Heavy strike aircraft Lockheed AC-130A

Lockheed AC-130 is an American heavy-duty aircraft designed to directly support ground forces on the battlefield. The base for its creation was Lockheed's legendary C-130 “Hercules” transport aircraft. The installation of weapons and additional equipment on the aircraft was carried out by another well-known American company Boeing. AC-130А aircraft were actively used during the Vietnam War. The concept of a “flying artillery battery” was first used on this aircraft. Often airplanes of this type are also called “ganships” (from the English Gunship).


The purpose of AC-130 was as follows: patrolling and disrupting enemy communications; direct air support of troops on the battlefield; air strikes on pre-designated ground targets; ensuring the defense of strategically important facilities and bases of their troops. The works on the ganship program started in the USA in 1965. The US Air Force wanted to have at its disposal an aircraft with the strongest weaponry, increased flight duration, take-off weight and cruising speed.

In this regard, the military transport aircraft C-130 Hercules was chosen as the most suitable platform for creating a new aircraft. At the same time, the Air Force allocated to the military a very battered during the operation of the C-130 (serial number 54-1626) release in 1954. Today this car can be seen at the National Museum aviation USA located in Dayton. Initially, the aircraft was armed with four machine-gun modules MXU-470, specially created as part of this project and four six-barreled 20-mm cannons "Volcano". The aircraft housed an analog computer, night vision system, radar, similar to that installed on F-104 fighters, and powerful searchlights.



Flight tests began in the summer of 1967, at the Wright-Patterson and Eglin aviation bases. Later, one of the test participants said with surprise: “All the existing fire control subsystems work, and sometimes they even work together.” As a result, by September of the same year, the military could bring the car to a more or less decent level, after which the 20 of September 1967 was transferred to Nyatrang airbase for 90-day testing. The first combat flight of the aircraft made 27 September. At the same time, until November 9, “Vulcan Express” (this is how the crew itself nicknamed the plane, although later another name Specter (from the English. Ghost, ghost, phantom), which became common for all AC-130 model aircraft), the plane made several combat missions on support for US ground forces. However, he had to pass his main exam on the night of November 9, when the plane took off to hunt for trucks following the Ho Chi Minh trail. Almost immediately after reaching the specified area above the path, the operator of the infrared night vision system found 6 vehicles, which were turned into burning ruins in 15 minutes. All of them were broken by sighting artillery fire from the sky.

The successful start of the combat use of the new aircraft contributed to the decision to build a new heavily armed artillery aircraft based on the C-130 transporter. At the same time, the command of the US Air Force regretted transferring new machines to install weapons on them. As a result, the Ling-Temko-Vout plant, at which the machines were being modernized, received 7 previously operated JC-130А. All the transferred aircraft were problematic and were far from in perfect technical condition. So one of the received JC-130 with serial number 53-3129 was the first serial "Hercules", which was transferred to 1957 in the US Air Force. Already in the third flight on this plane there was a fire. The crew managed to land the plane, but it had to completely change the wing. These are the military planes handed over for conversion to ganships. In 1960, the plane on which the fire had previously occurred was converted to JC-130A, which was used to test guided missile radars. In the AU-130, it was upgraded in 1970 year. Out of respect for the venerable veteran, the plane was called “Lady Fest”, although it was not the first AC-130 ganship. This aircraft served as a military for a very long time. It was finally written off only in September 1995, the last of all aircraft modifications AC-130A.

The first fully converted aircraft from the JC-130 was transferred to the US Air Force in the summer of 1968. The car went to Vietnam in 6 months. The aircraft had the same weapons as the Vulcan Express, but instead of a primitive infrared night vision system, it had a more advanced AN / AAD-4 system, as well as a more advanced computer fire control system. Officially, the aircraft received the designation AC-130A Specter. Three more aircraft in the AC-130A version were sent to Vietnam before the end of 1968. The remaining three cars remained in the states, based at Eglin airbase. On these machines held training crews who were preparing for hostilities. In May, 1969, the aircraft were sent to Ubon air base in Thailand. From this base cars made combat missions to Vietnam. At the same time, all 8 airplanes АС-130А, which as a result took part in combat operations against Viet Cong, differed from each other like the most real battleships. They had differences in the interior and exterior, which very often became a problem during their maintenance.



