Ganship "The Phantom Racer" and its combat capabilities


The US-built AC-130 direct fire support aircraft, also called the “flying battery,” is a unique aircraft of its kind. Rebuilt from the military transport C-130 Hercules, this strike aircraft is the eternal companion of the American special operations forces. The debut of a combat aircraft fell back on the Vietnam War. The aircraft has been actively operated since 1968 and is not going to retire. The latest version of the combat aircraft, designated AC-130J Ghostrider ("Phantom Racer"), is gradually being put into service with the US Air Force and has been actively used in Afghanistan since 2019.


AC-130J Ghostrider Program


AC-130J Ghostrider aircraft should replace the obsolete models of direct fire support aircraft AC-130H and AC-130U as part of the US Air Force. The first flight of the updated version of the aircraft took place in January 2014. Until 2025, the US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) plans to receive 37 Phantom Racers. The total investment in the AC-130J Ghostrider program is estimated at $ 2,4 billion.

Aircraft are converted into this modification from the existing MC-130J. In fact, this project combines the flight characteristics of the military transport aircraft of the special forces MC-130 and the AC-130 gunships. The first MC-130J aircraft intended for further conversion to the AC-130J Ghostrider version arrived on aviation Eglin base back in January 2013. And the new ganship modification received its official name Ghostrider even earlier - in May 2012. A distinctive feature of the MC-130J aircraft was that they could be used as tankers for refueling helicopters of special forces.


The first series of 16 aircraft in the Block 20 modification was ready by September 2017. A series of 16 strike aircraft AC-130J Ghostrider in the modification of Block 30, the US military should receive until 2021. The first aircraft of this version began testing in March 2019. Ultimately, the Phantom Racers will have to replace all the obsolete AC-130U ganships in the ranks. Together with the AC-130W ganship, the Ghostrider version will be one of two direct fire support aircraft remaining in the arsenal of the US Air Force.

The updated version of Block 30 is characterized by the correction of all previously identified defects, improved avionics and modified software. The main improvements are aimed at finalizing the fire control system. The new system is better oriented to work in various atmospheric conditions, better takes into account the peculiarities of flight and even responds to wind shifts. Most likely, all previously upgraded AC-130J aircraft will eventually be converted to this version.

It is known that Ghostrider aircraft in the Block 30 modification have been actively used by Americans in Afghanistan since 2019. The machines were used for fire support of the Afghan troops and ground forces of the allies, leading battles with the Taliban, various terrorist and criminal groups. At the beginning of November 2019, the Phantom Racers performed 218 sorties in Afghanistan, and the total time spent in the sky was approximately 1400 hours. It was emphasized separately that planes were involved in flying sorties at night, when the threat of their destruction from the ground was minimal.


Aircraft Features AC-130J Ghostrider


Unlike the MC-130J, the Phantom Racer can no longer refuel anyone in the air, but at the same time the ganship itself can always be refueled directly in flight, which increases the time of its continuous presence in the sky. Otherwise, the flight performance of the AC-130J Ghostrider is almost completely analogous to its predecessor. The maximum length of the aircraft is 29,3 meters, height - 11,9 meters, wingspan - 39,7 meters. The maximum take-off weight of the aircraft is 164 pounds (000 kg). The aircraft can operate at a maximum altitude of 74 feet (390 meters) with a payload of 28 pounds (000 kg).

The crew of the aircraft was significantly reduced in comparison with previous versions of gunships. Now the crew consists of two pilots, two combat system officers and three artillery operators, a total of 7 people. A distinctive feature of the AC-130J Ghostrider version is the presence on board of the modern anti-missile defense system with infrared homing LAIRCM, which, according to the developers, works in both hemispheres. The system was developed by Northrop Grumman engineers and is intended to be installed primarily on large military aircraft. This airborne self-defense system detects, tracks and disorientes IR-guided missiles approaching an aircraft.

Also on board the aircraft is the digital radar warning system AN / ALR-56 manufactured by BAE Systems. This system promptly warns pilots that the aircraft was detected by enemy ground radars. In addition, the Phantom Racer has an expanded version of the AN / AAR-47 version 2 missile warning system, which includes laser missile warning sensors. For the direct removal of the threat of missile destruction on the aircraft, an automatic fake ejection machine AN / ALE-47 manufactured by BAE Systems is installed. The device is responsible for shooting false thermal targets and dipole reflectors, protecting the aircraft from missiles with infrared and radar guidance systems.

