Military Review

"Ganshipy"

96



Accumulating and developing the experience of conducting local wars, the command of the US Air Force by the early 60s drew serious attention to the low efficiency of traditional tactics aviation, especially when operating on ground targets in small armed clashes and conducting counterguerrilla operations. Investigations of such combat missions also revealed the complete inconsistency of jet attack aircraft, which were in service, primarily fighter-bombers. For "special operations" required a special aircraft. However, there was no time for its development - the rapid escalation of American participation in the Vietnam conflict required emergency measures.

One of such measures was the concept of “ganship”, developed in 1964 on the basis of initiative research by Bell Aerosystems Company Flexman and Macdonald. Developing ideas that originated back in 20, they proposed an airplane, the tactics of which were very similar to the tactics of the battle of sailing ships of the past, and the similar firing points arrangement in a row along the sides gave the name to the program - Gunship (gun ship).

In August 1964g. At the Eglin AF base (Florida), under the leadership of Captain Terry, a C-131 transport aircraft was equipped. In the cargo doorway, on the left side, a machine-gun container was installed, usually located on the underwing pylons of attack aircraft and helicopters. It housed a 7,62-mm six-barreled machine gun M134 / GAU-2B / AMinigun with a rate of fire of 3000-6000 shot / min and ammunition in 1500 cartridges. A simple collimator scope was mounted in the cockpit, with which the pilot could fire at a target away from the flight path.

Aiming was carried out through the side window of the cabin. So unusual accommodation weapons allowed to effectively use the aircraft for the destruction of area and point targets, and for such specific tasks of the "counterguerrilla war" as patrolling roads, guarding and defending bases and strong points. The pilot put the aircraft into a turn in such a way that he concentrated the fire on the point of the earth around which he circled. As a result, a powerful and prolonged squall of machine-gun fire on a ground target was achieved. Having received official support, Captain Terry with a group of specialists in October 1964 sent to South Vietnam at Bien Hoa airbase, where, together with 1 personnel, Air Commando Squadron will re-equip the well-known C-47 Dakota transport aircraft (in the USSR it was released as Lee -2) for testing in battle. Previously, this machine was used as a mail and transport in Nha Trang. On the port side were installed 3 container SUU-11A / A: two - in the windows, the third - in the doorway doorway. The collimator mark Mark 20 Mod.4 from the A-1 Skyraider attack aircraft was mounted in the cab and installed additional radio communications.



In one of the first combat sorties, AC-47D with its fire disrupted an attempt of night storming by the Viet Cong stronghold of government troops in the Mekong Delta. The rain of tracer bullets against the night sky made an unforgettable impression on both warring parties. In complete delight, the commander of 1-th ACS exclaimed: "Puff, The Magic Dragon!" ("Spew the flame, magic dragon!"). Soon on board the first AC-47D appeared a dragon image and the signature “Puff”. Poetic Vietnamese were strikingly unanimous with the Americans: in the captured Viet Cong documents this aircraft was also called the “Dragon”.



Such a successful debut finally convinced the Americans of the viability and effectiveness of such aircraft. In the spring of 1965, another Dakota was retooled in the “ganship”, and Air International (Miami) received an order for urgent modifications of the C-20 47 to the AC-47D variant. four more former post-cargo planes from Da Nang were re-equipped at Clark Air Base (Philippines). Sub-divisions of the "ganships" carried one of the heaviest losses among American aircraft in Vietnam. This is not surprising: most of the flights of AC-47D were carried out in the dark without any special equipment, which is dangerous in itself in the difficult conditions of the Vietnamese climate and terrain. The majority of the “gunships” were older than their young pilots, who also had a very small raid on airplanes with piston engines. The short range of the weapons made the crews work from heights of no more than 1000 m, which made the aircraft vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire.



AC-47D was commonly used in conjunction with other aircraft: the A-1E and O-2 reconnaissance aircraft, and the C-123 Moonshine lighting aircraft. When patrolling rivers and canals in the Mekong Delta, a multi-purpose OV-10A Bronco often appeared near the “hugs”. Spooky himself often fired B-57 fighters or bombers.

At the beginning of 1966. AC-47D began to attract for flights around the "Ho Chi Minh trails". since the possibilities of the "ganships" could not be better suited to combat the traffic on it. But the rapid loss of six AC-47D from anti-aircraft fire of large-caliber machine guns, 37- and 57-mm guns, which existed in this area in abundance, forced them to abandon their use over the "path". In 1967, the 7 US Air Force in Vietnam had two full squadrons armed with AC-47D. Before 1969, they were able to hold more than 6000 “strategic villages”, strong points and firing positions. But the Americans switched to more advanced versions of the "guandes", and the hopelessly outdated Spooky handed over to the allies. They hit the air forces of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand. The latest AU-47, ended their career in El Salvador, at the beginning of 90's.

The success of the AC-47D led to a sharp increase in interest in the "hugs" and the emergence of many projects of this class of aircraft. Fairchild has taken the C-119G Flying Boxcar twin-engine transport aircraft as a basis. It was made according to the two-beam scheme, had a somewhat larger size than the C-47, and was equipped with much more powerful piston engines for the 3500 hp. The latter allowed him to fly at a higher speed than the C-47 (up to 400 km / h) and take up to 13 tons of payload.

To upgrade the aircraft came from parts of the Air Force reserve. Although the armament of the AC-119G consisted of all the same four machine-gun containers SUU-11, firing through portholes of the left side, its equipment became much more perfect. It was equipped with a night vision surveillance system, a powerful 20 kW spotlight, a fire control computer, EW tools, which contributed to a more efficient use of the aircraft in the dark and reduced the likelihood of erroneous firing at its troops (rather than AC-47D quite often).
The crew was protected by ceramic armor. In general, according to American estimates, the new aircraft was approximately 25% more efficient than AC-47D. The first AC-119G arrived in May 1968 (through 100 days after signing the contract). Since November, the squadron led the fighting from the Nha Trang airbase.



The next series of X-NUMX airplanes AC-26K entered service in the autumn of 119. On them, in contrast to the AC-1969G, except for piston engines, on the pylons under the wing, they installed two turbofan engines using 119 kgf.

This refinement has facilitated operation in hot climates, especially from mountain airfields. Significantly changed the composition of equipment and weapons.

The new "gunship" received a navigation system, a viewing IR station, side-looking radar, search radar. To the four "Miniguns" that fired through portholes of the left side, were added two quick-firing six-barreled M-61 Vulcan guns with 20 mm caliber installed in special embrasures. And if AC-47 and AC-119G airplanes could effectively hit targets from a range of no more than 1000 m, thanks to the presence of guns, AC-119K could operate from a distance of 1400m and heights of 975m at 45 ° heel or 1280 m at 60 heel . This allowed him not to enter the zone of effective destruction by large-caliber machine guns and small arms.

3 November 1969. the first AC-119K entered service, and ten days later he made the first combat mission to support the infantry defending a stronghold near Da Nang. Since the guns M-61 informally called Stinger (sting), then the AC-119K received the same name, adopted by the crew as a radio call sign. The AC-119 variants were used differently. If AC-119G was used for night and day support of troops, defense bases, night target designation, armed reconnaissance and target illumination, the AC-119K was specially developed and used as a “truck hunter” on the “Ho Chi Minh trail”. Hitting the shells of its 20-mm guns disabled most types of used cars. Therefore, some crews of the AC-119K often abandoned ammunition for 7,62-mm machine guns in favor of an additional number of 20-mm projectiles.



By September 1970g. On the AC-119K account, their number was 2206 of destroyed trucks, and the best praise for the AC-119G pilots could be the words of one of the leading aircraft manufacturers: “To hell with F-4, give us a“ ganship ”!”. AC-119. also famous
by being the last aircraft shot down in Vietnam.