The ninth AC-130A was transferred from the factory to the Wright-Patterson air base. It conducted tests to develop a more sophisticated heavily armed aircraft in the framework of the Surprise Package. On this machine, two Vulkan 20 units were replaced with single-barrel Bnofors 40-mm guns, and the aircraft’s on-board equipment included a laser range-finder and an AN / ASQ-145 television system. The analog computer on this plane was replaced with a more modern digital version. In addition, according to another Pave Pronto program, the US Air Force signed an agreement for the re-equipment of another 9 C-130 transport aircraft. All these vehicles were to receive the Black Crow system, which was supposed to detect the operation of the engines of the automobiles, the enemy’s air defense system and the EW equipment. Of the eight aircraft AC-130A, which were originally sent to Vietnam, survived 6 machines. They were sent back to the USA in order to retool as part of the Pave Pronto program.

The main objective of these aircraft was the night hunt for ground transportation, which flew on the so-called Ho Chi Minh trail. All the ganships were consolidated into a special purpose squadron 16, which was located at the Ubon air base. These aircraft began regular flights in 1969-1970. And the most successful in terms of performance were 1970 and 1971 years. During this time period, the enemy’s 12 741 vehicle was damaged and broken. However, this figure is very conditional, since more than 5 thousands of units of automotive equipment were attributed to their combat merits by the crews of other American planes, who also patrolled the trail. The damage inflicted on the enemy was assessed based on the combat experience gained. In particular, it was found that the car is destroyed if it caught fire or received a direct hit by the Bofors 40-mm projectile. Damage to the car occurred after a 20-mm projectile hit it or if the 40-mm projectile was torn from it within a radius of three meters.

At the same time, AC-130 aircraft made combat missions only during the dry season. In the rainy season, the roads in Vietnam were eroded and the transport links between South Vietnam and Laos stopped. In addition, each aircraft AC-130 could cruise over the track for about four hours. The detected targets were processed by the Black Crow system, the location was determined using infrared and TV systems on board, after which the crew tried to aim as soon as possible. Fire to kill could be conducted both fully automatically and manually. At the same time throughout the use of the definition of damage caused to the machines of the enemy, still was a problem. Some trucks, after hitting 20-mm aircraft shells fired from AC-130А aircraft, could immediately start and move on. Very often, Lockheed AC-130А aircraft flew out on combat missions accompanied by an RC-130S aircraft, on which 28 searchlights were mounted. This bunch carried out patrols at night.



During the time the Vietnam War lasted, the crews of the gunships got the hand to avoid fire damage from ground-based anti-aircraft installations, but such planes could not escape from ground-to-air missiles, they lacked maneuverability. After the appearance of this weapons it became clear that it was time to take the Spectra out of the combat zone. However, daily successes in the form of the destruction or damage to dozens of enemy trucks forced the US Air Force leadership not to remove combat vehicles from the theater of operations. So only in the first decade of 1971, did the pilots report on the destruction of 2,5 thousands of enemy trucks and damage to the same number of vehicles. However, sometimes the ganships were met with a tough response from the enemy. So 31 March and 1 April 1971, the Americans lost two cars, two expensive aircraft were hit by anti-aircraft guns, equipped with a homing system on the target.

After that, AC-130A Specter aircraft began to be flown to areas in which the concentration of enemy air defenses was less significant. They were even used to fight the Vietnamese tanks during the protection of An Locke. But here these aerial low-speed boats could not prove themselves properly, having met good resistance. At this point, the Armament-2 MANPADS appeared on the arsenal of the Viet Cong. Thanks to the use of these systems, the Communists managed to knock out three AC-130 aircraft. But, despite the growing danger of use, the Americans used their ganships until the end of the war. After the war, 10 AC-130A aircraft returned to the United States, which went to Halbart Field air base. At the same time, 52 people who were part of the ganship crews died during the hostilities.

