craft. Weapons for a Light Gunship could be M2s with a 20mm cannon, as a lighter chassis might not be able to handle the recoil of a large-caliber Gatling weapon. Since the C-2 isn't going into re-production any time...maybe some other airforce/navy plane? Maybe a C-27, but those might be a bit too big. The answer will probably be procuring a civillian aircraft and modifying it, or the more expensive and time-consuming route of requesting a new airplane and going through design, bidding, procurement and everything else.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Marine gunships   8/23/2003 8:23:05 AM
Hey, another role for Osprey!!
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Marine gunships   8/23/2003 1:30:50 PM
I think rebuilding another aircraft just so it could fly off of a carrier would be too expensive. If money was to be spent on something like that, it would be better spent on modifiying a A-10 so it could fly off of a carrier. Someone else has already absorbed the development costs for the AC-130, so its a very cost effective item for the Corp to purchase now.
 
Quote    Reply

Sam    RE:Marine gunships   8/23/2003 4:03:16 PM
From the part of my brain with useless knowledge stored. The C-130 conducted landing trials on the Forrestal in the early 60s. Its short landing capability is such that no tailhook is needed. I believe the Navy deep sixed it because of the amout of deck space it would require. 2/4 Greyhounds use less deck space and use less fuel. Now maybe a KAC-130, Gunship, refueler, trash and mail hauler might be worth it. Shaka, have you noticed that after every engagement the Marines want AC-130s. I first heard this story in Beiruit. Again after Grenada, DS. One of these days they will just buy the darn things.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Marine gunships   8/23/2003 6:58:02 PM
Yes, want to know why? Because there are enough old farts like myself still in who want real CAS! :) But you also pointed out why they don't get them. Navy kills it because too much space taken on a carrier.
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:Marine gunships   9/8/2003 3:16:48 PM
..Could a CH53 or CH47 armed with the new 25 mm OICW be any good? Or it;s predecessors the .50 (couple of them) and the 40mm grenade laucher. Or maybe combined wih a healthy supply or 70 Hydra's ?? Ok not a AC-U but still, a great deal of lead. Could it work as a poor man's gunship?
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Marine gunships   9/8/2003 3:25:53 PM
General question. Why the 105 on the AC-130? Just seems a strange choice of weapon - I am sure there is a reason though and that one of you blokes will know what it is.
 
Quote    Reply

Interrested    RE:Marine gunships   9/9/2003 12:59:57 AM
M102 105mm Cannon The M102 105mm Cannon was derived from the Army field artillery M1A1 howitzer and was modified to be fired from the left rear side door of the AC-130 gunship aircraft. To accomodate this cannon, one of the side-firing 40mm guns was removed from the aircraft and replaced by the radome that formerly had been installed in the door cavity. That change provided enough space for the 105mm gun to be mounted in the doorway in place of the radome. The gun was used extensively beginning with the Vietnam War. Great for suppression, anti armor, anti building etc
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE: Why the 105?   9/9/2003 2:23:54 AM
The first gunships that were used in combat, the AC-47 "Spooky", known as "Puff", started off with 7.62 miniguns. As they became more popular, they ran out of miniguns and put .30 caliber machine guns on them (didn't work too well, but you used what you had). Since the VC were attacking at night, and the US used cargo planes to drop flares from, they finally decided to arm them (something talked about since WWII) so they could shoot back. Remember, these were fixed positions that were being defended, what they used to call "strategic hamlets". VC would bring up .51 (12.7mm) caliber machine guns and try to shoot them down. Cargo plane would be up there for hours dropping flares (guy would throw them out the window) until it became daylight (and your fighter aircraft could now operate, hence VC went away). So Puff was born. Miniguns against .51 caliber wasn't too bad, since the VC had to work hard to bring those HMGs to the battle. Puff was very popular, everyone wanted them and soon they started using them in more "aggressive" roles. Thats when the problems began, because now they were attacking positions were the NVA/VC had anti-aircraft guns (37mm) out there. 37mm against a Minigun wasn't always a good thing for our side. And while the Miniguns could do a number against soft targets (people and trucks), it couldn't do anything against bunkers or the rare tank. So the development guys working on the AC-130s, and the AC-119s, while they had already decided to use 20mm Vulcans, wanted something heavier. Hence, the 105mm. The 105mm gave them a weapon that could take out bunkers and armored targets.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Marine gunships   9/9/2003 2:30:21 AM
I understand the need for real CAS for the marines. 1. Modifying from land based to carrier based aircraft is a bad idea - all structural component must be beefed up considerably. 2. Modifying an existing carrier based design is a bad idea - all the needed protection would need beefing up structures considerably - result no weapons load. There is no middle ground, as I see it, take a clean sheet of paper. Design an aircraft, where the structure is simultaneously the armour. Somewhat along the lines of the MiG-27 Fulcrum, where the main tank is also the wing carry-through box. Make the armour bathtub take the punishment of the landing and launcing also. Fold the wings on the side of the tub. If those hinges are gone - so is the pilot. There is little need for high tech - it shouldn't be to expensive to build - lots of tin-pot nations have build trainers along these lines.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy