Article

2009-03-16 Home Front: WoT

New Gunship Could Get Fresh Start In 2010

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 tu3031 2009-03-16 11:57|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 upgrade....?
Windows-based computer system......?

Sounds mutually exclusive.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-03-16 12:06|| 2009-03-16 12:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Why not use the C-17 as a base?

Posted by Frozen Al 2009-03-16 12:13|| 2009-03-16 12:13|| Front Page Top

#3 #2 Why not use the C-17 as a base? Posted by Frozen Al 2009-03-16 12:13

Too fast, too expensive to operate in a loiter role. The AC-130 can slow to 150Kt, and its turn ratio is much tighter than a C-17. The price of the C-17 may also play a part in the choice. