New howitzer for AC-130 aircraft

Fire support aircraft of the latest modification AC-130J Ghostrider

Fire support aircraft AC-130 of the latest modifications carry rocket and artillery weapons of various types. Some of the samples used are already outdated and need to be replaced as soon as possible. In order to carry out such an upgrade, a new artillery mount with a 105-mm howitzer has recently been developed. It has passed part of the tests, and in the near future the process of re-equipping combat aircraft will begin.

Deprecation problem

Since the beginning of the seventies, the “main caliber” of AC-130 aircraft of all modifications has been the 105-mm M102 howitzer with M137A1 recoil devices. For mounting on an aircraft, the existing towed gun was stripped of its carriage and some other parts, and also equipped with new units. In this form, the howitzer is still used and shows the required fighting qualities.

By the middle of the 102s, the MXNUMX field gun was morally and physically obsolete, which is why it was decided to decommission it. To date, only a limited number of such howitzers remain in the US armed forces, with the bulk of them concentrated in the Air Force and used on gunship aircraft.

M102 towed howitzer

It should be noted that the Air Force also planned to remove the old howitzers from service. The latest AC-130 modernization projects included the abandonment of the gun mount and replacement with another weapons. In accordance with this decision, part of the aircraft lost M102 products, but in the middle of the tenth years it was decided to return them. Practice has shown that the absence of a large-caliber gun makes the aircraft less flexible and effective means of support.

However, along with howitzers, characteristic problems and difficulties remained. Products M102 and M137A1, as well as spare parts for them, have not been produced for a long time, the resumption of production is impractical, and stocks are coming to an end. The only reasonable way out of this situation was to develop a new gun mount with the required characteristics, using only available modern components.

Perspective sample

Work on the new weapons system started in the recent past and was carried out with secrecy. The existence of such a project, and at the same time about its successful implementation, was told only a few days ago. The first reports of a new howitzer appeared on January 11, and one of the Navy units published them.

Modified gun on the plane

To develop a new weapon for aircraft, the Air Force turned to the naval forces for help. The design was entrusted to the engineering center Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD), which has extensive experience in creating artillery systems for mobile platforms. This experience was now planned to be used to rearm the "land" aviation.

It is reported that the Air Force and the Navy have organized a fruitful cooperation. NSWCDD designers, Air Force pilots and technicians maintained constant contact and made visits to allied facilities. Future operators actively participated in the design of the gun and its subsequent testing. Such interaction made it possible to fully solve all the tasks set and received high marks.

A new project at NSWCDD developed a new howitzer and auxiliaries for the AC-130. The first sample of the system was also manufactured and tested. After testing at the site, it was handed over to the customer. In the near future, the artillery mount will be mounted on a regular carrier of the AC-130J modification for new tests.

In the official announcement of the completion of the project, the howitzer is designated as 105mm Gun Aircraft Unit (GAU). The habitual species index is not named; perhaps it has not yet been accepted or is not subject to publication. In addition, the tactical and technical characteristics of the gun and auxiliary systems are not disclosed. At the same time, a couple of photographs were published showing the howitzer in the shop. The file names indicate that the pictures were taken in mid-May last year.

New gun mount 105mm GAU and its creators

Technical features

The new gun mount is based on a 105-mm rifled barrel of medium length. There is a thread in its muzzle, on which a tubular flash hider of the type used on the M102 can be installed. The barrel breech, bolt and other mechanisms were not shown. Apparently, they do not fundamentally differ from the equipment of an older howitzer. In this case, a semi-automatic system with manual feed of unitary shots must be used.

The barrel is movably fixed in a tubular cradle, which swings on its pins on vertical supports. Above and below on the cradle are hydropneumatic cylinders of recoil devices. The pistons are mounted in front of the unit, and the cylinders themselves are connected to the barrel breech. Probably, the larger upper cylinder acts as a recoil brake, and the lower one is responsible for returning the barrel to its original position.

Also on the installation there are additional tanks for various purposes and other details. At the same time, it seems that the gun mount was filmed not in a complete set and not in a working position. However, it is clear that this is a prototype that has been tested. This is evidenced by chipped paint and rust on different units.