Returning from Vietnam to the USA after the brilliant success of the AC-47D Gunship I. program, Captain Terry continued to work on improving the Gunship concept. Since the AC-47D had very limited capabilities, and the Air Force demanded an aircraft with more powerful weapons, high speed, increased flight range and much better equipment, we chose the four-engine transport C-130 Hercules as the base. On the basis of it, the most powerful of the “hutships” was created - the AC-130 Gunship II.

For tests converted one of the first C-130A.

The aircraft received an 4 machine-gun module MXU-470 and four 20-mm M-61 Vulcan cannon in special embrasures on the port side. It was equipped with a night vision surveillance system, side-view radar, fire control radar (the same as the F-104J Starfighter fighter), searchlights with an 20 kW power and on-board fire control computer.

From June to September, 1967 C-130А, which received the name Vulcan Express, was tested over the Eglin airbase. 20 September he arrived in Nha Trang and a week later, made the first sortie. It must be said that the command of the American troops in Vietnam rather lopsidedly looked at the principles of using “ganships”, seeing in them only aircraft supporting the troops and not noticing the increased capabilities of C-130А. But the crew thought otherwise. 9 November 1967. He managed to get permission for a “free hunt” over the “path” in Laos, and he did not miss his chance. With the help of a night vision system, a convoy of 16 truck moving southward was destroyed in 6 minutes.



The new aircraft, called the AC-130A, had the same weapons as the prototype, only the equipment changed: they received a new IR viewing station, a fire control computer and a target designation radar. The experience of the use of AC-130 aircraft resulted in the replacement of two 1969-mm M-20 cannons with semi-automatic Bofors M61A2 guns with 1 mm caliber in 40, which allowed hitting targets when flying with 45 ° from the 4200 to the range at a distance of 6000 from the height of 65 mm at a distance of 5400. and with a roll 7200 ° - from a height of XNUMX m at a distance of XNUMX m.

In addition, the aircraft installed: low-altitude TV-system, side-looking radar, laser range finder-pointer and some other systems. In this form, the aircraft became known as the AC-130A Surprise Package. He practically could not enter the enemy's air defense zone, armed not only with machine guns, but also with small-caliber anti-aircraft guns.

In 1971, the US Air Force received even more advanced AC-130E Pave Specter aircraft based on the C-130E (11 in total). Their weapons and equipment initially corresponded to the AC-130A Pave Pronto: two Minigans, two Volcanoes and two Beauforts. However, during this period, the North Vietnamese applied a large number of tanks (according to American estimates, more than 600 pcs.), and to combat them, the AC-130E had to be re-equipped urgently. Instead of a single 40-mm cannon, it was installed on it connected to an onboard computer, but manually loaded with a 105-mm infantry howitzer from the Second World War (shortened, lightened and on a special carriage).



The first such AC-130E arrived at the Ubon 17 air base in February of 1972. Its main gauge was very rarely used, since there were not so many targets for it. On the other hand, “Volcanoes” and “Bofors” worked effectively, especially on the “path”. So, on the night of February 25 1972, one of the AC-130 destroyed 5 trucks, and 6 damaged.



In March, 1973. the last of the “ganships” appeared - the AC-130Н Pave Specter, featuring more powerful engines and completely new on-board equipment. And with 1972, the Viet Cong began a massive use of Soviet portable Strela-2 air defense systems, making any flight at low altitude unsafe. One AC-130, receiving an 12 on May 1972, hitting a rocket, was able to return to base, but the other two were shot down. To reduce the likelihood of missiles coming with infrared homing heads, many AC-130s were equipped with refrigerators — ejectors that lowered the temperature of the exhaust gases. For jamming radar air defense systems on the AC-130 with 1969, began to install suspension containers EW ALQ-87 (on 4 pieces). But against the "Arrows" these events proved ineffective. The combat activity of the Ganship was significantly reduced, but they were used until the last hours of the war in Southeast Asia.

After Vietnam, the AU-130 aircraft were left without work for a long time, interrupting their idle year in October 1983 during the US invasion of Grenada. The crews of gunships suppressed several batteries of small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery of Grenada, and also provided fire cover for the landing of paratroopers. The next operation with their participation was “Just Cause” - the US invasion of Panama. In this operation, Rio Hato and Paitilla airbases, Torrijos / Tosamen airport and Balboa port, as well as a number of individual military targets, became targets of AC-130. The fighting did not last long — from December 20 1989 to January 7 1990.

The US military called this operation designed specifically for the huts. The almost complete absence of air defense and a very limited conflict area made the AU-130 the kings of the air. For aircraft crews, the war turned into training flights with shooting. In Panama, the crews of the AU-130 worked out their classic tactics: the 2 aircraft went into a turn in such a way that at a certain point in time they were at two opposite points of a circle, while their whole fire converged on the ground in a circle with a diameter of 15 meters, literally destroying everything that got in the way. During the fighting aircraft flew during the daytime.

During the "Storm in the Desert" 4 aircraft AC-130H from the 4 squadron made 50 sorties, the total flight time exceeded the 280 hours. The main goal of the gunships was the destruction of the Scud ballistic missile launchers and the radar early warning of airborne targets, but they did not cope with either. During the operation, it turned out that in desert conditions, in the heat and the air saturated with sand and dust, the infrared systems of the aircraft were absolutely useless. Moreover, one AC-130H while covering ground troops in the battle for Al-Khafi was shot down by an Iraqi air defense missile system, the entire crew of the aircraft was killed. This loss confirmed the well-known truth from the time of Vietnam - in areas saturated with air defense systems, such aircraft have nothing to do.



Aircraft of various modifications of the AU-130 continue to be in service with parts of the Office of Special Operations of the US Air Force. Moreover, as old ones are written off, new ones are ordered on the basis of the modern C-130 variant.

AC-130U “Spectrum” aircraft were developed by Rockwell International under a contract with the US Air Force in 1987. It differs from previous modifications by increased combat capabilities, due to more advanced electronic equipment and weapons. In total, by the beginning of the 1993 of the year, the X-NUMX of the AC-12U aircraft was delivered, which will be replaced in the regular AC-130H. Like the previous modifications, the AC-130U was created by retrofitting the C-130H Hercules military transport aircraft. The AC-130U armament includes a five-barreled 130-mm cannon (25 ammo ammunition, 3000 firing rate / min), 6000-mm cannon (40 shells) and 256-mm (105 shells). All guns are movable, so the pilot does not need to strictly maintain the trajectory of the aircraft to ensure the required accuracy of fire. It is noted that, despite the large mass of the 98-mm cannon itself (compared to the Vnulk 25-mm cannon) and its ammunition, it provides an increased initial velocity of projectiles, thereby increasing the range and accuracy of firing.
The structure of the electronic equipment of the aircraft includes:

- Multifunctional radar AN / APG-70 (a modified version of the radar fighter F-15), working in the modes of mapping areas, detection and tracking of mobile targets, working with the beacon and weather intelligence, as well as used to solve navigation problems. High resolution radar when viewing the earth's surface is achieved by using a synthesized antenna aperture located on the left side of the nose of the aircraft.
- Infrared station front view.
- A television system operating at low levels of coverage.
- Opto-electronic indicator of the pilot with the display of the situation on the background of the windshield.
- Means of electronic warfare, a warning system for an aircraft crew to launch missiles at it, ejectors of anti-radar reflectors and IR traps.
- Inertial navigation system.
- Satellite navigation system equipment NAVSTAR.
It is believed that such a set of aim-navigation and electronic equipment will significantly enhance the combat capabilities of the AC-130U, including when it performs combat missions in adverse weather conditions and at night.

The AC-130U aircraft is equipped with air-to-air refueling systems and built-in controls, as well as removable armor protection, which is installed in preparation for the implementation of particularly dangerous tasks. According to American experts, due to the use of promising high-strength composite materials based on boron and carbon fibers, as well as through the use of Kevlar, the mass of armor can be reduced by about 900 kg (compared to metal armor).

