Article

2007-07-23 Science & Technology

Future Bomber a Foundation for Next-Gen Gunship

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Delphi 2007-07-23 12:36|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 If you are not carrying around that big gun and all of that heavy ammunition you dont need a big [transport] that is in itself vulnerable

Uh, I kinda sorta thought the whole point of a gunship was a big gun and a huge pile of ammo.

Posted by SteveS 2007-07-23 13:22|| 2007-07-23 13:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds fabulously expensive, not at all like the workhorse C-130, which has the woeful attribute of being already built and development expenses long ago amortized.

Posted by gromky 2007-07-23 13:27|| 2007-07-23 13:27|| Front Page Top

#3 With the Reaper taking some of the role of the A-10 Warthog, perhaps a complete redesign of the gunship to a drone aircraft is also in order.

One of the big arguments is who would control such an aircraft, the Air Force or the Army. But in this case, the answer should be--both.

That is, the Air Force is needed to get it on time and on target, but then the Army ground control could take over some of the weapons use to attack not only what can be seen from the aircraft, but what they can also see on the ground.

That is, the ground forces have two perspectives on the target area, but the aircraft only has one.

And yet, the plane and its systems are so complex that they do need flight control and direction. Also, the air controllers can also worry about surface to air fire avoidance, damage control, long range observation while a target is being engaged, air coordinations with different aircraft, etc.

Both teams are needed for maximum effect.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-23 14:07|| 2007-07-23 14:07|| Front Page Top

#4 While the article downplays an unmanned aircraft, and wanting a live operator to interact with those on the ground, a recent article I read ( cannot remember source, sorry) spoke to the fact that despite repeated pleas by the cockpit crw of an AC-130 to take out a target of opportunity that was inflicting casualties on ground pounders, thier controller would not release them from their assignment of boring holes in the sky. their assigned ground unit had agreed that the services of the gunship were not needed. the author of the article was (or still is) a gunship pilot and this mission was not an exception. so perhaps there are other aspects of this puzzle to be looked at besides hardward.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-07-23 14:28|| 2007-07-23 14:28|| Front Page Top

#5 I kinda sorta thought the whole point of a gunship was a big gun and a huge pile of ammo.

Nope. The point is to kill the enemy. A B-2 carrying 80 SDB with a 200 mile range can deliver a lot of death without ever getting into ground weapon range and needing a titanium bathtub.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-23 14:32|| 2007-07-23 14:32|| Front Page Top

#6 The point is to kill the enemy.

Well, yeah. But while the basic concept is kill people and break their stuff, there is also the idea of the right tool for the right job.

Gunship missions are support missions where basic requirements are long loiter times and the ability to put down large volumes of fire. Platform capabilities do overlap, but just because an AC-130, a B-2 and and F-16 can all kinda sorta do the same thing, it does not mean any one excels at what the others do best.

And yes, being alive at the end of the day *is* considered a plus.

Posted by SteveS 2007-07-23 15:16|| 2007-07-23 15:16|| Front Page Top

#7 A big drone with rockets and a 20mm gun would kinda be nice too.

Either way, ground pounders need something that can put down a curtain of lead on the target. You can crawl up real close and then engage targets when the curtain is lifted and they pop their heads up. Hard to do that with bombs. Too much shit flying back at you. The AC-130 and its children still have a place on the battlefield.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-23 15:55|| 2007-07-23 15:55|| Front Page Top

#8 If you are not carrying around that big gun and all of that heavy ammunition

Rail Gun?
Centrifugal Weapon System?
(frickin') LASERs?

Just askin'. ;-)

Posted by ExtremeModerate 2007-07-23 17:24|| 2007-07-23 17:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Most definitely not the DREAD system. Trying to correct for centrifugal force on the projectiles is bad enough, never mind what'll happen if that launcher ever sustains a catastrophic hit or damage.

Posted by Valentine 2007-07-23 17:58|| 2007-07-23 17:58|| Front Page Top

#10 This is nothing new, I read a very similar plan in an old Popular Mechanics Magazine on How to make one to shoot BB's, Date, around 1955. It's essentially a Very high RPM centrifugal water pump, rev it up, drop a BB in the volute and zip, away it goes.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-07-23 18:58|| 2007-07-23 18:58|| Front Page Top

#11 "like a B52" > Sacrilege, I say, Sacrilege.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-07-23 23:29|| 2007-07-23 23:29|| Front Page Top

#12 I was not a ground-pounder, so I probably lack perspective. That said, I would think that there are times when a grunt would like an area continuously hosed with large caliber projectiles and times when he would like an area hit with something that makes one or several big booms. A variety of assets makes for tougher tactical problems for our enemies.

Posted by Super Hose 2007-07-23 23:59|| 2007-07-23 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Super Hose
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:35 Super Hose
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:24 Super Hose
23:14 Super Hose
23:04 Super Hose
22:59 Super Hose
22:47 Super Hose
22:41 Abu do you love
22:39 Pappy
22:38 Zenster
22:36 Super Hose
22:33 Super Hose
22:32 Zenster
22:27 Sherert Lumumba7693
22:20 Penguin
22:09 trailing wife
22:09 RD
22:06 phil_b
22:00 Eric Jablow