LAIRCM Security System

For safety, all aircraft-critical aircraft control systems are duplicated. There is also a fuel explosion protection system on the plane. Critical flight elements and crew locations are additionally armored with QinetiQ lightweight composite armor, which is able to withstand bullets and shrapnel up to 7,62 mm caliber.

Each AC-130J Ghostrider is equipped with four Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprop engines developing a maximum power of 3458 kW (each). The engines drive four Dowty six-blade propellers. The maximum speed of the aircraft at an altitude of 670 km / h. Without refueling, the Phantom Racer is able to cover a distance of 3000 miles (4830 km).

The combat capabilities of the Phantom Racer


Ganships are not accidentally given this name. "Flying Battery" has always been distinguished by powerful artillery weapons, which no other aircraft dreamed of. Onboard the AC-130J Ghostrider are a 105 mm gun and a 30 mm GAU-23 / A automatic gun. The latter is a modernized aviation version of the common 30 mm Mk. 44 Bushmaster II, which is widely represented on various armored vehicles. The maximum rate of fire of the GAU-23 / A is up to 200 rounds per minute. According to the U.S. military, the accuracy of the 30-mm gun completely suits them. Its 30x173 mm shells have sufficient power, and the gun itself is comparable to a large-caliber sniper weapons, which can ensure the defeat of the target from the first shot.


AC-130J Ghostrider with GBU-39 guided bombs suspended

But the 105-mm gun on planes has long remained unchanged - this is the same light field howitzer M102, specially adapted for the possibility of firing from the aircraft AC-130. The maximum rate of fire of the gun is 10 rounds per minute. On planes, this gun is kept for the simple reason that the cost of a 105-mm projectile costs taxpayers much cheaper than the cost of guided missiles or adjusted bombs.

At the same time, the combat capabilities of the AC-130J Ghostrider are not limited only to artillery weapons. The arsenal of weapons was supplemented by modern high-precision guided ammunition. So, under the wing of an airplane, you can suspend small diameter bombs GBU-39, and also use AGG-176 Griffin missiles with a laser homing head from the aircraft. GBU-39 guided precision bomb has a mass of 130 kg and a maximum flight range of 110 km (when leaving the suspension at an altitude of about 10 km). The ammunition is characterized by a large number of explosives; the explosive mass in a high explosive penetration version is 93 kg. Missiles are launched from the rear ramp, in fact, directly through the rear cargo door of the aircraft. On the AC-130J Ghostrider, air-to-surface missiles are launched from the 10-pipe Gunslinger launcher. The mass of one Griffin rocket is 20 kg, the weight of the warhead is 5,9 kg, and the maximum flight range is up to 20 km.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. CTABEP 6 March 2020 05: 59 New
    • 7
    • 13
    -6
    It’s not clear from the crew - the officers act as gunners, but why three more operators? Even if two loaders on a howitzer, and the third where? Coffee officers do and shovels to the side to rake a shovel :)?
    1. Zaurbek 6 March 2020 08: 09 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      30mm also needs to be serviced ... there are 2 soldiers fired by shovels in Vietnam.
    2. Undecim 6 March 2020 11: 49 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      It’s not clear from the crew - the officers act as gunners, but why three more operators? Even if two loaders on a howitzer, and the third where? Coffee officers do and shovels to the side to rake a shovel :)?
      And what, in fact, is incomprehensible?
      In addition to the 30-mm GAU-23 / A gun and 105-mm gun, the Precision Strike Package armament complex includes a two-channel optoelectronic / infrared detection and aiming system with the function of visual and electronic identification and recognition of ground units and objects, radar with synthesizing an aperture of the antenna, small-sized Raytheon AGM-176 Griffin air-to-ground guided missiles, GBU-44 / B Viper Strike ammunition, Boeing Small Diameter Bomb guided weapons system, small caliber bombs, Lockheed Martin Hellfire air-to-ground missiles.
      In the near future - the installation of laser weapons. That's all the operators are doing.
    3. Po-tzan 6 March 2020 11: 52 New
      • 1
      • 16
      -15
      Quote: CTABEP
      It’s not clear from the crew - the officers act as gunners, but why three more operators? Even if two loaders on a howitzer, and the third where? Coffee officers do and shovels to the side to rake a shovel :)?