To ensure good performance of crew members in a long flight in a soundproof compartment behind the cockpit there are places for rest.

As the early versions of the AC-130 are written off, new ones are ordered on the basis of the most modern C-130J version with an extended cargo compartment.

The command of special operations of the US Air Force plans to double the number of heavily armed AC-130J aircraft created on the basis of C-130J Super Hercules transporters. According to Jane's, the Air Force initially planned to convert the special MC-130J Commando II into AC-16J 130 special aircraft. Now, the number of AC-130J is planned to be increased to 37 units.

Another armed Hercules-based aircraft is the MC-130W Combat Spear. Four squadrons in service with MS-130 aircraft are used for deep raids into the depths of the enemy’s territory with the aim of delivering or receiving people and goods during special operations. Depending on the task being performed, 30-mm can be installed on it. Bushmaster cannon and Hellfire missiles.



According to Jane's, in total, the Air Force plans to buy the 131 new HC / MC-130 special aircraft: the 37 HC-130J Combat King II, the 57 MC-130J and 37 AC-130J. Currently, contracts have been signed for the construction of the 11 aircraft HC-130J and 20 MC-130J.

The story of the "counterguerrilla huan" would be incomplete without mentioning the smallest aircraft of this class: Fairchild AU-23A and Hello AU-24A. The first was a modification of the well-known single-engine transport aircraft Pilatus Turbo-Porter, commissioned by the Thai government (a total of 17 such machines were built).
The aircraft was armed with a single triple-barreled 20-mm cannon.

"Ganshipy"


Under the wing were hung blocks Nurs, bombs and fuel tanks.



The main weapon of these light machines was a triple-barreled 20-mm cannon.

The second represented exactly the same alteration, carried out on the basis of the aircraft Hello U-10A.



15 such aircraft were transferred to the Cambodian government, intensively flew and participated in the battles.

In addition to the United States, work on armed aircraft of this type are conducted in other countries.
An Italian demo of the MC-27J was shown at the Farnborough air show. It is based on the C-27J Spartan military transporter.



Joint development of the Italian "Alenia Aermacchi" and the American "ATK". ATK is responsible for the design, creation and integration of an artillery unit. She already has experience in installing and integrating such weapons - the company had previously, according to the contract, upgraded two CN235 Italian aircraft for transfer to the Jordanian Air Force. The development is carried out under the program for creating low-cost multi-purpose aircraft carrying fast-mounted weapons made in containers. The main caliber of such weapons - 30mm. The ATK GAU-23 automatic cannon, which is a variation of the ATK Mk 44 Bushmaster, was demonstrated at the air show.



The armament complex is installed on the cargo pallet. This system is mounted in the cargo compartment. The fire is carried out of the cargo door on the left side. The total time of installation / withdrawal of the rapid-fire system does not exceed 4 hours. From the rest of the equipment it is known about the presence on board of a twenty-four-hour electro-optical search / sighting equipment, self-defense complex. In the short term, the installation of guided weapons on wing hangers.

In China, was built "Ganship", based on the Chinese version of the An-12.



Unfortunately, neither the caliber nor the characteristics of weapons were not disclosed.

Probably, the aircraft of this type, could be in demand and as part of the domestic Air Force. Especially considering the "anti-terrorist" operation in the Caucasus, which has not stopped for many years. Today, for the air strikes on militants, they mainly use Mi-8, Mi-24 helicopters and Su-25 attack aircraft, which use mostly unguided weapons.
But neither of them is capable of keeping watch in the air for a long time and is not equipped with modern search engines. Allowing, to operate effectively in a mountainous wooded area and in the dark. The most optimal, it seems to me a platform based on the An-72.



Especially since on the basis of this aircraft there is already a variant of An-72P, created for the border troops and carrying weapons.
The main weapon could be a low-pulse 100-mm gun 2А70 BMP-3, with an automatic loader and the ability to fire controlled ammunition. Small caliber, automatic 30-mm gun, with an adjustable rate of fire 2А72.

Based on:
http://popgun.ru/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=22621
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/ac47.html
http://pentagonus.ru/publ/13-1-0-659
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/an72p.html
Author:
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igordok
    igordok 21 May 2013 07: 15 New
    +2
    Why weapons are placed on the left board?
    1. laurbalaur
      laurbalaur 21 May 2013 10: 46 New
      +8
      Most likely, due to the fact that the armament of the "ganships" was initially located in the cargo door. And in later variations, a tribute to tradition. Although pilots should correct me, maybe technically, it’s more convenient to turn a turn with the left side (with a disturbed centering)
    2. viktorR
      viktorR 21 May 2013 12: 09 New
      +7
      Because the commander of the ship is firing and aiming, and a calimator is installed for him.
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 21 May 2013 16: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: viktorR
        Because the commander of the ship is firing and aiming


        yes, because the commander in most cases sits on the left
      2. OTAKE
        OTAKE 7 June 2013 17: 02 New
        +5
        The device is very interesting since Call Of Duty Modern Warfare appreciated)
    3. anton107798
      anton107798 21 May 2013 20: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      I think the platform is based on the An-72



      Nice plane. When I worked at an aircraft factory in Kharkov, these ANs of Russian border guards came to us for in-line repairs, the six-barreled guns were in the influx of the chassis, I think the main gun, under the wing, like in the photo, missile launchers hung, pylons for bombs were also installed. Of course there were no bombs. since they flew to the service. They were interested in how the Russian border guards like our plane, they say good, comfortable and not whimsical. Basically, as we were told, being used in areas of the border passing through water (sea, ocean), it turns out to be very convenient to strike Chinese poachers with our AN-72 (74) since the plane can almost hang like a helicopter in the air (I personally saw this trick) with minimal movement in front.
  2. Canep
    Canep 21 May 2013 08: 17 New
    13
    Only a country that is not afraid of air defense at all can set up an artillery gun on a transport aircraft, and is going to fight with an obviously weak, and in the air, not combat-ready enemy. These are of course our sworn partners.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 21 May 2013 10: 44 New
      13
      Quote: Canep
      Mount an artillery gun on a transport plane

      Why is there no common sense right away?
      To support special operations, a more effective tool than 1-2 armored personnel carriers, although awesomely expensive. Five of these "pepelats" our Air Force must have. Now it is especially necessary to have them together with target designation and reconnaissance aircraft. "Bearded" in the mountains to drive the very thing.
      1. Canep
        Canep 21 May 2013 11: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Papakiko
        Why is there no common sense right away?

        Did I say that? It makes sense if the opponent had just tears from a palm tree and traded for bananas AK-47 from 1955 onwards. Well, we can drive our bearded opponents with a similar line-up, but this crap is worth a lot of money, and it is unreasonable to carry out design work for the sake of 5 cars. If you download all the design and technological documentation for the AN-12 in paper form to this AN-12, then it simply will not take off. This is the amount of work.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 21 May 2013 11: 32 New
          +4
          Quote: Canep
          If you download all the design and technological documentation for the AN-12 in paper form to this AN-12, then it simply will not take off. This is the amount of work.

          Well, overestimate, underestimate?
          It seems that even in terms of carrying capacity, the vokurat will be enough to install one 2A38M with ammunition.
          You never know what you can do till you try.
          The wolf is afraid not to go to the forest.
          There is also the AN-24 and AN-26, which need to be modernized and extended.
          1. Canep
            Canep 21 May 2013 11: 45 New
            +4
            Quote: Papakiko
            Well, overestimate, underestimate?