Characteristics and novelty

It is easy to see that in terms of its architecture, the new 105mm GAU howitzer mount does not fundamentally differ from the previously used M102 product. First of all, this is due to the need for a quick and easy replacement of obsolete weapons - a new installation should not require significant processing of the carrier and its on-board systems.

The combat characteristics of the new howitzer could also remain at the same level. The parameters of the old M102 gun are quite consistent with the tasks at hand, and upgrading them can be overly complicated and impractical. In addition, maintaining the existing range of ammunition limits the potential for growth.

The main advantage of the shown howitzer lies in its novelty - it is made of parts and assemblies of modern production. Due to this, some technical and operational characteristics can be improved. At the same time, a significant reserve is created for the long-term use of new installations without any problems with the resource and spare parts.

The experience of operating the AC-130 gunships shows that howitzer installations, receiving the required maintenance, can remain in service for many years or even decades. Accordingly, the new product 105mm GAU will solve all the problems of the "main caliber" of the aircraft for many years to come.

The benefits of such a project are obvious. At the moment, the Air Force considers it necessary to keep the 105-mm howitzer on the support aircraft, but the available weapons are morally and physically obsolete. The new development of NSWCDD will allow re-equipping the AC-130 with maintaining or some improvement in the desired combat qualities and extending the service life.

On the eve of modernization

of the latter, News it follows that the prospective howitzer has passed the first stage of testing, and the second will soon begin. After checking on a regular carrier, the Air Force can order serial production and mass re-equipment of aircraft. How long these processes will last, and how soon the AC-130 will receive new artillery, has not yet been specified.

It should be recalled that new projects for the modernization of fire support aircraft include not only the replacement of artillery. They use modern optoelectronic systems and fire control facilities. New guided missiles are being introduced, and the issue of installing a combat laser capable of taking on some of the tasks of guns and howitzers is being worked out.

All this shows that in the short and medium term, the US Air Force is not going to abandon the AC-130 fire support aircraft. Moreover, it is planned to continue their development with new features and functions. At the same time, despite the appearance of fundamentally new fire weapons, artillery will retain its place.

Comments

[6erJIblu]

Naked Papuans are seriously indignant about this.

[Orel]

Quote: 6erJIblu

Naked Papuans are seriously indignant about this.

If there is nothing to drive this car away, then even the most elite special forces will be very uncomfortable on the ground. The shelling of targets at such angles provides an almost guaranteed defeat of any objects in closed and protected positions. Therefore, subject to gaining air superiority, this machine can grind a lot on the ground.

[Yarhann]

subject to gaining air superiority, the war is lost) and who and what to swarm on the ground no longer plays a role. These devices are just one of the options to cheaply and angrily finish off the ground

[YOUR]

There are DRGs, there are troops, there are partisans. Why throw a bunch of your units against them. Block the area and destroy from the air. There will be work. It's a shame we don't have that. Take helicopters, almost always in the coverage area of ​​​​at least MANPADS, hence the big losses. Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown. This one spins at a long range, try to destroy it
All Americans produced about 50 of these aircraft, of which 7 were shot down. After the loss of the 6th, tactics were completely changed. In Vietnam, these flying batteries destroyed more than 10 vehicles. Do you know this indicator?
The last loss was in Iraq, where the crew, on their own initiative, remained in the air although they were ordered to leave and continued to support a platoon of Marines who were surrounded.
Once again a good machine. Too bad we don't have those.

[Yarhann]

In Vietnam, there was a genocide of the local population, which is why they killed so many civilians there and destroyed so many cars, buildings, etc., etc. They destroyed the population precisely in the territory under their control (Migi did not work on this territory and air defense systems did not work) - because it supplied the enemy partisans and DRGs. They just sawed everyone in a row, as the fascists did. Therefore, shooting frags in any quantities does not mean anything. The machine is absolutely unprotected (unlike the helicopters and attack aircraft) and in the event of the arrival of something, it will naturally ground itself in the shortest possible time. That is why, where there is a possibility of using MANPADS, shilok, zushki and various small arms, they use well-protected Mi28 / Mi24 / Apache strike aircraft, or Su25 / A10 attack aircraft.
About the heavy losses of Afghanistan, especially Chechnya))) thank you, you neighed at least read the stat that where it flew how many were shot down and with what, as well as how many times they attacked and how many times they did not achieve success in the attack with riflemen or MANPADS. It's all in open sources. There are no space losses of combat aircraft there.
So please don't lump everything together and don't try to define in a nutshell conflicts like the war in Vietnam or somewhere else - it's just ridiculous.