The AC-130 was notable for its unique layout. All of his gun-gun armament was concentrated on the left side of the machine (by flight) perpendicular to the axis of the aircraft. For this reason, for the combat use of aircraft on ground targets, he had to constantly make a left turn around a given area, circling over the target. At the same time, the weapons compartment in the cargo compartment was separated from the crew cabin by a special smoke screen, and the loaders worked on the plane in special masks.

Arrows near 105 102 mm guns


Armament aircraft continuously improved. As a result, starting with the AC-130H modification, even an 105-mm howitzer appeared on board. The planes in this version were equipped with two six-barrel 20-mm Vulcan automatic cannons (3000 projectile ammunition, maximum rate of fire - 6000 rds / min, normal - 2500 rds / min), one 40-mm automatic gun Bofors L60 (256-MINNAS 120) maximum rate of fire 105 shots / min) and lightweight 102-mm howitzer M100 manual loading (ammunition 40 shells). Due to the airframe vibration shooting, the rate of fire of the 100-mm gun should not exceed 105 rds / min. According to information from open sources, the 102-mm howitzer M40 is a modernized version of a standard military howitzer. However, it was greatly facilitated, and its trunk was shortened. In addition, she acquired a special gun carriage. The howitzer received a hydraulic control system that allows the barrel to be easily rotated within 20 ° in elevation and 3 ° in azimuth. The calculation of such a howitzer consists of 130-x people. In addition, the aircraft was able to use guided bombs with a laser homing head. On the first models, such as the AC-7,62A, XNUMX-mm six-barreled Minigun machine guns were also installed.

The AC-130 aircraft personal protection system includes: equipment warning the crew about the exposure of an enemy radar machine; hanging containers with IR traps and dipole reflectors; active jamming stations. The composition of the on-board electronic warfare equipment includes the Black Brow radio and electronic reconnaissance equipment, which is used to reconnoiter the enemy’s electronic equipment, search for and subsequently recognize their objects equipped with miniature radio beacons. In order to increase the duration and range of the flight, the aircraft AC-130 was equipped with a system that allows its refueling in the air.

Currently, all the weapons installed on board the AU-130 aircraft are controlled by a computerized search and sight system, which includes thermal and television sights, as well as a radar. The presence of such equipment allows you to effectively use the weapons on board in all weather conditions, day and night. In addition, a synthetic aperture radar appeared on the AC-130U modification, which allows detecting targets at long distances. Unlike the AC-130H modification (in service with the 1973 of the year), the fire control system on the AC-130U (in service with the 1995 of the year) allows you to fire two targets simultaneously. In addition, the aircraft AC-130U able to take on board twice as much ammunition than the previous version. As part of the navigation complex ganship there is an inertial navigation system, which is integrated with the receiver of signals of a satellite navigation system. The aircraft’s crew consists of an 13 man and includes 5 officers (two pilots, an operator of onboard artillery systems, an EW operator and a navigator), and also 8 privates (flight engineer, IR equipment operator, TV camera operator, loader, and 4 arrow ).



AC-130A flight performance:
Overall dimensions: length - 29,79 m, height - 11,66 m, wing span - 40,41 m, wing area - 162,12 m2.
Empty weight - 26 911 kg.
Maximum take-off weight - 56 336 kg.
Fuel capacity - 20520 liters.
The power plant - 4TVD Allison T-56-A-11, HP power 4х4050
The maximum flight speed is 580 km / h.
Cruising flight speed - 333 km / h.
Fighting speed - 270 km / h.
Practical range - 1700 km.
Combat radius of action - 900 km.
Combat altitude - 1070-2450 m.
Practical ceiling - 10 060 m.
Crew - 11 man.
Armament: 4 six-barrel 7,62-mm machine gun GAU-2 / A, and 4 six-barrel 20-mm gun M61 Vulcan.

