# Fixed Wing Gunships



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jul 2007)

We all love the AC130 and we know a lot of what it can do....what I am wondering is, could aircraft like the C17, C141 or C5 be used in a similiar role? 
On the CF front is there enough life in our CP140 airframes to convert them over?


----------



## Jammer (28 Jul 2007)

Sure.... but why would you want a jet A/C as a gunship? Historically, with the exception of the AC-47, F/W gunships have been high wing prop driven machines that can loiter slow and for a good period of time.
The Buffalo might be seen as a viable alternative if Canada were to test it's options.
It's not really whether it can be done, hell if you can make the V-22 fly (kinda ) you can do anything!


----------



## 3rd Herd (28 Jul 2007)

"Reluctantly, General Curtis E. LeMay, then Air Force Chief of Staff, approved combat testing of the C-47 in Vietnam. "It's not a very good platform and you can't carry the load," he later said. "You don't have the range, staying capacity, or anything else. They're too vulnerable both on the ground and in the air."6 But pessimistic suspicions regarding the side-firing C-47 owed much to the Air Force's emphasis on fast planes and heavy firepower. General Walter C. Sweeney, Jr., then commander of TAC, also feared that the gunship weakened the Air Force's case against the Army's use of helicopters for fire support. Ironically, General Sweeney and TAC were responsible for employing the gunships in combat.7 Although then Vice Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell justified the gunship to General Sweeney specifically in terms of counterinsurgency,8 apprehensions about a massive war in Europe weighed against them. The key was which war seemed more pressing––the one in progress or the one yet to be fought.The Limits of Innovation: Aspects of Air Power in Vietnam
 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/jan-feb/mrozek.html

“What,” fumed one irate cavalry officer, “replace the horse with a tank? Why you might as well attempt to replace our railway system by lines of airships.”
—Maj Gen I.B. Holley, USAFR

"Attempting to change the mind set of professional, trained, military leaders can prove to be a daunting challenge. Experience is always one of the most valuable sources of information for use in decision making. However there are often occasions when experience must be measured against creative thinking and innovation." 
THE SPECIAL OSPREY: IMPACT ON SPECIAL OPERATIONS DOCTRINE
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/trask_tj.pdf


----------



## aesop081 (28 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> On the CF front is there enough life in our CP140 airframes to convert them over?



No, there is not enough

Further more, with the AIMP block 2 upgrades, the number of airframes in TLIR , the YFR reductions and the operations tempo we are under, there are no airframes available for conversion to anything.


----------



## Astrodog (28 Jul 2007)

Does Canada still plan to replace the coastal patrol duties of the CP-140 with UAVs such as Germany has opted for and move the CP-140s to the arctic sovereignty arena?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Jul 2007)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Does Canada still plan to replace the coastal patrol duties of the CP-140 with UAVs such as Germany has opted for and move the CP-140s to the arctic sovereignty arena?



No replacement for the Aurora until 2016

Thats right from Comd 1 cdn Air Div

And there is not intention of relagating us only to arctic patrols......we have taken on alot of other missions in ADDITION to our ASW role, which continues


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, there is not enough
> 
> Further more, with the AIMP block 2 upgrades, the number of airframes in TLIR , the YFR reductions and the operations tempo we are under, there are no airframes available for conversion to anything.



Are they using the Arcturus for anything?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Are they using the Arcturus for anything?



One is not permanently grounded....used as a training aid for AVN course.  The other 2 are being used for now but will be retired when the Block 2 AIMP cockpit is installed on the Auroras.....theres only 2 Arcturus left and they wont have the same cockpit as the Aurora so they will be retired......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2007)

Gotcha


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jul 2007)

The USAF is thinking of a rather different sort of gunship for the future (text subscriber only):

Special Operations
Future Bomber a Foundation for Next-Gen Gunship
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_, 07/23/2007, page 50
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/07/23/AW_07_23_2007_p50-503993.xml&query=ac-130u



> Afsoc considers move into stealthy gunships with AC-130 replacement
> 
> Printed headline: ARMED and LOW-OBSERVABLE
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2007)

It is interesting that the "B-3" is being considered as the future platform for a gunship, it would be very interesting to say the least.