            The designer himself is talking about this. Really, take one bolt, you get one drawing. And the technologists will break up its manufacture into 6 (lengths of the workpiece, trimming, grooving, threading, heat treatment, control) of operations, and each will draw up an operational map (according to the fox) with a sketch (according to the sheet). And that on one bolt 13 sheets of documentation. The time for the entire development will take 1-1.5 days. with an engineer salary of 20000 r, one bolt will cost 1000 to 1500 r. Estimate all this for the plane. Here is such arithmetic.
            Put on the MI-8 in the place of the machine gun (or in place) AGS-17 and drive the basmachi without any R&D.
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 21 May 2013 14: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Canep
              Here is such arithmetic.

              Take an average of 2,5 million parts, multiply by 6 and, as a result, we have 5 tons. paper, understand correctly?
              The lifting capacity of the AN-12 is up to 20 tons. AN-24 and AN-26 to 6,5.
              2A38M-weighs roughly 1 tn. + bq. You can still put it. wink
              Quote: Canep
              Put on the MI-8 in the place of the machine gun (or in place) AGS-17 and drive the basmachi without any R&D

              The helicopter is limited by height and speed, the latter is not particularly ice.
              The range and accuracy of the AGS leaves much to be desired.
              Taki "pepelats" all the same goes.
              1. Canep
                Canep 21 May 2013 15: 01 New
                0
                Quote: Papakiko
                we have 5 tons. paper

                I didn’t count, but coming out will take off! laughing But with difficulty.
                Quote: Papakiko
                Range and accuracy of the AGS leaves much to be desired

                "But cheap and practical." wink
                And without jokes, in order for such a machine to appear, you need a customer who really needs it. The command of the Air Force of the Russian Federation is unlikely to order such a machine, they already ordered so much that the industry can not cope. And the military unit of the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus has officially been completed long ago. The command of the special operations forces has only been created; they do not yet have any infrastructure. So while it is not needed, but in the future ??? hi
        2. Bad_santa
          Bad_santa 8 June 2018 12: 12 New
          0
          Quote: Canep
          Quote: Papakiko
          Why is there no common sense right away?

          Did I say that? It makes sense if the opponent had just tears from a palm tree and traded for bananas AK-47 from 1955 onwards. Well, we can drive our bearded opponents with a similar line-up, but this crap is worth a lot of money, and it is unreasonable to carry out design work for the sake of 5 cars. If you download all the design and technological documentation for the AN-12 in paper form to this AN-12, then it simply will not take off. This is the amount of work.


          Our military designers from WWII would cry reading such comments what During the night they could develop self-propelled guns or entire units of equipment and what means they did not think about
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 21 May 2013 11: 26 New
        0
        It's pointless. Very big money for efficiency in doubt and very narrow specialization
        1. bazilio
          bazilio 21 May 2013 16: 22 New
          +2
          Fortunately, Serdyukov no longer steers into the Moscow Region, otherwise he would have read comments and decided to purchase several ganships.

          In general, first you need to clearly analyze the existing and possible scenarios for the use of ganship. if there is a real need, then you can take it into service, if there is no need, then no
      3. smprofi
        smprofi 21 May 2013 16: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Papakiko
        5 of these "pepelats" our Air Force must have

        What for?

        Mi-24VP - modification with a turret gun mount NPPU-23 instead of a YAKB-12,7 machine gun with a GSh-23L double-barreled gun. Mi-24VP (“product 258”) was produced from 1989 to February 1992. General production - 179 vehicles. The Mi-24VP artillery salvo with 213P-A and UPK-23-250 containers is second only to the gunship AC-130U Specter.
      4. MG42
        MG42 21 May 2013 22: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Papakiko
        To support special operations, a more effective tool than 1-2 armored personnel carriers

        If the enemy’s air defense is suppressed, then his firepower will be more abrupt, and the view from above >>> it’s very difficult for the enemy to hide from him, chop him into a cabbage.
      5. NEOZ
        NEOZ 13 February 2018 12: 49 New
        0
        why didn’t the helicopter please you?
    2. Borodko
      Borodko 21 May 2013 16: 44 New
      +1
      Keep it simple
  3. fzr1000
    fzr1000 21 May 2013 08: 18 New
    +4
    Well, if only in the Caucasus or even against any Taliban. And so ... in my opinion a "toy".
  4. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 21 May 2013 08: 21 New
    11
    The idea of ​​gunships is reminiscent of the ideology of banana wars, when any weapon is pushed onto any more or less suitable car, from mortars and machine guns to recoilless guns. For the Indians, it’s going to go against a normal army 1000– 1500 m from the “piggy” position is a training target.
  5. pinecone
    pinecone 21 May 2013 08: 23 New
    +3
    Outrageous digital with the number of trucks shot from the air. The absence of boundaries of credibility in reports of enemy losses, very characteristic of Americans.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 21 May 2013 08: 33 New
      +4
      This applies to everyone; according to the reports of all Chechen fighters, our pilots must have been destroyed three times. Especially touched were reports of the destruction of another "base of fighters", as if it were not a couple of dugouts, but a reinforced concrete bunker with a communications system and air defense systems ... At the same time, no one had recorded the results of the bombing, so as not to upset the pilots themselves.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 21 May 2013 08: 35 New
        -2
        Do you have a "database" of data on the militant databases?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 May 2013 07: 57 New
          +1
          Saw. I can 100% say that it is impossible to detect them from the air without using a thermal imager, and then if the stove is heated ...
    2. Bongo
      21 May 2013 10: 47 New
      +4
      This seems to be the total number of raked targets. Ie. it is understood that everything according to which they opened fire was destroyed.
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 21 May 2013 08: 25 New
    0
    Quote: igordok
    Why weapons are placed on the left board?

    The plane lays a left turn, and makes circles over the target. The left side leans down and shoots all the weapons.
  7. Nayhas
    Nayhas 21 May 2013 08: 28 New
    +6
    Such vehicles would be very useful in the Caucasus, especially at night, when the militants could move freely accumulating in the right areas for sabotage and ambush events. The bombers and attack aircraft were of little use. they worked on the squares, but was there anyone in this square at the time of the arrival they did not care ...
    1. vitas
      vitas 21 May 2013 09: 08 New
      +2
      And then what will alpha do smile Of course, it would be possible to mold 2 of them and send them to the Caucasus, but then, when they will pass all the bad chocks, what will they do.
  8. Baton
    Baton 21 May 2013 08: 46 New
    +8
    And the key point of this article: "This loss confirmed the truth known since Vietnam - in areas saturated with air defense systems, such aircraft have nothing to do."
  9. UzRus
    UzRus 21 May 2013 08: 50 New
    +2
    In the first Transformers, the film was shot, I didn’t yet understand what kind of aircraft it was.
    1. bazilio
      bazilio 21 May 2013 16: 27 New
      +1
      Another ganship was in the CoD 4 toy, the mission was fun, to shoot bandits
      1. LINX
        LINX 21 May 2013 23: 45 New
        0
        In Battlefield 3: Armored Kill is with a gun and a heavy machine gun.

        1. Skuto
          Skuto 22 May 2013 01: 07 New
          -3
          shot him down there, at the expense of times))))
          1. Skuto
            Skuto 25 May 2013 22: 30 New
            0
            spoke about the game)))
  10. Dima190579
    Dima190579 21 May 2013 08: 53 New
    +3
    When the war wakes with a high-tech adversary. More often they fight with terrorists. And so if you need to shoot from the air with a large-caliber gun. It seems to me that our air forces also need such machines.
  11. Strashila
    Strashila 21 May 2013 09: 27 New
    +5
    Thing ... especially for the Caucasus region, for patrolling the Asian borders. In principle, even on the basis of the AN-2 can be done.
    1. avt
      avt 21 May 2013 09: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      Thing ... especially for the Caucasus region, for patrolling the Asian borders. In principle, even on the basis of the AN-2 can be done.