      Just Americans are stupid! ahahaha
  2. YOUR 6 March 2020 06: 00 New
    • 21
    • 6
    +15
    The presence of such a plane in Chechnya, in Syria could solve much more problems, faster and with greater efficiency. But beyond the promises and consider this topic, analyze, etc., unfortunately, does not go.
    1. Ka-52 6 March 2020 06: 32 New
      • 23
      • 13
      +10
      The presence of such a plane in Chechnya, in Syria could solve much more problems, faster and with greater efficiency.

      for those who too often confuse a computer game and reality, I’ll lay out a piece of text about the fate of ganships during the “Desert Storm” period, when the enemy has air defense facilities more serious than a prayer rug:
      January 31 1991
      AC-130H Spectrum
      Serial number 69-6567, call sign Spirit 03, 16th Special Operations Squadron of the 1st Air Force Special Operations Wing
      Fire support aircraft ("gunships") are designed to destroy infantry, vehicles and lightly armored targets. They were developed for use in a weak enemy air defense system and showed high efficiency in Southeast Asia. Iraqi air defense, although significantly weakened after two weeks of bombing, still posed a serious threat to the large, slow and clumsy Spectra, so they were used only at night.
      At dawn on January 31, Spirit 03 supported the ground units of the U.S. Marine Corps during the Battle of Khafji (in Saudi Arabia). Upon request from the ground, he attacked a battery of Luna tactical missile systems. At this time, AWACS contacted him and warned that it was time to return to the base, as it was starting to get light. The commander of the ship, Major Weaver, answered: "Now I can’t leave." Then a MANPADS missile hit one of the aircraft’s engines. Spirit 03 fell into the Persian Gulf offshore, killing 14 crew members.

      In the face of a likely counteraction, tactical aviation is much more effective than flying shoes. Who thinks otherwise - lives by the realities of computer games
      About Chechnya, it's so funny. In mountainous areas, 75% of the time there is low cloud cover, which often does not allow flights to be carried out at all. What do you want to do there? About the "effectiveness" of what to write?
      1. YOUR 6 March 2020 07: 06 New
        • 19
        • 10
        +9
        Re-read my comment, maybe you will understand. And try to do without juggling. Your knowledge in this area has not spread beyond Wikipedia. But if you are planning to read more serious literature, then you will probably find out that almost any aircraft is shot down. You will also find out how many sorties were made by ganships both in Iraq and in Vietnam.
        And if you completely surrender to the fantastic assumptions that you will understand something new for yourself from the cited piece of Wikipedia text, you will see that the crew did not consciously fly away, although they warned him of the danger of being shot down, and until the last supported the ground units.
        Well, that’s cool science fiction. Currently, the United States has 27 such aircraft. Apparently they are completely stupid that they continue to use them.
        About the highlands. I have been. Yes, the weather can be very variable, but 75% of the time, low cloudiness, where did you get this? What prevents them from using the rest of the time? For hours, "hang" in the air and provide support upon request from the ground.
        1. Ka-52 6 March 2020 07: 22 New
          • 16
          • 17
          -1
          Re-read my comment, maybe you will understand

          Professor Dambordor, you don’t need to lay a hidden meaning in your words, understood only exclusively by you lol
          But if you are planning to read more serious literature, then you will probably find out that almost any aircraft is shot down

          Yes, you choooo ?! That is a surprise. And then after all, they did not even tell me about this in the school of life named after Marina Raskova laughing
          from you the same piece of wikipedia text

          Wikipedia is your everything. And this information is taken from the book of Kevin Woods about the war in Iraq.
          Well, that’s cool science fiction. Currently, the United States has 27 such aircraft. Apparently they are completely stupid that they continue to use them.

          what is in the USA is not a 100% reason to copy for us. Let's start copying mindlessly. The differences between the American vision of methods and goals in hostilities and ours are much greater than coincidences. In this case, the ganship is extremely useful only for extruding small partisan units that do not have a hint of air defense. What, under certain conditions.
          About the highlands. I have been. Yes, the weather can be very variable, but 75% of the time, low cloudiness, where did you get this?

          from the camel. According to personal observations and the words of my friends who flew there to bomb.
          1. kig
            kig 6 March 2020 09: 23 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            stop arguing, losses in war are inevitable. Well, since we all love Vicki, then let's read:

            List of accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed C-130 Hercules

            More than 15 percent of the approximately 2,350 Lockheed C-130 Hercules production hulls have been lost, including 70 by the US Air Force and the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. Not all US C-130 losses have been crashes, 29 of those listed below were destroyed on the ground by enemy action or other non-flying accidents.

            From 1967 to 2005, the Royal Air Force (RAF) recorded an accident rate of about one Hercules loss per 250,000 flying hours. United States Air Force Hercules (A / B / E-models), as of 1989, had an overall attrition rate of 5 percent as compared to 1 to 2 percent for commercial airliners in the US, according to the NTSB, 10 percent for B -52 bombers, and 20 percent for fighters (F-4, F-111), trainers (T-37, T-38), and helicopters (H-3).