[Slap]

Vietnamese peaceful on the trails of Ho Chi Minh in Laos and Cambodia? Is it like "they aren't there"?

[YOUR]

Vietnam is capitalized. Mirnyak, the guards, made chips .... boy, how old are you?

[Yarhann]

in fact, come on, gray-haired schoolboy)))

[YOUR]

Then it's not clear at all. Terminology and reasoning of a snotty boy, do not be offended by the truth, trying to seem like an adult uncle, while no one sees

[Yarhann]

let's essentially shkolota)) saw the title of the post above?

[YOUR]

Offended? Come on, don't get offended by the truth. It is quite possible that you are indeed in years, but you have too far a relationship with military affairs.
But let's really get back to the topic. What do you see wrong with using this flying battery?
For all the years of use from 1967 to the present, in all conflicts it was actively used, 7 aircraft were lost, of which 6 were lost in Vietnam until 1972. We accumulated and worked out the tactics of application and all losses stopped. The last combat losses lost one aircraft, the crew of which decided to help the encircled platoon of marines, realizing that they were in the zone of use of anti-aircraft weapons by the enemy.

There is no desire to look for numbers; you yourself will find how many combat aircraft and helicopters were shot down in Vietnam. Look at our losses in aviation technology in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Compare with AS-130 losses. For one, read how much they did and what they did, i.e. combat experience. I hope your education and desire will be enough for this.
Good luck.

[Yarhann]

thanks neighing)) blah blah blah)) you are obviously a hardened warrior - a theoreticalist))) Vietnam, Afghan, Chechnya - airplanes, helicopters compare with the AC-130. What to compare with, who and where to look for, horses mixed up .. people .... humorist) thanks very informative))).

[YOUR]

Understood. Ran into a very, very knowledgeable person. I'm leaving.

[garri-lin]

This technique was almost never used in theaters where at least some kind of air defense was present. Any drone today will be cheaper and safer for the crew.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Vietnam is capitalized. Mirnyak, the guards, made chips .... boy, how old are you?

How old are you?

[timokhin-aa]

and destroyed so many cars

Vietnamese cars were destroyed by gunships in Laos, not Vietnam, you are off topic from the word "absolutely", it seems.
https://topwar.ru/156385-tropa-ho-shi-mina-vetnamskajadoroga-zhizni-chast-1.html

https://topwar.ru/156763-tropa-ho-shi-mina-vetnamskaja-doroga-zhizni-chast-2.html

[hydrox]

Quote: YOUR

Too bad we don't have those.

When I came out in defense of such a technique a few years ago, I was hit with several hundred cons.
But if we try to foresee future remaking of borders, wars for water, land and subsoil that await us even before the end of this century, then only a weapon that is ready for use and stands quietly in a corner can be good, and it does not matter whether it is put into action .
After all, it is known that generals fight on the basis of past battles and old weapons.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Take helicopters, almost always in the coverage area of ​​​​at least MANPADS, hence the big losses. Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown. This one spins at a long range, try to destroy it.

What are you carrying? What the hell is the long range of the SPV? Even with a helicopter GSh-30, with a slant range of more than 2000 m, shooting loses all meaning. And here is the howitzer.
So this shed is just a MANPADS that is still that threat.
And don’t tell fairy tales about Afghanistan and Chechnya, unlike you, I was there on the Mi-24.
And if we climbed into the zone of action of MANPADS, ZGU and even small arms, it was because there was a need to climb there, and not the lack of the required weapons.
By the way, the helicopter has a much higher chance of survival.

[MauZerR]

Tell the bearded "students" about the lost war and air supremacy.

[A. h. 52]

The Papuans of Wagner were also indignant when such a bird flew over Deir ez-Zor

[hydrox]

But I was pleased to see how this type of gunship would work against the Nazis of the Azov regiment in Mariupol, and in all field facilities prepared by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If this work is carried out from a height of 5-6 km, and a weapon of the ZiS-4 type will work against armored vehicles, then the result would be a significant savings in personnel. And modern AFARs would also save BC.
The Americans may have used other calibers, but there is no data on this topic.
And the flightless sky, as it is now over Ukraine, significantly improves the working conditions of the calculation.
And with modern electronic optics, this is not a job, but just a fairy tale.