AC-130A at ​​the Dayton Museum













Information sources:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/ac130.html
http://avia.pro/blog/lockheed-ac-130
http://worldweapon.ru/sam/ac130n.php
http://igor113.livejournal.com/364320.html (фото)
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ayujak 20 October 2015 06: 39 New
    • 24
    • 0
    +24
    The plane is only for the fight against partisans. 2450 m combat ceiling - any MANPADS will get.
    1. Ruslan 20 October 2015 07: 55 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I agree, but such a plane would be useful in Afghanistan and Chechnya. PZRK, although dangerous, however, there are already many ways of protection, "presidency" for example.
      1. Alex_Rarog 20 October 2015 08: 52 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Yeah, the device is wonderful who would not say anything about it. And the country that we don’t have is like that.
    2. Mera joota 20 October 2015 08: 41 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: AYUJAK
      The plane is only for the fight against partisans. 2450 m combat ceiling - any MANPADS will get.

      You are deeply mistaken. The latest modification of the AC-130J Ghostrider allows you to work from heights inaccessible to MANPADS, for this there are means for detecting ground targets and a set of air-to-ground missiles.
    3. Alexey M 20 October 2015 11: 24 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      And this thing and the barrage can lead well for a very long time. In general, a bomber is designed to strike, but such aircraft are for patrolling and destruction.
  2. WUA 518 20 October 2015 06: 43 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    At the end of 1964, the US Air Force command finally deigned to pay attention to the new combat unit (perhaps thanks to the very article “Puff The Magic Dragon”) and form the first ganship squadron. The preparatory work for this solemn event was more than comical. One evening in the “command center” of the future squadron, which was a wretched hut, where the equipment was only a desk and a telephone, a bell rang from the headquarters of the 7th Air Army. “What call sign and symbol would you like to choose for your unit?” The question took the personnel of the unit by surprise. As a result, the officer (probably tortured by the jabs of fighter pilots) answered something like this: “The call sign for this rusty ghost? Yes, kiss me in the ass! ". At the other end of the pipe, they politely answered: "Okay, let it be Spooky." After this incident, the name "Spooky" was assigned to all AC-47 aircraft.
    Soon, however, the squadron ceased to be ghostly. At the end of 1964 and the first half of 1965, only the “Puff” flew in the skies of Vietnam, and the load on the crews was simply enormous. Ganship wound around the country from Nya Trang in the North, to the Mekong Delta in the South, providing support to the ground forces and completing the tasks of destroying convoys and partisan military units. In May 1965, a second gunship joined the squadron, also converted locally, and the US Air Force command, making sure this type of aircraft was effective, organized training for the crews in Kansas, hoping to soon increase the number of Spukes.
  3. mosquit 20 October 2015 06: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    A good review, in the Foreign Military Review I read about this aircraft in the late 80s ...
    The aircraft itself, in my opinion, refers to the type of “wunderwafer” ...
  4. Kubatai 20 October 2015 06: 58 New
    • 24
    • 0
    +24
    Masked Shilke for a while, the pilot will be very happy .. In general, to combat aggressive Papuans, a very suitable unit .. It fits into the American concept .. First, all air defense is suppressed, then large connections are dispersed, and then a ground operation to finish small armed groups and then this aircraft in the subject ...
    1. Sauron80 20 October 2015 08: 14 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And who said that small groups of Papuans will not have “Arrows” or something newer?
  5. Slon1978 20 October 2015 07: 28 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    Even before the release of this article, I myself had the idea of ​​how useful an AC-130A Spooky aircraft would be for us now in Syria. This is a free hunt for small targets like "truck with fighters", "several SUVs with DShK" with elements of intelligence. After all, the IL-18 scout using radio engineering, radar, optical and infrared reconnaissance reveals the positions of the terrorists of their base, but they themselves cannot work on them. It is clear that for small targets, the departure of a Su-24M, Su-34 bomber or Su-25 attack aircraft is unreasonably expensive, and such a goal is maneuverable and information about its location quickly becomes outdated. If the IL-18 were equipped with a 57mm high ballistic gun or 100mm howitzer / launcher, then he could work out such targets himself as a barrage reconnaissance, and direct bombers at large stationary targets. Given the current level of sighting systems, it would certainly be possible to work from heights of 3000 m and above.