            Well, since we all love movies, let's see:



            Indeed, like a computer game: figures crawl on the screen, you press a button, and the figures freeze.
            1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 34 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              I already said that in the ass of il 76 we’ll put a revenge open the ramp and cooler than the Americans by about 50 mm, a couple of Cords in different directions, and almost “Ilya Muromets” 1915
              And until the first needle
              1. ProkletyiPirat 6 March 2020 16: 14 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                Quote: Florian Geyer
                And until the first needle

                1) We put an all-perspective radar for detecting anti-aircraft missiles
                2) We put anti-missiles for the destruction of anti-aircraft missiles (based on RVV-DB)
                3) Throw gifts from above from above where the anti-aircraft artillery is missing
                So MANPADS is far from being a child prodigy ....

                ps Another question is why this has not been done so far ...
                1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 19: 31 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Well, yes, well, yes, someone has read books and does not know about the number of MANPADS in a motorized rifle company
        2. Simargl 6 March 2020 07: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: YOUR
          About the highlands. I have been.
          There is still a problem with the angle of attack of the target. Such an aircraft has a too large flying radius.
          1. Zaurbek 6 March 2020 08: 10 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Not so big.
          2. Ka-52 6 March 2020 10: 23 New
            • 15
            • 7
            +8
            There is still a problem with the angle of attack of the target. Such an aircraft has a too large flying radius.

            Yes there is no problem with the attack angles. And this writer’s head is a problem. Because he does not know how to add 2 + 2. We take a hypothetical situation - a mountain gorge somewhere in the Itum-Kalinsky or Achkhoy-Martan district. The average elevation of the relief along the route is 2-2,5 thousand m. Given the terrain and the reach of weapons for such a "floating" target, ganship should occupy a mark on the squeaker 7,5-8tys.m. Which is the limit for the An-12 (taking into account the load and fuel supply on board). So mother's dreamers can fantasize about flying ganship flocks in the mountains of Chechnya. Only they can
            For hours, "hang" in the air and provide support upon request from the ground.
          3. YOUR 6 March 2020 11: 09 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            The question is in tactics of application, unless the whole territory consists only of gorges. Somewhere attack aircraft, somewhere helicopters, somewhere this same ganship.
            For the entire time of application, the Americans have worked out the tactics of application. Armament is on one side, having found the target, the plane flies in a circle and hollows out of all the armament.
            1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 12: 11 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Quote: YOUR
              The question is in tactics of application, unless the whole territory consists only of gorges. Somewhere attack aircraft, somewhere helicopters, somewhere this same ganship.

              Actually, there Su-24 and Su-25 shot down. I do not think that they are less protected from MANPADS than the Ganships
              1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 23 New
                • 6
                • 3
                +3
                Oh well, he deliberately pulled his ears to the side to hear how things were going with the su-25? Try to knock him down .. A tough task. It’s also good to try to shoot down A 10, which had 2 arrows hurting
                In your opinion in us army and navy stupid people sit? For some reason, they do not take these ganships. Only CCO and only in the absence of counteraction
                1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 12: 34 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Florian Geyer
                  Oh well, he deliberately pulled his ears to the side to hear how things were going with the su-25? Try to knock him down .. A tough task.

                  Losses of Russian aviation in Chechnya are in the public domain.
                  1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    In lostarmour. And how many rooks were shot down there?
                    1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 13: 08 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Florian Geyer
                      And how many rooks were shot down there?

                      Officially, three. Two MANPADS. One - heavy machine gun
                      1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 23 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Now we compare the cost of the attack aircraft (by the way, how many Thanders were shot down?) And this bastard?
                      2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 30 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        And as for the machine gun, it’s most likely Rutsky’s enemies, so damn my platoon was designated for air defense. To shoot down an attack aircraft is at least 3-4 man-portable air defense systems, and running from there (parasites take revenge) from a machine gun is unrealistic, if only a miracle happened
                      3. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        I don’t know. A bullet flew into the window.
                      4. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 40 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        I shot at 10m, they do not care for dshk
                      5. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 48 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        And seba thrashed. Needles. Only the arrow worked. And this is not the first, our missiles have one minus non-contact detonation
                      6. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 00 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        I don’t advise anyone to get hit by tardebolts, take your hands to your feet and dui into the unknown, the same is about Su 25, the attack aircraft is all
                      7. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 03 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        To us below it’s not very
            2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 13: 06 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              In general, it’s clear
        3. YOUR 6 March 2020 13: 10 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          I wrote about this.
          Tens of thousands of sorties were made about ganships, 7 aircraft were shot down. From May 1969 to the present. Those. in more than 50 years.
          1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 13: 13 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            Quote: YOUR
            I wrote about this.
            Tens of thousands of sorties were made about ganships, 7 aircraft were shot down. From May 1969 to the present. Those. in more than 50 years.