[rocket757]

How many "copies were broken" in disputes, discussing such a system, do not count!
Well, on a new start?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: rocket757

How many "copies were broken" in disputes, discussing such a system, do not count!
Well, on a new start?

Whoever likes it and has fun. These disputes do not affect anything. As the AC-130s fought, they will continue to do so, they confidently occupy their place.

[rocket757]

This, just, is not a question ... this is their topic. Like many others.
The question is, why do we need it?
How is the potential threat? It seems not.
What else can be discussed.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: rocket757

The question is, why do we need it?

So if you're not interested, don't read. I don’t even open 3/4 of the articles here. What I read is interesting, I just skip the rest. We have a free country, there is no obligation to read VO.

[evgen1221]

Barmaleev in the mountains of the steppes or newly appointed (invaders), before the arrival of the ground from the gunship, for example, you can have a nightmare.

[hydrox]

Quote: rocket757

What else can be discussed.

You know, until you feel impatient, you can discuss the prospects for use, but 7-8 years ago we didn’t have such a gun, so the ground losses of the Syrians and Persians were hoo, that they weren’t enough to put up guards and a crowd of bearded men in slippers they could do anything if the territories were left without protection.

[YOUR]

What to discuss. It is worth reading the chronicle of combat use. Only in Vietnam did they cause enormous damage by shelling transport columns and partisan camps. The Vietnamese themselves admit the destruction of more than 10 cars, and what else they did there. In Iraq, almost constantly hung in the air.

[hydrox]

Quote: YOUR

What to discuss

Well, for example, this topic: the prospects for building an AI-controlled gunship: calibers, ammunition, work on tanks and armored vehicles, work on trenches and shelters, work in swarms (you can continue the list ...)

[Flooding]

very interesting work for air gunners


although the principle of pointing the gun is completely incomprehensible

[Jager]

Obviously, the work of the loaders is shown, and the gunner-operator remotely controls the gun from another compartment, guidance using an optical channel.
In fact, a joystick and a TV channel were "fastened" to an ordinary gun.
May enlightened artillerymen forgive me.

[Orel]

Quote: Flood

although the principle of pointing the gun is completely incomprehensible

Ballistics help. NURs somehow use them from aircraft, they are also on the move and everything is fine.

[Yarhann]

yes, everything is the same as in a tank - a barrel gyro-stabilized in two planes, a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, etc. Nothing special . More interested in who and how controls the flight of the board itself - because it is its flight altitude, speed and radius that will determine the accuracy of the hit. This I mean that, in fact, the gunner should also control the flight. What I mean is that the weapon operator indicates areas and objects for hilling, this should be processed by the calculator and the optimal flight path should be selected - the pilot's task is to follow it, although most likely the aircraft in this case is controlled by an autopilot.
As for me, it is the control system of the board itself that is the most interesting. It is clear that Hercules is ideal for such tasks - it can slowly fly (hover) in a given area, which makes it possible to keep the indicated area in optimal parameters for firing for as long as possible.

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

Quote: Yarhann

What I mean is that the weapon operator indicates areas and objects for hilling, this should be processed by the calculator and the optimal flight path should be selected - the pilot's task is to follow it, although most likely the aircraft in this case is controlled by an autopilot.

the target is designated by the fire control officer, after which the aircraft moves into the left circle so that the target is approximately in the center of this circle. The pilot controls the aircraft, of course. Since the guns are mobile, there is no need to maintain the trajectory in the most accurate way. The rest is done by the weapons control system (it includes a radar with the ability to track a target, a TV and an IR camera. 4 computers) The AC-130U Spooky FCS allows you to simultaneously fire at two different targets (which, of course, are in the affected area)

[Yarhann]

well, it’s kind of understandable - it’s not clear how the plane follows the trajectory - well, how logical it would be to control on autopilot

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

Quote: Yarhann

one thing is not clear how the plane follows the trajectory

thanks to the direct hands of the pilot) Handles everything, therefore the left circle, it is easier to do and more familiar.