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Aleksandr72 20 October 2015 08: 00 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      I’m not sure that such an “air gunboat” would be relevant in the current conditions. In the same Syria, all kinds of opposition and ISIS would immediately have completely modern MANPADS, such as the notorious Stinger, they would quickly find a supplier if they had money. Of course, such a large missile cannot be defeated with one such missile, but given the low maneuverability and the need to maintain a constant altitude, speed and course when searching for and firing at enemy ground targets, it is quite possible to fire this “gunboat” with a volley of several missiles. And that's it, abgemacht! The bombers Su-24M, Su-34 and attack aircraft Su-25 are much more maneuverable, and if the crew does not click its beak, they will easily enough avoid shelling MANPADS. As for the Su-25, this "flying tank" had occasion to return to its native airfield and on one engine, despite the fact that a MANPADS missile hit the second nozzle.
      For me, the joint combat activity of attack planes and helicopters, provided there is constant reconnaissance by all available means with the condition of adequate DB management, is much more effective than the use of these "flying gunboats", which under current conditions can only be used against some "Papuans," and then, provided they do not have air defense as a class.
      I have the honor.
      1. Slon1978 20 October 2015 08: 25 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        I do not agree with you fundamentally. Firstly, experience shows that avoiding the Su-25 from an Igla-type MANPADS attack is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to rely on infrared traps or to leave at speed if the launch was at maximum range. And it’s extremely difficult to see targets like a “truck” or “jeep” from a Su-24M or Su-34 bomber, and they simply have nothing to work on such a moving target if NURS containers (non-standard weapons for these aircraft) are suspended. Secondly, the Su-25 does not have the necessary reconnaissance equipment (infrared sights, side-view radars) and, most importantly, an operator to analyze incoming traffic. Even in the Su-25 UB version, this is unrealistic. How interesting is the pilot of the Su-25 at night in the fog can see a truck on the ground? Column yet - I agree. And even then - if he was pointed at her. And the hovering flight of the “strike variant” IL-18 will be very effective - reconnaissance (the main task) and work on identified small targets (secondary task). Given modern infrared or thermal imaging sights, ballistic computers can shoot very accurately even from 4000 m, especially if it’s 57 mm type. The presence of an airborne defense system such as Vitebsk, infrared traps in combination with work of at least 3,000 m will reduce the chance of defeat from MANPADS in general to zero.
        1. voyaka uh 20 October 2015 09: 52 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          From MANPADS appear all new protection systems.
          Like those KAZ systems that they began to install on tanks,
          they work against rockets.
          We need: a locator, a laser, and anti-shells. Knocks down rockets
          near the plane.
          All this economy is difficult (for now!) For fighters,
          but for Gun Ship - a trifle weight.
          But the turn of anti-aircraft guns is difficult to reflect.
      2. Slon1978 20 October 2015 08: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I do not agree with you fundamentally. Firstly, experience shows that avoiding the Su-25 from an Igla-type MANPADS attack is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to rely on infrared traps or to leave at speed if the launch was at maximum range. And it’s extremely difficult to see targets like a “truck” or “jeep” from a Su-24M or Su-34 bomber, and they simply have nothing to work on such a moving target if NURS containers (non-standard weapons for these aircraft) are suspended. Secondly, the Su-25 does not have the necessary reconnaissance equipment (infrared sights, side-view radars) and, most importantly, an operator to analyze incoming traffic. Even in the Su-25 UB version, this is unrealistic. How interesting is the pilot of the Su-25 at night in the fog can see a truck on the ground? Column yet - I agree. And even then - if he was pointed at her. And the hovering flight of the “strike variant” IL-18 will be very effective - reconnaissance (the main task) and work on identified small targets (secondary task). Given modern infrared or thermal imaging sights, ballistic computers can shoot very accurately even from 4000 m, especially if it’s 57 mm type. The presence of an airborne defense system such as Vitebsk, infrared traps in combination with work of at least 3,000 m will reduce the chance of defeat from MANPADS in general to zero.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Mera joota 20 October 2015 08: 36 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        I’m not sure that such an “air gunboat” would be relevant in the current conditions.