      And what is that thing actually? It’s only good to drive partly armed guerrillas, at the slightest hint of air defense means a flying coffin, especially in the mountains. And nowadays to drive a transport carrier for patrols, and it’s quite heavy, it’s only to destroy its own fuel. Natural wrecking. Here amers for this topic have long harnessed drones. And the article is good. +
      1. Bongo
        21 May 2013 10: 56 New
        +6
        A C-130 or An-72 transporter is capable of patrolling in a combat area for quite a long time, using appropriate equipment, to detect and strike at "illegal armed formations" at night. Their specific fuel consumption is much lower than that of fighters. According to the armament and weapon range, drones with "ganships" cannot be compared.
        1. avt
          avt 21 May 2013 11: 12 New
          -4
          Quote: Bongo
          Their specific fuel consumption is much less than that of fighters.

          Well, today Mistral has been compared with a submarine.
          Quote: Bongo
          A transporter of the S-130 or An-72 type is capable of patrolling in the combat area for quite a long time, using the appropriate equipment to detect and strike at "illegal armed groups" in

          As already said - amers have long transferred patrol functions to UAVs
          Quote: Bongo
          According to the nomenclature of weapons and ammunition, drones cannot be compared with "ganships".
          And they completely compensate for the consumption of ammunition with guidance accuracy, you may not be aware, but the Israelis, even instead of Apaches, launch UAVs for strike actions and do not suffer from garbage in the form of AC-130. Which amers themselves generally use as a means of fire support for special operations in virtually no conditions Air defense.
          1. Bongo
            21 May 2013 11: 17 New
            +5
            What does the submarine have to do with, did the speech go on in this article?
            It is for special operations that such machines are designed and in the Caucasus would not be superfluous at all.
            Have you tried to compare the cost of the Hellfire and the 105-mm howitzer shot?
            1. avt
              avt 21 May 2013 11: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Bongo
              It is for special operations that such machines are designed and in the Caucasus would not be superfluous at all.
              Have you tried to compare the cost of the Hellfire and the 105-mm howitzer shot?

              You can provide statistics on the use of AC-130 in Afghanistan? Given the fact that there is generally no air defense. Well, how are they patrolling there.
              1. Bongo
                21 May 2013 11: 36 New
                +5
                Can you give statistics of combat use of UAVs? In my recent article about the combat use of UAVs, I did not find a lot of data on this topic. There are of course loud facts about the destruction of the leaders of Al Qaeda, but you will not find the facts about the total number of sorties, the nomenclature and the amount of ammunition used anywhere.
                In my opinion there is no contradiction between the UAV and the "ganships". The first for reconnaissance and pinpoint strikes, the second for fire support and isolation of the battlefield.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 May 2013 11: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              Have you tried to compare the cost of the Hellfire and the 105-mm howitzer shot?

              But the ATGM is more accurate. And it can be applied to targets located in close proximity to their troops and civilians. And that is precisely why Ganshipov is much smaller than strike drones.
              1. Bongo
                21 May 2013 11: 42 New
                +6
                At a distance of a couple of kilometers, not much more accurate, on the "guilds" there are guns and smaller caliber. In addition, the latest versions provide for the use of ATGM. Resource "ganship" a lot more than the UAV, it is not surprising that they do not need a large park. And in general, I do not see any contradiction in their parallel existence.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 21 May 2013 12: 00 New
                  +1
                  ATGM more precisely at any distance.

                  By resource: the latest American Reaper costs $ 30 million. AC-130 - $ 190 million.
                  The "Reaper" on its 1.3 tons of fuel has autonomy from 15 to 28 hours. The numbers for how much the AC-130 will gobble up its 20.5 tons, I did not find. But certainly not in 28 hours.
                  1. Bongo
                    21 May 2013 12: 13 New
                    +5
                    In the zone of continuous defeat of 20-25 meters, the difference in KVO 3-5 meters does not matter.
                    I did not understand, what does the cost, specific fuel consumption and operational life of the aircraft? In addition, for successful use of UAVs in the conflict zone, a developed ground infrastructure is required.
                    And with this big problems in Afghanistan. from the Pakistani Shamsi, where the UAVs were based, after a series of incidents, the Americans were kicked out.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 21 May 2013 12: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo
                      In the zone of continuous defeat of 20-25 meters, the difference in KVO 3-5 meters does not matter.

                      Not for infantry, for which the safe removal line is at least 500 m

                      Quote: Bongo
                      I did not understand what the cost, specific fuel consumption and operational life of the aircraft have to do with it?

                      You are trying to prove that Ganship is cheaper than UAVs. And it is not

                      Quote: Bongo
                      In addition, for the successful use of UAVs in the conflict zone, a developed ground-based infrastructure is required.

                      But for Ganship, no? Can take off from any forest clearing? For him, also an airfield is required. And the tanker plane, whose flights are also not worth a penny.
                      1. Bongo
                        21 May 2013 12: 30 New
                        +5
                        You turned about 500 meters, 122-mm-50 meters from the front edge of your troops covered in trenches while conducting barrage, 200-meters from your troops in the offensive.
                        I’m talking not only about the price, but about the resource + price of the aircraft, if we compare the resource in hours and the price of AC-130 and the resource and price with ground equipment, say “Predateur”, it is not known in whose favor to take shape.
                        The range of the "ganship" is much larger than that of the drone drone, it can be based outside the combat zone. In addition, there is no risk of losing control over it.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 21 May 2013 12: 45 New
                        -4
                        Quote: Bongo
                        122-mm-50 meters from the front edge of their troops sheltered in trenches during firing, 200-meters from their troops on the offensive.

                        Yeah, keep your pocket wider. 200 m is for tanks. And about 50 m - pure fantasy.

                        Quote: Bongo
                        The range of the "ganship" is much larger than that of the drone drone, it can be based outside the combat zone. In addition, there is no risk of losing control over it.

                        He is the same. And at the same time, the MQ-9 Reaper Block-5 has an autonomy of 37 hours. Ganship’s crew will not stand so much
                        Well, advanced electronic warfare equipment is an order of magnitude more expensive than MANPADS, with which Ganships are very easy to bring down.
                      3. Bongo
                        21 May 2013 12: 58 New
                        +5
                        I know my own pocket laughing Radius defeat manpower 122-mm. -30 meters. If your troops are covered, why is it fantastic?
                        And often the MQ-9 Reaper Block-5 really flew 37 hours? With such autonomy, the control points are still in the vicinity of the combat zone.
                        Something I did not hear, that after the 75 of the year, "ganships" MANPADS poured.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 21 May 2013 13: 14 New
                        -4
                        Quote: Bongo
                        radis of defeat of manpower of 122 mm.-30 meters.

                        Of course. If you do not take into account fragments. Not take into account the technical dispersion of shells and median errors in the preparation of data for firing.
                        And do not take into account shell-shocked, as affected. Let the blood flow from the ears, the fighter pukes and periodically loses consciousness, because he is alive, right?

                        Quote: Bongo
                        And often did the MQ-9 Reaper Block-5 really fly at 37 o'clock?

                        And often, "Ganship"?

                        Quote: Bongo
                        Something I did not hear, that after the 75 of the year, "ganships" MANPADS poured.

                        This is because the abreks did not yet have MANPADS capable of working at night.
                      5. Bongo
                        21 May 2013 15: 53 New
                        +5
                        The maximum distance in 50 meters was taken by me not from the "ceiling", it is in the combat instructions. The normal commander of the howitzer battery D-30 is quite capable of ensuring such accuracy. Moreover, in actual combat this has been repeatedly confirmed. Of course, in this case there is a risk for its own, but this does not outweigh the threat of a breakthrough and the complete destruction of the personnel.
                        No UAV can be compared with the AU-130 on the capabilities of the equipment and arsenal.
                        And what "ganships" only used at night?
  • Bongo
    21 May 2013 10: 50 New
    +5
    An-2 was used in a number of conflicts as “Ganship”, the Vietnamese were not without success chasing them amerekanskie boats across the Mekong.
  • stolbovsn
    stolbovsn 21 May 2013 09: 47 New
    +2
    Great idea.
    The main difference is that when attacking a target, the plane goes not over the target, but at a distance parallel to it.
    This increases the security of the aircraft.
    This effect is also useful when installing similar weapons and in helicopters.
    1. avt
      avt 21 May 2013 10: 44 New
      0
      Quote: stolbovsn
      Great idea.
      The main difference is that when attacking a target, the plane goes not over the target, but at a distance parallel to it.
      This increases the security of the aircraft.