            That is, they were used for those goals that were guaranteed to not be able to answer. But here, too, the "old woman slammed"
            Moreover, their use turned out to be terribly expensive. Which is strange to say the least.

            Because, in theory, everything should have been exactly the opposite.
            1. YOUR 6 March 2020 13: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Spade
              In addition, their use was terribly expensive. Which is strange at least

              Really strange. But when it looked at high cost. In battle, the main thing is efficiency.
              1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 13: 18 New
                • 7
                • 1
                +6
                Quote: YOUR
                Really strange. But when it looked at high cost. In battle, the main thing is efficiency.

                I don’t think that Ganship is much more efficient than twice as cheap to operate as it is, A-10
                1. YOUR 6 March 2020 13: 19 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Why? Where such confidence?
                2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 15: 11 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  And 10, this is such a harsh car that in general. It carries a load of almost 2 times more than Su25, and yet it is almost impossible to bring down
                3. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 15: 12 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  Shilka does not take
              2. Lopatov 6 March 2020 19: 34 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: YOUR
                Why? Where such confidence?

                Because the A-10 is capable of fighting Soviet tanks around the clock and year-round.
                But the "Ganship" is not only that night, I would not let him go against Soviet tanks ...
              3. dokusib 7 March 2020 04: 59 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And 10 precisely because he is trained to mow down Soviet tank columns in the role of ganship will not be effective. There will not be enough time when approaching the target to figure out which bush sits his own and which stranger. Ganship has time to set targets and he can adjust his fire according to instructions from the ground. It's like in a joke about two bulls old and young who are standing on a hill and looking at a herd of cows. The young one says: “Let's run them and catch them on the heifer,” and the old one answers: “No, we will go down and eat the whole herd.” The application tactics are fundamentally different since they were created for different purposes.
              4. Lopatov 7 March 2020 09: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: dokusib
                Not enough time when approaching the target

                E .....
                The aircraft, which was created in order to hit the tank with a gun, "not enough time" ???

                Quote: dokusib
                No, we'll slowly go down and have the whole herd. "

                But only when it gets dark. And when there will be no other bulls. And the dogs. And the shepherd.
                And anyway, I'm so dear that well these heifers
              5. dokusib 7 March 2020 12: 42 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                There isn’t enough time for the plane that was created to hit the tank with a cannon. It’s one thing when, when approaching a target, everything below is uniquely identified as an enemy technique (namely, A10 was used for firing at a technique) and it’s quite another when people below are in dispersed battle formations and see few of them; you still need to identify your alien so as not to plow his own. Ganships are good for allowing
                30mm caliber work close enough to their own.
              6. Lopatov 7 March 2020 18: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: dokusib
                Yes, not enough time.

                Once again, its minimum speed allows you to hit the tank.


                About "identifying" in modern conditions is not even funny.
              7. dokusib 7 March 2020 22: 43 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Once again getting on the tank and getting on the person is far from the same thing. About identifying in modern conditions that American soldiers wear such that it allows the pilot to uniquely and instantly identify their equipment? Uniform and hard hat? Infrared beacons? So you need time to understand that this is your own. Friendly fire they have scarecrow from Vietnam. And if you recall that the AC-130 is the MTR support, there is every soldier piece goods. And very expensive. And then the “Warthog” flew in and accidentally buried a special forces group, didn’t make out, or did make out but the finger on the trigger wavered for half a second and hooked its own along with the barmales. Ganships work slowly, came and looked, got in touch with the land, made sure where exactly who, covered someone, made sure that everyone fell off after that. Look inside the photos of the AC-130 or a sectional diagram. There, electronics occupies more than a third of the volume, and armament operators are engaged in the task of scanning the terrain image in all possible modes. Reread the article carefully; during modernization, the composition of the armament has not changed; the aiming systems have been updated. In an attack aircraft, it’s just not possible to stuff it.
  3. Observer2014 6 March 2020 22: 19 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: YOUR
    Really strange. But when it looked at high cost. In battle, the main thing is efficiency.