        Ganpships evolve, the latest version of the AC-130J Ghostrider is completely different from its ancestors. From artillery he has only 30mm. Bushmaster, BUT in the cargo compartment cassette with guided rockets in the AGM-176 Griffin, and under the wings of the GBU-39 SDB or AGM-114 Hellfire. Plus, a complete set of ground target detection tools. Now AC-130J Ghostrider can "work" from heights inaccessible to MANPADS.
        1. zyablik.olga 20 October 2015 11: 21 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Ganpships evolve, the latest version of the AC-130J Ghostrider is completely different from its ancestors. From artillery he has only 30mm. Bushmaster, BUT in the cargo compartment cassette with guided rockets in the AGM-176 Griffin, and under the wings of the GBU-39 SDB or AGM-114 Hellfire. Plus, a complete set of ground target detection tools. Now AC-130J Ghostrider can "work" from heights inaccessible to MANPADS.

          You are mistaken and confuse different machines AC-130J and MC-130J. request
          Here is a good publication on this topic: Are the “Ganships” back?
          http://topwar.ru/58313-ganshipy-vozvraschayutsya-.html
    3. Sauron80 20 October 2015 08: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      But are Mi-24, Ka-52 and others like them not created for this? Much more maneuverable, more protected from small arms and therefore less vulnerable.
      1. Slon1978 20 October 2015 08: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        In the free hunting mode - yes, of course you can use it, but they were not created for this. A helicopter in free-hunting mode (1) is at risk of MANPADS or small-caliber artillery damage due to the low altitude and speed, and (2) the time and range of patrols are much less (3) the ability to detect targets is also less. A helicopter is still primarily a strike machine.
        1. Sauron80 20 October 2015 09: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          What is the opposite of the definitions of “strike machine” and “machine of direct support of ground forces on the battlefield”? Do they perform any fundamentally different tasks?
      2. Slon1978 20 October 2015 08: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In the free hunting mode - yes, of course you can use it, but they were not created for this. A helicopter in free-hunting mode (1) is at risk of MANPADS or small-caliber artillery damage due to the low altitude and speed, and (2) the time and range of patrols are much less (3) the ability to detect targets is also less. A helicopter is still primarily a strike machine.
      3. zyablik.olga 20 October 2015 11: 25 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Sauron80
        But are Mi-24, Ka-52 and others like them not created for this?

        No, not for this, do not confuse sour with bland. Ganship is a classic anti-guerrilla gunboat capable of patrolling for hours with powerful artillery weapons. Search and reconnaissance capabilities of the modern AC-130 variants at times apex the sights of any helicopter (more stupidly and more heavily on an airplane).
    4. WUA 518 20 October 2015 08: 18 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      Quote: Slon1978
      heights from 3000 m and above

      1000 meters maximum.
      Quote: Slon1978
      how useful would a plane like AC-130A Spooky be for us now in Syria.