[Yarhann]

the pilot cannot determine the flight course himself - the computer must constantly give out where to fly. that is why all military equipment has an autopilot to move along a given route, and the pilot only controls the flight of the vehicle along the route, taking control if necessary.
In this case, everything is the same - the commander sets the target, sets it in the computer, the computer gives the optimal course to the autopilot (I think so) that's it. The task of the pilot is to take the course and turn on the autopilot - and you can go drink beer.

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

Can't a pilot stand in a circle by himself? This was done before the Second World War. Without any computers.
The pilot has the same indicator in front of his eyes as the gunnery officer, which has a target mark on it. In addition to it, there are a bunch of different devices that help build a turn. Frankly, I don’t understand how difficult it is to perform the maneuver "make a circle with a roll of 45 around that tree over there."

There was no computer at all at the first gunships. Searchlight and optical sights.

However, I will not argue - if you have any information, what and how - share it. I only have such information that the pilot himself steers the plane during the use of weapons.

[Yarhann]

yes, I don’t believe that when it was just like that, everything was miserable) that the trajectory was steered by hand, etc., etc. now the autopilot will do all this perfectly - although I can be wrong about the C130 and the capabilities of its autopilot - I’m just wondering how automated it is, so to speak, because flying in a circle or on a given course doesn’t require a pilot now, more precisely, not now, but already several decades in both civil and military aviation

[hydrox]

No integrals: the satellite receives the target coordinates and the current coordinates of the weapon, and a spotter sits in the next compartment.
The weather is set by something not as ancient as Hephaestus (it was a glorious machine!)

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Flood

very interesting work for air gunners

The image is even “more interesting” - how much they took then

Quote: Flood

the principle of pointing the gun is completely incomprehensible

The aircraft is very decently equipped with search systems and automatic guidance, a noble apparatus

[tralflot1832]

Everything is very easy, the plane is in circulation. The fire is carried out in the center of the circle.

[Flooding]

Quote: tralflot1832

Everything is very easy, the plane is in circulation. The fire is carried out in the center of the circle.

got it
school - compasses - a hole in the page in the middle of the circle

[YOUR]

The operator was not shown. On the tablet, I poked with a stylus at the required point, then automatics.

[Flooding]

Quote: YOUR

The operator was not shown. On the tablet, I poked with a stylus at the required point, then automatics.

some operator at the beginning of the video
manually move the slider to the beginning

[YOUR]

I saw a whole movie about the AS-130. There was a lot shown. I was impressed by the computer complex and intelligence facilities. You can put guns on an airplane, but such a complex is also needed for the effective use of a flying battery.

[dedBoroded]

These gunships can only be used in conditions of complete air supremacy. There are fewer and fewer places like this around the world.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: dedBoroded

These gunships can only be used in conditions of complete air supremacy.

Absolutely right. Therefore, the United States has the most fighters, tankers and AWACS aircraft in the world. With NATO countries, they are superior to the whole world put together. Winning air superiority for them is a matter of desire, not ability.

[Sector]

only in conditions of complete air supremacy

So this is US military doctrine. Grab the air, and then iron with impunity all who are on earth. Almost the entire budget is spent on the Air Force there.

[Yarhann]

in general, for any country the Air Force has a top priority, because without the Air Force, everyone on earth is just a target. It's just that not many countries can afford to maintain, let alone build, modern MFIs.

[evgen1221]

We would not have interfered with an airplane either.

[Vadim_2]

We have Su-25.

[Sector]

If we compare the Su-25, then its analogue is the A-10.

[expert]

There was information that back in 2016 they considered the idea of ​​​​An-12 to redraw for this case.
Did not work out...

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Fachmann

There was information...

On the basis of the S-27 Spartan, the Italians made a version of a mini gunship, almost like a pallet with weapons and equipment loaded and please you, but they couldn’t sell it and the only MC-27j Praetorian “gathered dust” at the base in Pisa - the law does not allow using it yourself.

[Dkuznecov]

In the mountainous area, the very thing
what the doctor ordered.
How to carry guns through the gorges
or expensive rockets to spend.