    I don’t think that Ganship is much more efficient than twice as cheap to operate as it is, A-10

    soldier yes Calm and more confident feel the MTR, for example. Guys at the distant outpost. When you are not a soulless drone above you. And competent guys, confident in their firepower. Really flying fortress. They do not need much. But they should be. Not only that, argue in reality current threats. And other strategic, and more tactical topics. Do the Russian army need heavy and protected armored personnel carriers. Well, like Barberry, for example.
  4. Lopatov 7 March 2020 09: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Observer2014
    When you are not a soulless drone over you.

    A-10 is a ground attack aircraft, not a "soulless drone"
    And the attack aircraft with such a gun

    Which does not fly away when it brightens "so as not to bring down"

    Therefore, the "guys at the outpost" definitely prefer two guns and 14 tons of bomb load.
  5. Alexander Mosin April 24 2020 17: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Spade
    I don’t think that Ganship is much more efficient than twice as cheap to operate as it is, A-10

    In my opinion, the question was initially raised of the advisability of Ganship in Chechnya. And there was not a choice between ganship and what was, what was, Rooks, Bombs, turntables, but all is not particularly effective and often in their own way. Just during the storming of Grozny, or other large settlements where the feds suffered heavy losses, such gangships would be quite effective.
  • Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    What is the effectiveness? If only at night and only in the interests of special forces? Huh? Do we know something about common war?
  • ProkletyiPirat 6 March 2020 16: 25 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: Spade
    Moreover, their use turned out to be terribly expensive. Which is strange to say the least.


    Shovels, you look in the book and you see a fig, and you as a member of the army should be ashamed of such a comparison. Just let’s add the cost of artillery and automatic bullets to this plate, and lo and behold, the cheapest way to destroy the enemy will be bullets, what then do all the countries of the world refuse artifacts and aircraft if bullets are cheaper? When comparing, lead to a common denominator in the form of tactical and strategic capabilities that technology and weapons provide!
    1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 19: 35 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      Shovels, you look in the book and you see a fig, and you as a member of the army should be ashamed of such a comparison.

      Do you even understand this your stream of consciousness?
      Me not.
    2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 19: 40 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Well, so all countries of the world do not refuse infantry :))) You still did not count about the bayonet
  • Observer2014 6 March 2020 22: 06 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: YOUR
    The question is in tactics of application, unless the whole territory consists only of gorges. Somewhere attack aircraft, somewhere helicopters, somewhere this same ganship.

    Actually, there Su-24 and Su-25 shot down. I do not think that they are less protected from MANPADS than the Ganships

    yes drinks hi
  • Lopatov 6 March 2020 11: 59 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: YOUR
    although he was warned of the danger of being shot down

    Strictly speaking, he was warned that it was starting to get light
  • Florian geyer 6 March 2020 11: 59 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Laughs like. Let's throw bombs from the U-2 manually? Or put 76 gun on IL 152? I even know how, on the brackets, I’ll put the revenge on, open the ramp and loop through the enemy.
    So speaking about these fat men there is no point in talking. Here A10 is PPC for everything, like Rook.
    A simple question is the ratio of downed su-25s to combat and defeated by cadets
  • Alexander Mosin April 24 2020 15: 57 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Ka-52
    when the enemy has anti-aircraft defense more serious than a prayer rug

    Well, did the Chechen or Syrian fighters have a lot of air defense? In addition, modern ganships fly higher than 6000m and no MANPADS will hit them, and it is doubtful to somehow imagine that a fart like Igla can shoot down a ganship. It will fall into the engine, that one will drag it onto the base, besides, on modern ganships there are many different systems against MANPADS and the like. Another thing is that to build such a ganship is not a blunder, it requires advanced optics, accurate weapons. In Chechnya, such ganship could save thousands of lives, and at least not ganship, but helicopters with a thermal imager and rockets with high-explosive fragmentation-thermobaric warheads. And when the enemy has a lot of dangerous air defense, it is first suppressed.
  • Bad_gr 6 March 2020 19: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    When they talk about gunships, they remember about his battery of guns, but for some reason they forget that all the guns are directed not forward in the direction of the plane, but sideways and so as not to fly past the target with the cruising speed of the plane, it needs to circle around the target with a certain radius, leading fire from a circle inward along a radius. That is, on a flat terrain, nothing complicated. But if the target is visible only from a certain angle (for example, in the mountains), then in the operator’s sight it will appear for seconds, and then the operator will have to wait until the plane makes a full circle and again enters the target’s visibility range.
    Something like that.
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 19: 47 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      And at a low height, a TK from 30 mm above a kilometer a) you can’t get anywhere and b) well, someone will flap some sluggish, unexploded shells
      105 also with their guidance system can only work direct fire
    2. dokusib 7 March 2020 05: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      A deep gorge with sheer walls several tens of meters wide? The attack aircraft is generally useless. Can only throw bombs for luck maybe lucky.
      1. Bad_gr 7 March 2020 23: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: dokusib
        A deep gorge with sheer walls several tens of meters wide?