      We have developed the IL-114 TOP DESIGNER Ilyushin Design Bureau
      Country Russia
      TYPE Fire Support Aircraft
      CREW 2 + 4 (operator), people
      POWER UNIT 2 x TV7-117S
      Horsepower 2 x 2.500
      GEOMETRIC DATA
      Aircraft Length, m 26,88
      Aircraft height, m ​​9,3
      Wingspan, m 30,00
      Wing area, m2 81,9
      WEIGHT DATA
      Maximum take-off, kg 23.500
      Normal take-off, kg -
      Empty curb weight, kg -
      Internal fuel, l -
      LTH
      Maximum speed, km / h 500
      Cruising speed, km / h 300-350
      Practical ceiling, m 7.600
      Practical range, km -
      Range, km 6.500
      Payload, kg -
      WEAPONS 1 x 30-mm gun 2A42 (ammunition 1100 rounds) and 1 x 120 (100) -mm gun 2S23 "Nonna" (ammunition 90 shells)
    5. forumow 20 October 2015 10: 06 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I agree that armed transport planes and heavy helicopters for counterinsurgency operations would not be in the way of the Russian army, and in some places not only! It would be nice to design the future An-12 successor taking into account the prospects for such an application. As an IMHO helicopter platform, the currently designed Russian-Chinese project of the AHL transport helicopter with a carrying capacity of 10-15 tons is perfect. - a classmate of the Mi-6/10 and CH-53/54.
      As the “main caliber”, I would suggest borrowing the naval AK-630 with circular firing and automatic guidance on the enemy’s anti-aircraft guns, via infrared and radio channels, as well as those launched by SAM, including MANPADS, and on the MZA and other "barrels" thereby realizing in miniature, in the air, the principle of counter-battery combat using radar artillery reconnaissance.
      Such heavy combat platforms could carry many other weapons, surpassing in this respect the usual combat aircraft of tactical and army aviation. For example, heavy NURS units borrowed from land MLRS like Grada or Tornado.
  6. Dam
    Dam 20 October 2015 07: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The time for such machines has passed. Their tasks are now much more efficiently performed by helicopters
  7. ivanovbg 20 October 2015 07: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Typical “punisher” for the counter-Paltisan struggle. The Americans know how.
  8. inkass_98 20 October 2015 08: 03 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    I will pamper slightly in the subject of a strike aircraft laughing :
  9. igordok 20 October 2015 09: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Question on the first photo. Is she mirrored? Armament is placed on the port side.
    And the second related question. Why only on the port side?
    1. Sauron80 20 October 2015 09: 43 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Where is your port side? )) It seems that in vehicles left and right are considered in the direction of travel? Remember the left wheel and the right wheel in a car;) And on one side, because this plane cuts circles over the target and, therefore, is constantly turned to the target with one side. Against whom to put weapons on board opposite to the ground?
      1. igordok 20 October 2015 10: 03 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        The plane in the photo flies from me. And the barrel of the howitzer looks to the right in the direction of travel.

        Quote: Sauron80
        And on one side, because this plane cuts circles over the target and, therefore, is constantly turned to the target with one side.

        Why only left turn. Why not right. I am not a pilot, therefore, I ask. Is a left turn easier to execute than a right? Or is it just a habit from the first topgans. Or this is due to the fact that the door is usually located on the port side.
        1. Sauron80 20 October 2015 10: 15 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          If you look at the photo, you will see the outlines of the cockpit against the background of the engine;) So the plane flies towards you.
          1. igordok 20 October 2015 10: 18 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Sauron80
            If you look at the photo, you will see the outlines of the cockpit against the background of the engine;) So the plane flies towards you.

            Guilty, I looked closely. First impressions are the strongest and getting rid of them is not easy.
        2. WUA 518 20 October 2015 10: 28 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: igordok
          Or this is due to the fact that the door is usually located on the port side.

          Also, a tribute to the tradition of the Americans, the port side is called the start board, and on almost all aircraft the crew board and board the port on the port side.
          1. Seaman77 20 October 2015 12: 51 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: WUA 518
            Also a tribute to the tradition of the Americans, the left side is called startboard,


            Are you sure?

            Left side - Port side (red);

            Starboard - Starboard side (green).
            1. WUA 518 20 October 2015 13: 56 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Seaman77
              Starboard - Starboard side (green).

              This is for marine vessels.
              1. Seaman77 20 October 2015 14: 27 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: WUA 518
                This is for marine vessels.


                :)))))
                This is for all ships. Including air.
                1. WUA 518 20 October 2015 16: 17 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  [quote = Seaman77] Starboard side (green). [/ quote]
                  It is written by you] startboard [/ quote]
                  Written by me. STAR and START is the same thing?
                  1. Seaman77 20 October 2015 19: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Starboard side (green). Written by you
                    startboard Written by me.
                    Is STAR and START the same thing?


                    Dear WUA 518, maybe I misunderstood you, and we are talking about different things?

                    I do not pretend to be "knowing everything", but in the language of a "conditional opponent" the command "Left to board" sounds like "Hard a Port" and, accordingly, "Right to board" - "Hard a Starboard". The term "startside", or "startboard" I have never met. I would be grateful if you give any info on this.
                    Sincerely.
        3. Petrix 20 October 2015 14: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: igordok
          The plane in the photo flies from me.

          A red lantern at the end of the left wing (on the right - green).
          The plane is flying at me.
        4. FID
          FID 20 October 2015 17: 04 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: igordok
          the door is usually located on the port side.