[Yarhann]

they came up with helicopters and attack aircraft for the mountains - an excellent tool, both ours and the Americans tested it in Afghanistan.

[Slap]

Not a single helicopter and attack aircraft will be able to hang over the battlefield for hours and iron the enemy with 25mm, 40mm and 105mm shells? Ask your fighters who went through Chechnya, what is better than a pair of Rooks or one S-130 with advanced optics and m shells per regiment? For CAS (close air support) that's it.

[Yarhann]

my good fight does not last for hours - cartridges and grenades will run out faster if these are mobile groups. and if this is an offensive, then there is always support with larger calibers, including tanks. it was you who fantasized about some kind of positional war - so in Afghanistan and Chechnya - such positions in the mountains were simply buried with bombs and RSs - and there was no need to bury anyone, and this is only if the enemy is surrounded and he has nowhere to retreat - it makes sense to sit still and wait for you to be buried no.
So you don’t need to hang for hours - you either need to ensure the passage of the column, or support the offensive at a certain moment, and then only where there is no artillery and the tanks will not pass. And the rotation of flyers in such tasks is developed even before it starts.
Such things are good for supporting reconnaissance detachments in mountainous areas - where it is not possible to carry a lot of ammo or a tank with you), but again, you can call on flyers - Su25 / A10 or which bomber will obviously fly faster than prepare a similar airship for takeoff. Well, hang for hours to support a certain group) you can’t get enough airships)

[Jager]

In fact, the meaning of this "gun shed" with wings is to shoot various kinds of villages, auls, warehouses, fortified points and other accumulations of manpower and equipment of various kinds of Papuans in the maximum economy mode with the absolute and complete absence of at least some kind of air defense except for a slingshot from the enemy .
Moreover, the enemy is so weak that the use of even a pair of fighter-bombers becomes economically impractical.
And somewhere in the sky an ancient howitzer based on a transporter flies, and occasionally shoots on request from the ground.

[Aviator_]

But it’s interesting, besides hunting stories from the jungles of Vietnam of the 1968 model, are there any other results of the combat use of this Wunderwaffe?

[Bolt cutter]

Miracle Weapon

On January 30, 1991, a spirit 03 (one of the AC-130 gunships) was shot down by the Iraqis using a Soviet MANPADS.

[Sector]

Gulf War with Iraq

[DialogN]

Yes, I have. In Syria on the night of February 7-8, 2018 in the area of ​​the Husham gas fields.

The Syrian army and "ISIS hunters", and even with the support of our PMCs, stormed the positions of the SDS. From our side, tanks, mortars, artillery and MLRS installations.
The SDS in a panic called for the help of amers. the Americans sent their aircraft, including a pair of AC-130s. The results are very deplorable, few managed to retreat ...

[Aviator_]

Understood. This is when our PMC without air defense encroached on the sacred - I decided to squeeze the deposit from the Americans.

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

Quote: Aviator_

But it’s interesting, besides hunting stories from the jungles of Vietnam of the 1968 model, are there any other results of the combat use of this Wunderwaffe?

gunships were used during the Persian Gulf War in 91, in modern times in Syria (supposedly IS barmaley were shot), and in August 2021 they ironed the Afghan Taliban.
Extreme loss in Kuwait, shot down by MANPADS

[Slap]

Yes, I have! They have always accompanied special forces teams in Iraq and Afghanistan and recently in Syria.

[Yarhann]

well, what's bad - such a machine can hang in the air for quite a long time and help the ground forces of the MTR. The turntables can do the same, but they need more and the duration will be shorter. From aviation, only two attack aircraft on the entire planet are su 25 and 10 with fluffs, bonbs and RSs.

[Cat]

Yes, in fact, this is a kind of air gunboat - a floating galosh with one, but a large cannon. She can fight on equal terms only with the same galoshes before the first hit.

[expert]

But I want to praise the eraplan again. What a successful plane, at one time, the Americans made. Absolutely objective.
In 1954 he took off, in operation since 1956. And what they didn’t sculpt on him ...
It seems that they will operate it for another 50 years.
And about the "ganship", well, they like this topic, but for God's sake.
In any case, whether they have a new howitzer or not, the task is that the sky of Russia and (or) the likely theater of operations should be "unflyable" for these devices.