Some of the best fixed wing air support for CAS has come from fairly low performance aircraft; the Douglas Skyraider (AKA SPAD), OV-10 Bronco, AC-37 Dragonfly, etc., all planes that could fly slow enough for the pilots to see the target clearly as well as loiter close to the target area. Being able to fly off rough forward airstrips helps as well. "Puff the Magic Dragon" was a variation of the idea, but the bulked up AC-130 is considered too vulnerable to perform missions during the daylight hours after one was lost during the day in the first Persian Gulf War. I can imagine a multi million dollar B-3 gunship would work under many of the same restrictions as the AC-130.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> AC-37 Dragonfly,



Theres no "C"

Its simply A-37 Dragonfly.......aircraft based on the T-37 Trainer aircraft


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Theres no "C"
> 
> Its simply A-37 Dragonfly.......aircraft based on the T-37 Trainer aircraft



Fingerspace error.....


----------



## 3rd Herd (7 Nov 2007)

The Usual Disclaimer:

I know it is MSM from China but and mods feel free to move:

Indonesian Air Force seeks to modernize fleets 
www.chinaview.cn  2007-11-05 19:37:31 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/05/content_7016451.htm

JAKARTA, Nov. 5 (Xinhua) -- The Indonesian Air Force is asking a new budget for the purchase of new war planes to replace the aging fleets, the chief of staff said Monday. 

The list of the aging planes includes U.S.-made ground support light planes OV-10 Broncos manufactured in 1976 and have been in service since 1979, the 1978 jetfighter F5 Tiger and the 1977 HawkMK-53. 

(The purchase plan) is being studied and will be submitted to the Ministry of Defense in late December 2007," Chief Marshal Herman Prayitno was quoted by the national Antara news agency as saying in the East Java town of Lumajang. 

The Air Force has nine Broncos but only four still hold airworthiness, and of 12 Tigers, only two are active. There are also only two out of eight Hawk MK-53s still in service. 

In addition, only four of seven personnel carrier Fokker-27s made in 1978 are still worth flying. 

The Air Force said it nominated either Russian Sukhoi-25 or Canada's Super Tocano  to replace the Broncos. While the MK-53 is likely to be replaced with L-159 from the Czech Republic. 

Editor: Song Shutao

Comments????????????


----------



## Zoomie (7 Nov 2007)

Country slip or something - Embraer makes the Tocano fleet.


----------



## karl28 (7 Nov 2007)

Zoomie  your right about who makes that plane but according to the link you provided the engine is produced by Canada at least that's what I am reading from it .


----------



## beenthere (7 Nov 2007)

I recall being at Wright Patterson AFB many years ago and seeing either a C-130 that was undergoing conversion to AC-130 or an AC-130 having some modifications done and it was unbelievable. There were wires and wire bundles everywhere to tie all of the systems together. The whole port side was deskinned and the structural mods were really complex. At that point the work had been going on for months and according to what I recall the work was only preliminary.
That would have been the late 70's AC-130 model and when one considers the technological advances since that era a conversion would be an awesome undertaking.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Nov 2007)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Zoomie  your right about who makes that plane but according to the link you provided the engine is produced by Canada at least that's what I am reading from it .



Pratt and Whitney <Canada> makes the PT6 variant turbo-prop engine for thousands of aircraft worldwide.  Beechcraft King Air's, 1900's, etc. all use this excellent reverse flow, free turbine engine.


----------



## karl28 (8 Nov 2007)

Zoomie  

I never realized how many engines where produced by that company learn something new every day .


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (8 Nov 2007)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Zoomie
> 
> I never realized how many engines where produced by that company learn something new every day .



From wikipedia (yeah, I know) ...


> The PT6, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Canada, is the most popular turboprop aircraft engine in history ...
> 
> The PT6A is a free turbine providing 580 to 1,940 shaft horsepower (433 to 1,447 kW). Aircraft that it powers include:
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2007)

AC-130 Motivator

http://bp0.blogger.com/_SCjVUmrlWDc/Rx32bf34GXI/AAAAAAAABW0/DVJk5GZ-6Vg/s1600-h/2007.10.23.ac130.JPG


----------



## Spencer100 (13 Nov 2007)

Take this for what it is worth.  A-67 (looks like a Havard II) They say it is a replacement for the old A-1 Skyraider

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071107.aspx

They say it will be ready next year.  

(I posted this on the other thread too)


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2007)

More on the proposed A-67 here (at end):
http://www.special-operations-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=2137

The builder's page:
http://usaircraftcorp.com/aircraft.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------