      Yeah, but the target moves on the ground at the speed of the plane parallel to its flight. laughing In general, thanks to Lobachevsky, all planes fly parallel to targets on the ground, if they do not dive and are not bombed from cabrio. laughing
    2. Bongo
      21 May 2013 10: 57 New
      +6
      No one has thought of installing an 105-mm howitzer on a helicopter laughing
  • USNik
    USNik 21 May 2013 10: 27 New
    +6
    Useful aircraft, if used to control the terrain, after destroying enemy air defense assets, and not to attack the white house, as shown in the movie Olympus Fall laughing
    1. Canep
      Canep 21 May 2013 15: 10 New
      +2
      Damn, I thought the real photo forward. Broke off.
  • Simple
    Simple 21 May 2013 11: 14 New
    +7
    Good day to all.

    A selection of photos on AC-130:

    http://thebrigade.thechive.com/?s=AC-130



    It’s interesting to read here (though in English):
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/harvest-hawk-aims-to-arm-usmcs-kc-130j-aeria
    l-tankers-05409 /


    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 11: 23 New
      +6
      Great photos, especially girls in swimsuits like laughing
      In addition to AC-130, MC-130 is also shown.
      1. Simple
        Simple 21 May 2013 12: 05 New
        +5
        Thanks for the article, it was interesting to read.

        By the way, it flashed on the video that on the “Gunship” based on the C-130 they were going to replenish the stock of weapons with guided missiles.

        And another video:

        1. Bongo
          21 May 2013 12: 14 New
          +5
          The latest versions of MC-130 use them.
          After watching the video I remembered the toy "Modern Warfire", very impressive.wink
          1. Simple
            Simple 21 May 2013 14: 54 New
            +3
            "Having watched the video, I remembered the Moder Warfire toy, it’s very impressive."

            About sensitivity:



            http://youtubebypass.com/?v=1H8AL7-KtfU laughing
            1. Bongo
              21 May 2013 15: 54 New
              +6
              Damn now think again where and when laughing
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 21 May 2013 11: 15 New
    +4
    Quote: USNik
    Useful aircraft, if used to control the terrain, after destroying enemy air defense assets, and not to attack the white house, as shown in the movie Olympus Fall laughing

    But in this film "Ganship" shot down two "Reptors"
  • FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 21 May 2013 12: 07 New
    -5
    An-72 armed with a gun with a range of 1000 - 1500 meters (and even 2500) in the mountains of the Caucasus will be an easy target. It’s like it’s intended to drive poachers, but against a slightly prepared enemy, it seems to me that he will not last long.
    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 12: 33 New
      +7
      The last lost AC-130 was shot down in Iraq in the 1991 medium-range air defense system. In the Caucasus, the Chechens are there?
      1. FunkschNNX
        FunkschNNX 24 May 2013 12: 44 New
        -4
        I don’t know what they have and what don’t, but even portable air defense systems are capable of reaching targets at altitudes of about 5000 meters, and possibly even higher in mountains. So they will get it as two fingers on the asphalt.
        1. Bongo
          25 May 2013 06: 47 New
          +4
          Can you please tell us what kind of MANPADS with such a height?
  • Metlik
    Metlik 21 May 2013 12: 20 New
    +2
    The advantages of the combat use of large aircraft:
    The existence of a reserve of civilian and transport aircraft suitable for conversion into military ones.
    Large volume allows you to place large equipment.
    Long patrols are well suited for reconnaissance.
    There are reserves to increase survivability due to carrying capacity.

    Cons:
    Vulnerability to air defense.
    Too much cost.

    Probably the best option is to use large aircraft as high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft in areas with depressed air defense, if the number of main combat aircraft is not enough.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 21 May 2013 12: 52 New
    +1
    An interesting gun of this caliber on an airplane.
    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 13: 03 New
      +4
      On the latest versions of AC-130: 105-mm, 40-mm, 25-mm. The article has it.
  • igor-75
    igor-75 21 May 2013 13: 04 New
    +1
    Sorry - not the anti-aircraft gunner. But how difficult is it to bring him down, for example, with a "shell"?
    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 13: 08 New
      +5
      It is not difficult, but nobody will use such machines where there is a developed air defense system. Their task is to fight with all sorts of insurgents who do not have heavy weapons.
      1. Onotollah
        Onotollah 21 May 2013 15: 52 New
        0
        I am wildly sorry, but Igla and Strela MANPADS have a ceiling of up to 3.5 km and a range of up to 6 km. It seems to be enough to bring down ganships without really endangering oneself.
        If the Chechens had tanks during one company, then it’s probably not about the MANPADS, no?
        Well, in general, the same “stinger” is not such a complicated thing that some freedom fighter could not cope with it.
        In this regard, I say that I am interested in the opinion of professionals: if a ganship hits a fighter with MANPADS of the "Igla" type, then who will collect whom?
        1. Bongo
          21 May 2013 16: 21 New
          +6
          The thermal visibility of the AC-130 turboprop engine is relatively small, and it may not capture it at the terminal distance of the GOS of the rocket. Detecting the "ganship" at night is visually almost impossible. There are no MANPADS in Chechnya, at least they have not been used in helicopters for a long time, and this is a much easier target.
          And the use of MANPADS itself is very different from what is shown in the films. This is not the easiest weapon to use.
          The latest versions of the AC-130 are equipped with very strong countermeasures.
          The extreme case of shooting down a “ganship” using MANPADS was in 1975.
          1. smprofi
            smprofi 21 May 2013 16: 48 New
            +5
            Quote: Bongo
            The latest versions of the AC-130 are equipped with very strong countermeasures.

            at exactly

  • patrianostra
    patrianostra 21 May 2013 13: 15 New
    0
    Our answer is quite realistic to make on the basis of IL-76 and its modifications. As for the armament, there are two 30mm AK-630 guns and as the main 125mm type of tank gun with an automatic loader for it, and for a 30mm bunker. Reconnaissance and target designation systems are available at least from the same Su-25 and its modifications. The capacity of the sludge is enough for the eyes. Equipment for refueling in the air, electronic warfare systems. hi
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 21 May 2013 13: 59 New
      +3
      And who needs this answer and why? Russia seems not going to fight with the Vietnamese. Yes, and with Hispanics too
  • Simple
    Simple 21 May 2013 13: 39 New
    +5
    Assembling MS 130J at the site of the former production line
    F-22 (Marietta, GA):
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 21 May 2013 13: 43 New
    +2
    Gunship, like many seemingly strange "hybrids", is an example of a completely successful approach by the staff to the disposal of everything that is at hand for solving urgent tasks. One of these tasks, and quite urgent, was the task of fighting the partisans hiding in the jungle. It is very difficult to ensure the detection of people, their localization, and aimed fire at them from the air in such conditions, so they made a bet on ensuring a high density of fire in areas of the jungle, limited in area, where partisans were recorded or suspected. If anyone remembers, then in order to detect and localize such targets, the Americans used a whole set of sensors, including seismic ones. Upon receipt of the signal from the sensors, the corresponding data processing systems approximately determined the class of the target (s), direction of movement, etc., and transmitted the target designation data to the Air Force command in those areas. Well, they already decided what and how to apply against these goals, including setting the task of using the Hercules studded with guns, heavy machine guns and grenade launchers, provided, of course, that strong air defense in the target area is not expected. If the presence of anti-aircraft defense was recorded, then attack aircraft went before the Hercules and ironed anti-aircraft positions. Naturally, when meeting with a more worthy adversary, the Americans were not going to take risks with their cannon Hercules.
    By the way, the beautiful fireworks shown in one of the pictures of the article, where Hercules shoots heat traps from the Stingers, does not save much. Therefore, in the same Afghanistan, the Americans did not scatter their Ganships very much, knowing that the Taliban had more than enough of these Stingers. The Talibans themselves supplied them And shoot from cannons from great heights where the Stingers can’t reach only the shells in vain. They, shells, of course fly to the ground from any height, but that's where the big question is
    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 16: 01 New
      +5
      The Taliban have no Stingers, at least in working condition. These MANPADS were shipped to Afghanistan during the presence of a "limited contingent" there. With the withdrawal of Soviet troops, supplies ceased. Battery life is about 2 years. Rather, there you can meet the Soviet "Needles" or "Arrows", there are much more of them on the armament market.
      Yes, I was very interested, tell me what grenade launchers and heavy machine guns are installed on the AC-130?
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 21 May 2013 18: 01 New
        -4
        Is this what the Taliban told you about the Stingers? And what a problem for them to buy new batteries for the Stingers and the Stingers themselves entirely from the same Pakistan and other Taliban-supporting countries. Moreover, the Americans themselves supply the Taliban with grandmothers. Through the same Karzai and others like him. Yes, and directly the Americans are already flirting with the Taliban realizing that they will be the only real force in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the next limited contingent, the truth is already under a star-striped, etc. flags.