        Is this a workspace for ganship?
        1. dokusib 8 March 2020 06: 22 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Well, under what conditions will the target appear for seconds and only from one angle? The aircraft describes a circle of several kilometers, and due to this, its angular velocity is small.
    3. Alexander Mosin April 24 2020 17: 25 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      That's just for gorges you can attack aircraft, or turntables to drive, but otherwise ganship to help!)) In the Russian Federation there are suitable cars at least, before lurking about this topic? And then An12 and his peers should all be in museums, A-130 was still done for a long time and very well suited in all respects. You need to understand how such weapons generally appeared and my conclusion was that without the jungle of Vietnam and those fighting realities the first machines that, after decades of operating experience and upgrades, have become the machines we see today. In other words, it would be very difficult to create such a machine from scratch in the Russian Federation, but if I had created it, I would have pushed 2 Cornflowers in there and shoved one 57mm!))
  • Mikhail Drabkin 6 March 2020 06: 11 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    All the main points are indicated:
    - reduction of the crew and especially - shooters, from 7 to 3.
    - “kill” from the first shot,
    - high equipment survivability.

    Author +++
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 01 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Prior to the first MANPADS
      1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 05 New
        • 2
        • 9
        -7
        The fate of the Khokhlyatsky paratroopers in Lugansk as if hints
        1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 53 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          About 3 minuses already. And that Khokhlyatskiy silts did not fill up from the MANPADS?
  • sen
    sen 6 March 2020 06: 29 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    In modern warfare, ganshipu cannot survive - only for unprotected targets. Impact drones are more versatile: both for barmaley and for modern purposes.
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 02 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Therefore, the mattresses only in MTR. Neither in the army nor in kmp are they
    2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 12 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Uhh. Is there any competition in + / - here?
      1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 13 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Personally, I do not care
  • g1washntwn 6 March 2020 07: 03 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    As a carrier of high-precision strike weapons - expensive, the same 2 GBU will be able to throw a drone or any other manned aircraft from a safe distance. Entering the artillery clinch will boldly succeed only against the toothless partisans. Modern versions of them most likely have caliber harder than a light infantry.
    In general, the field is rather a means for a "control in the head."
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 07 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      That’s what really comes from the thunder. Well, they were going to write them off
      1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 12 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        They also ran from rooks. They don’t see a fig, and their scout is either drunk, or a fig in a snail.
  • Strashila 6 March 2020 07: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The idea of ​​this machine has been tested for war, it is in demand. The question is in the tactics of its application, patrolling with the possibility of attacking single targets.
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 41 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Mene, Tekel, Uparsin ... Measured, weighed, evaluated and All refused
    2. KJIETyc 6 March 2020 23: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Cavalry, too, was once tested for "war", why isn’t it being used now? Budenov is your friend?
      1. Strashila 7 March 2020 07: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        there are places where only she is native and maybe, of course, there is no such mass character.
  • Ros 56 6 March 2020 08: 37 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The thing is certainly good, somehow ran into a video of his shooting, impressive. But God sees, for such a barn, one injection with the Needle is enough, not to mention Shells and the like. After all, his guns work on the ground from a relatively small height. So it turns out, whether he attack, or defend. And to drive the Papuans quite a car.
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 42 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Straight at all :)))
    2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 43 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      He has nothing to defend
    3. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 15: 18 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      From a great height he needs to put ship soo. He does not stand still
  • Pashhenko Nikolay 6 March 2020 09: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The plane has a narrow anti-barmaley specialization. Not more than that. But in some places it may come in handy.
  • garri-lin 6 March 2020 09: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Add heights of up to 7-8 km and can be used to a limited extent. In the meantime, lottery.
    1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 50 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Well, I’ll listen to interesting stories about how to shoot from 30 mm (this is like our BMP), well, everything is clear with this, and even 105 by 7 km from an airplane without ballistic computers. It is necessary to put 308. Where does this fat aircraft carry from recoil?
      1. garri-lin 6 March 2020 17: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Airplane Arsenal. Point Adjustable. On the same areas of 105 mm but with a higher rate of fire (2-3) of the trunk. And with a good sight. 30 mm is not needed there for nothing. But the option ran into near-zero MANPADS even in the mountains.
        1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 19: 54 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          I had 3 of them in the platoon. 9 to the company and 18 to the battalion. Calculate the probability?
          1. garri-lin 6 March 2020 20: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            You are my friend a troll. The essence of the conversation is lost. But half the comments for the article are your authorship.
            18 MANPADS is good. Only I did not know that when there are a lot of them, they can have a performance advantage. For example, you take two and their reach in height is doubled. Or take immediately 18 and you can shoot down satellites.
            He wrote Russian on white 7-8 km. Flight altitude. How do you get out of your 18 MANPADS to such a height?
  • Alexey RA 6 March 2020 10: 46 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    It all started with miniguns. Then added the "volcanoes". Then they abandoned the miniguns and put the Bofors and 105 mm. Then they abandoned the "volcanoes" and put 25 mm. Then they added the URO and replaced the “bofors” and 25 mm with 30 mm. The tendency, adnakka, is to work on a goal from an ever greater distance.
    I wonder what will be removed in the next version - 30mm? And at what iteration will the “ganship” turn into a “missile”? smile
    1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 12: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And at what iteration will the “ganship” turn into a “missile”?