[Yarhann]

it’s just that in the states they know how to appreciate good things - that’s why the B52 is in the ranks and Arleigh Burke is still collective farming, the BTA C5 aircraft are still in the ranks. The Abrams are ancient, although they are not being built, but they are still in service. They have a lot of dense things in operation - take, for example, the transport of the police and public utilities from poor towns - there are also dense cramps but of a new construction.

[Cat]

just in the states they know how to appreciate good things

We know how to appreciate good things too - look at the Il-76, the reincarnation of the Tu-160 or the modernized T-72 tanks. I am generally silent about first-rank ships.
Have you seen the ZIL-130 fire department? Every day I see through the window, the same as in childhood , and I have already gone to my sixth decade.

[expert]

That's right, but I would like more, faster, newer, more modern!
So many years and so many people lost.

[Fast_mutant]

Objectively, if there are many "first-rank" ones left? Heels for the whole country ... Not enough, given the length of our maritime borders. Looks like it's time to refill.

[sen]

New howitzer for AC-130 aircraft

To fight partisans who do not have air defense, it is really cheap and effective. For a more serious enemy, SDs are better suited, capable of hitting ground targets lying on the side and even behind, so as not to return for a second run. For air-to-air melee missiles, there is already something similar.

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

Quote: sen

For a more serious enemy, SDs that can hit ground targets lying on the side and even behind are better suited.

so far they are going to hang the usual AGM-114 Hellfire on the underwing and the cassette with the AGM-175 Griffin for firing back on the cargo ramp

[A. h. 52]

Google even on Wiki how much one gunship costs.

[Zaurbek]

It seems to me that our 2pcs x 57mm are well suited for such purposes.

[Nikolay Sayenko]

a cheap way to destroy the population of third countries .... they use piston attack aircraft there!

[Zaurbek]

The Americans had a good deck attack aircraft and used it back in Vietnam ....

[agond]

If MANPADS are launched not from the shoulder, (as is customary among the military), but remotely, that is, the tubes with missiles are somewhere in the bushes, in the grass, in a snowdrift (they are invisible point-blank, the launch tubes must have a device for transferring them to vertical position, the rocket should launch in a mortar way, so the range and altitude will increase) and the operator sits at the observation post in the cache, under such conditions, the presence or absence of a howitzer on the AC-130 will be purple, By the way, television cameras for near ultraviolet are comparable to the eyes of birds in size and in terms of resolution, that is, they are very small and it will not be easy to find an observation post, and 130 will not have time to cut circles in the sky.

[Zaurbek]

.... and we will get a TOR or Shell ..... and a radar on top yet.

[Sheksnin]

And yet there are doubts about the effectiveness of this apparatus in the conditions of a slightly better equipped army than the zusuls.

[Drugov]

In what range of heights can fire support be provided?

[Bogatyrev]

In general, I don’t understand these gunships - the plane is big, it doesn’t go very high, and it also likes to cut circles around one place. He is not even a target for the ZU-23, but in general for some kind of DShK. Who can it be used against? Against those who don’t know how to shoot accurately at all?

[Zaurbek]

For ZU 23, definitely not .... for 37mm and 57mm maybe ..... their main task is to search for caravans and destroy them. It flies comfortably for a long time and has high firepower and sensors.

[Bogatyrev]

And what if a Stinger or an Arrow easily turns up in the caravan? Yes, and a memory box on a pickup truck too - if it gets into the BC, engine, nose or tanks.
And the risk of losing such a colossus - if it dies, it will immediately cost an expensive plane and a bunch of people.
To search for a caravan, it’s better than a UAV to come up with nothing. Yes, he cannot completely destroy it, but the main thing is to find it.

[Zaurbek]

At that time, there were no arrows .... And the weapons were different in Gunship .... now there are bombs and helpers ... .. and good optics.

[Bogatyrev]

Well, there are Hellfire and Predators, why the gunship all the more.
By the way, the Arrows have already hit Vietnam, and not even at the end, but at the height.

[Zaurbek]

A kind of atavism ... .. they and Missouri fought in Iraq.

[Dkuznecov]

Here's an awesome thing
when there is no air defense. Or climbed 5000 m.
and fly - hit from above. No stinger will get.
What do we have in service, who knows?