        About grenade launchers and machine guns. Amers put on their ganships and put everything that can shoot and set their mouths. Those. they have a certain basic configuration of sensors and shooters, which is difficult or unprofitable to change on the go for many technical and economic reasons and all sorts of add-ons to this configuration that are advisable to use in a specific combat mission. C130 has enough space and capacity for such variations. By the way, ensuring the flexibility and modularity of weapons of the same type of aircraft has long been one of the "chips" of the US Air Force. And this trend was especially developed just during the Vietnam War, when, with the advent of Soviet air defense systems in Vietnam, the Americans had to urgently come up with a variety of container suspensions with electronic warfare equipment and attach these containers to airplanes to reduce their losses from air defense systems. I do not know how losses are, but the average consumption of missiles for a downed aircraft then increased from 2x to 8mi. those. the result of "flexibility" was evident
        1. avt
          avt 21 May 2013 20: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: gregor6549
          And this trend was especially developed just during the Vietnam War, when, with the advent of Soviet air defense systems in Vietnam, the Americans had to urgently come up with a variety of container suspensions with electronic warfare equipment and attach these containers to airplanes to reduce their losses from air defense systems. I do not know how losses are, but the average consumption of missiles for a downed aircraft then increased from 2x to 8mi. those. the result of "flexibility" was evident

          I’ll clarify that they quickly developed effective tactics for working on air defense systems. They worked with several groups, including specialized electronic warfare aircraft and anti-aircraft air defense systems. Under the latter, they developed weapons under the Wild Weasel program, forgot how to spell correctly laughing but, as one lieutenant colonel, who was an adviser there, told us, they spoiled a lot of blood after these innovations. Affected by the small number of delivered air defense systems, not commensurate with the amount of aircraft used by the Americans.
        2. Bongo
          22 May 2013 13: 47 New
          +5
          Regarding weapons (about the mythical rocket launchers and machine guns on the AU-130) please read the article carefully. Although I may be in the preparation of this publication that distorted, correct if something lied?
          And if you do not mind, remind me when was the last case of Stinger MANPADS use in Afghanistan?
    2. Borodko
      Borodko 21 May 2013 16: 46 New
      0
      Keep it simple
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 21 May 2013 18: 03 New
        0
        What is it like? Or where?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Simple
    Simple 21 May 2013 13: 49 New
    +1
    Links to photos (different):
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/favorites/with/7630157104/#photo_76301



    57104


    List:

    5670 09- C-130J-30
    5670 09- C-130J-30
    5671 08- C-130J-30
    5671 09- C-130J-30
    5672 08- C-130J-30
    5672 09- C-130J-30
    5673 08- C-130J-30
    5673 09- C-130J-30
    5674 08- C-130J-30
    5674 09- C-130J-30
    5675 08- C-130J-30
    5675 09- C-130J-30
    5676 168071 KC-130J
    5676 168071 KC-130J
    5677 168072 KC-130J
    5677 168072 KC-130J
    5678 08- C-130J-30
    5679 08- C-130J-30
    5680 08-6201 MC-130J
    5681 08-6202 MC-130J
    5682 08-6203 MC-130J
    5683 09- C-130J-30
    5684 09- C-130J-30
    5685 09- C-130J-30
    5686 09- C-130J-30
    5687 130614 C-130J-30
    5688 130615 C-130J-30
    5689 130616 C-130J-30
    5690 130617 C-130J-30
    5691 09- C-130J-30
    5692 09- C-130J-30
    5693 09- C-130J-30
    5694 08-6204 MC-130J
    5695 08-6205 MC-130J
    5696 08-6206 MC-130J

    First flight dates that I have:

    09-6207 MC130J 20 Apr
    09-6208 MC130J 30 Apr
    09-6209 MC130J 11 May
    09-6210 MC130J 23 May

    The first MC-130J Commando II to be pre-upgraded to the AC-130J Gunship version:

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/july/120723ae_new-ac-1
    30-in-production.html
  • tol
    tol 21 May 2013 14: 05 New
    0
    Interestingly, the versions are made on turboprop variants, on the basis of the same AN ​​12 it is quite, however, optoelectronics are not perfect here, but like the plane itself it cannot be replaced to support groups, etc. compared to helicopters (here both speed and weapons), in general expensive project
  • MG42
    MG42 21 May 2013 14: 11 New
    +2
    I liked the video, the eccentric <jamming fish>, ammo is not sorry
  • M. Peter
    M. Peter 21 May 2013 14: 56 New
    +2
    A small video clip with ganship. smile
  • gych
    gych 21 May 2013 16: 20 New
    +4
    Quote: patrianostra
    Our answer is quite realistic to make on the basis of IL-76 and its modifications. As for the armament, there are two 30mm AK-630 guns and as the main 125mm type of tank gun with an automatic loader for it, and for a 30mm bunker. Reconnaissance and target designation systems are available at least from the same Su-25 and its modifications. The capacity of the sludge is enough for the eyes. Equipment for refueling in the air, electronic warfare systems. hi
    Do you understand what you wrote? Do you even imagine that you will be with the plane even after one salvo?
    1. Bongo
      21 May 2013 16: 29 New
      +5
      Of course, the muzzle energy of 105-mm howitzers and 125-mm tank guns differ significantly. Yes, and the choice of the IL-76 platform seems to me unsuccessful, about the same soma, that if only in the USA they made a gunship based on C-141.
  • smprofi
    smprofi 21 May 2013 16: 44 New
    +3
    Developing ideas that originated in the 20s




    Well, in general, yes, in 1927, the first US lieutenant Fred Nelson fixedly mounted a machine gun on a DH.4 biplane at a 90 ° angle to the longitudinal axis and performed several successful firing, but the command of the Aviation Corps showed no interest in the experiment.
    only between this "event" and the "classic" gunship did Major Paul Gan exist (Paul Irvin "Pappy" Gunn, 1899–1957).



    In 1943, US Air Force Major Paul Gunn also experimented with weapons that shot sideways. He almost arbitrarily re-equipped several A-20 attack aircraft, installing four rifle machine guns along the side. The improvement turned out to be very successful and proved itself well in operations against the ships of the Japanese merchant fleet that were poorly protected by air defense systems. A little later, the inventive major took up the already heavy B-25 bombers. On them, he installed eleven airborne machine guns.