      Already.
      The fact is that the US Marines are not so rich as to throw money down the drain. Therefore, they developed a much more adequate option with the participation of the KS-130 tanker
      Without any distortion, only the WTO

      1. Alexey RA 6 March 2020 12: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        The fact is that the US Marines are not so rich as to throw money down the drain.

        * looks thoughtfully towards the EFV program. wink
        But yes, on the whole they are rogues - with "cobras", "hueys" and renamed LVTP-7. smile
        Quote: Spade
        Therefore, they developed a much more adequate option with the participation of the KS-130 tanker
        Without any distortion, only the WTO

        Arsenal aircraft.
        It is quite reasonable not to substitute the carcass of the "Hercules" under the MANPADS and MZA, into the working area of ​​which it will inevitably fit in with aiming work with airborne guns.
        1. Lopatov 6 March 2020 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Arsenal aircraft.
          It is quite reasonable not to substitute the carcass of the "Hercules" under the MANPADS and MZA, into the working area of ​​which it will inevitably fit in with aiming work with airborne guns.

          Strictly speaking, they put one 30-mm gun
          And the rest, yes, a cheap "arsenal airplane", quickly sawed from a tanker.
          Harvest hawk

          By the way, they also write about "Osprey Hawk" But apparently, while there is no money
          1. Alexey RA 6 March 2020 14: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            By the way, they also write about "Osprey Hawk" But apparently, while there is no money

            I have been reading about the Osprey drums since the 80s of the last century.
            Even "flew" on it in the "LHX" in 1991 - even on the XT-shke, with a monochrome display. smile
            1. garri-lin 6 March 2020 17: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              So they put the multi-barrel not very large caliber. 12,7 sort of. Recognized ineffective and refused. Why do you need it just?
              1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 20: 16 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Low. Only special forces support. And then only at night.
      2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 15: 20 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        No, not marines, but MTR, in kmp they are not
    2. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 12: 57 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Yes, damn it, these fat men we bring down just like that. And they know about it. And so they don’t fly over us. Yes, try Spectrum or a guest rider to snoop on us. How to fly there and stay. Afraid.
      Here A10 is a pinses rapist
      1. vadim dok 6 March 2020 15: 57 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        WELL POPPED IN SYRIA! Cheka still remember with trembling knees!
        1. Florian geyer 6 March 2020 20: 17 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Yes, against bandits without air defense, he’s only good
  • iouris 6 March 2020 13: 26 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    A good complex for finishing.
  • Florian geyer 6 March 2020 14: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    author -> author -> author, well, a fat cow rides. Tell the fools about Thunderbolts
  • honest people 6 March 2020 17: 12 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: PO-tzan
    Quote: CTABEP
    It’s not clear from the crew - the officers act as gunners, but why three more operators? Even if two loaders on a howitzer, and the third where? Coffee officers do and shovels to the side to rake a shovel :)?


    Just Americans are stupid! ahahaha

  • Knell wardenheart 6 March 2020 23: 25 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    In a word, a tool to pacify papus ..
  • Usher 7 March 2020 11: 31 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    and the gun itself is comparable to a large-caliber sniper weapon, which can ensure the defeat of the target from the first shot.

    one bragging, so I believed.
  • Klingon 1 May 2020 18: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Observer2014
    When you are not a soulless drone over you.

    A-10 is a ground attack aircraft, not a "soulless drone"
    And the attack aircraft with such a gun

    Which does not fly away when it brightens "so as not to bring down"

    Therefore, the "guys at the outpost" definitely prefer two guns and 14 tons of bomb load.

    A-10 is a plane that was built around the gun wassat