          I apologize - the "door" is to the toilet and the crew cabin, the outer ones are the "hatches" ... So it’s accepted, I apologize again ...
          1. igordok 20 October 2015 18: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: SSI
            I apologize - the "door" is to the toilet and the crew cabin, the outer ones are the "hatches" ... So it’s accepted, I apologize again ...

            This I apologize. He wanted to write a hatch and hesitated. In my understanding it was: the hatch is a horizontal entrance, and the door is a vertical one. Thanks. I'll know.
    2. WUA 518 20 October 2015 10: 14 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      Why only on the port side?

      So to say, a tribute to tradition on the first AC-47 ganships, the sky borrower borrowed from the A-1 Skyreader was installed on the left of the ship commander. Sauron explained the rest.
      1. igordok 20 October 2015 10: 23 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: WUA 518
        So to say, a tribute to tradition on the first AC-47 ganships, the sky borrower borrowed from the A-1 Skyreader was installed on the left of the ship commander. Sauron explained the rest.

        Those. due to the fact that the commander is usually located in the cockpit on the left. Although he does not aim at modern topgans, but the main work is on it.
        1. WUA 518 20 October 2015 10: 40 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: igordok
          usually located in the cab on the left.

          Igor the commander is always on the left. This video gives an idea of ​​the work of the crew.
  10. qarzu 20 October 2015 10: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I think this is a very effective thing against terrorists
  11. Hort 20 October 2015 11: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    quite a good fire support aircraft. We just focus on the concept of attack aircraft and attack helicopters. And, as they already said here, such a ganship would be very useful in Afghanistan or Chechnya.
  12. Vladimirets 20 October 2015 11: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    in the first decade of 1971 alone, pilots reported the destruction of 2,5 thousand enemy trucks

    From January 1 to 10, 2,5 thousand were destroyed !? belay "I do not believe". In the photo are the service staff without parachutes, their survival in case of damage to the aircraft is not implied?
    1. WUA 518 20 October 2015 12: 02 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Vladimirets
      In the photo, service personnel without parachutes, their survival in case of damage to the aircraft is not implied

      Apparently on training tasks without rags. They put on combat laughing
      1. ICT
        ICT 20 October 2015 18: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Aircraft damage is not meant?

        Quote: WUA 518
        They put on combat


        lying somewhere under the "cups" like ours, ETOGES is not a fleet and water, but the air force and air
  13. TIO1969 20 October 2015 12: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is a niche for this option. It is a long flight time that determines its purpose and functions. Naturally, with an enemy possessing a developed, multi-level air defense, use is unlikely. But look at the latest local, regional conflicts. Everywhere their use would be justified.

    It’s hard to say something on the IL-114 TOP now. In the basic IL-114 model, fate is not completely clear, and even in its variants it is even more so :(
  14. Vladimir 1964 20 October 2015 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I liked the article and the comments of colleagues, thank you all. hi
  15. ILIA 20 October 2015 13: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Anti-aircraft gunner's dream smile
  16. ma_shlomha 20 October 2015 14: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article about ganships is very interesting, but for counterguerrilla action, it seems to me, today it is more advisable to use aircraft such as the Brazilian "Tucano" or the Swiss "Pilatus".
    1. Insurgent LC 20 October 2015 16: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I would choose yak 130 it will be better
  17. SIT
    SIT 20 October 2015 17: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why didn’t you guess the battery of Soviet 57mm automatic anti-aircraft guns along the Ho Chi Minh trail? The goal is slow. In the jungle, as long as we could see anti-aircraft guns from the ganship, there would be nothing left of it.
  18. Grigorievich 20 October 2015 21: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They wrote that the hospital in Afghanistan such a "Ganship" smashed.
  19. _KM_ 21 October 2015 12: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: WUA 518
    WEAPONS 1 x 30-mm gun 2A42 (ammunition 1100 rounds) and 1 x 120 (100) -mm gun 2S23 "Nonna" (ammunition 90 shells)


    Nona has a caliber of 120 mm. Or a typo, or 2A70.