    These aircraft achieved even greater success: in March 1943 they defeated a whole Japanese convoy of twelve transport and ten warships. Thanks to this, the major handicrafts of the major were finally paid attention to, and the shock versions of the bombers (received the B-25G / H / J and A-26B indices, respectively) went into series.

    At the same time, Lieutenant Colonel MacDonald put forward the idea of ​​arming the aircraft with heavy machine guns and bazookas firing sideways, and he also offered a ready-made methodology for the combat use of such aircraft - they had to circle around a target located at the top of the inverted cone. The base of the cone would serve as the plane of the turn. Guidance on the target was carried out by changing the angle of heel: machine gun trunks were located parallel to the generatrix of the cone. In this case, the paths go along the generatrix directly to the top of the cone - to the target. Another advantage of this technique was that the pilot did not lose sight of the target, visually controlling its defeat.

    thus, if desired, gunship can be interpreted - this is not just a battleship, but also a Ghana ship
    In perfect delight, the 1st ACS commander exclaimed: “Puff, The Magic Dragon!”

    according to another legend, these words are attributed to the war correspondent of the newspaper Stars and Stripes, published by the US Department of Defense. the correspondent was also at that strong point.
    and here is this song:



    here they are ... darling these gringos ...
  • tuts
    tuts 21 May 2013 20: 23 New
    +1
    In the creation of ganships, the Germans also noted:
    “Wrong Music” (German: Schräge Musik - Schrege Music) - a method of installing (since June 1943) cannon weapons on German night fighters during World War II. With this installation of guns, firing was carried out up and forward, which made it possible to effectively attack enemy bombers when flying in a “dead”, invisible, area under them.

    The prototype of "Wrong Music" appeared during the First World War, in 1918 [3]. Then, at the suggestion of Gerhard Fieseler, the future aircraft designer and owner of the Gerhard-Fieseler-Werke GmbH concern, and at that time the famous ace pilot, the commander of the 38th Thiede fighter squadron (German: Thiede) installed two light machine guns on his night fighter, so they shoot forward and upward. As a result, Tide could attack the enemy planes brightly illuminated by searchlights from below, while not falling into the blinding rays of these spotlights.


    Already during the war, in 1941, the commander of the III./NJG3 night fighter group, Lieutenant Rudolf Schenert, believed that attacking bombers flying horizontally beneath them was much easier than going down from the bottom, and again abruptly going down. Schenert turned to Major General Josef Kammhuber, responsible for German air defense, with a proposal to install a Do.17 Do.1942 night machine gun with a machine gun firing vertically upwards. Initially, this proposal was also ignored, but later, in the summer of 17, experiments began on the installation of vertical weapons on Dornier Do.217, Do.110, and Messerschmitt Bf.65 aircraft at the weapons testing center in Tarniewitz. Later, the Technical Department of the Ministry of Aviation joined in these experiments. As a result, it turned out that the optimal is not the vertical arrangement of the trunks, but their tilt forward at an angle of 70-8 degrees. In this case, the target could move relative to the fighter with more than when shooting vertically up, angular velocity, up to XNUMX degrees per second.

    Based on the results obtained, three more Do.217J night fighters were equipped with four and six inclined mounted MG 151 air guns and arrived in the former Schenert squadron in early 1943 [1].

    Chenert himself was appointed commander of the formed group II./NJG1 on December 1942, 5. This group was equipped with Bf.110 fighters, but Shenert still flew on his experimental Do.217. At that time, one of the gunsmiths, chief sergeant-major Machle, was able, following the example of the commander, to tilt two MG FF guns obliquely in the cockpit of Bf.110, and in May 1943, who had already become Hauptman, Schenert shot down their first bomber over Berlin.

    This was followed by new victories. Successfully continued testing in III./NJG3. As a result, in June 1943, the production of the so-called standard R22 kit for installing oblique weapons on Dornier Do.217J, N and Junkers Ju.88C-6 aircraft began. For the Bf.110 fighter, such a kit has not yet been developed, but many crews mounted improvised installations, as Mahle had previously done. The new installation was called "Wrong Music."
    Japanese counterparts

    Installations similar to "Wrong Music" were created in Japan. So, to combat the American strategic bombers B-24 Libereitor and B-29 Super Fortress, who made regular raids on the Japanese islands, on parts of night fighters, behind the cockpit, cannon armament was installed, which was adapted for firing forward and upward. Such aircraft were: Mitsubishi A6M5 (Zero), Yokosuka D4Y2-S (Judy), Yokosuka P1Y-S Kyokko, Nakajima J1N1-C-Kai and J1N1-S (Irving) and Ki-45 ( "Nick"). Some aircraft, for example, J1N1, were additionally equipped with cannons that shoot down.
  • Anton Karpenko
    Anton Karpenko 21 May 2013 21: 46 New
    0
    Another machine for the war against banana republics or countries with destroyed air defense.
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 22 May 2013 00: 00 New
      +3
      Quote: Anton Karpenko
      Another machine for the war against banana republics or countries with destroyed air defense.

      Lord, how tired of you are with banana countries and super air defense. Tell me at least 5 countries with super air defense with whom the United States (NATO) may have a military conflict (Russia does not need to write, there will be another war)
  • Fofan
    Fofan 21 May 2013 21: 59 New
    0
    Quote: patrianostra
    Our answer is quite realistic to make on the basis of IL-76 and its modifications. As for the armament, there are two 30mm AK-630 guns and as the main 125mm type of tank gun with an automatic loader for it, and for a 30mm bunker. Reconnaissance and target designation systems are available at least from the same Su-25 and its modifications. The capacity of the sludge is enough for the eyes. Equipment for refueling in the air, electronic warfare systems. hi

    here! the only sound thought in all the answers! just let's use the latest modification of the il-476, it is the perfect aircraft for ganship! load capacity 60 tons! the main caliber can be set 2A46M-5, this gun has a full range of ammunition, including high-explosive and anti-tank guided missiles. Very good thought about the AK-630! but I would have developed this idea before installing the "Shell" with an expanded stock of cartridges for guns, moreover, in the "roof" of the fuselage. this will provide an opportunity not only to engage in fire destruction of ground targets, but also give a chance to counter enemy fighters! there is also the opportunity to use the good old nurses in any quantities you like, and if you take a package of guides from Pinocchio ?! And you can set a bunch of ags! Remember how brave anti-aircraft gunners guarded the sky with four “maxims” installed by the package in the photographs of World War II? Now imagine an air dreadnought with the same four ags !!! Yes, compared to such a BMP machine, the terminator smokes on the sidelines! a small landing group of people in 15, located again on this flying castle, can only make a parachute jump and try to guess the number of fools who decided to resist such POWER!
  • Seraph
    Seraph 22 May 2013 01: 17 New
    +4
    AS-130 Spectrum - handsome! Sometimes the United States will give birth to cool military ideas and weapons. It’s a pity, we don’t have a direct analogue (especially this omission affects the cinema)). But “Cheburashka”, it seems to me, will not be able to become an analogue - still not a piston, the speed is much higher, and the mass is almost 2,5 times less than that of the Spectra
    1. Bongo
      22 May 2013 13: 49 New
      +5
      On the C-130 piston engines never had. In my opinion from domestic cars, An-72 is most suitable for this role.
  • lucidlook
    lucidlook 22 May 2013 21: 58 New
    +4
    I note only in style, there is such a Russian word "gunboat". And then everything is “ganship” and “ganship”.
    1. Bongo
      23 May 2013 00: 45 New
      +3
      The word is, there is no aircraft.
  • qmihail
    qmihail 31 July 2013 01: 25 New
    0
    From what height does he fire on targets? It turns out from such a thing and you can’t hide in the forest? And how to deal with such a technique?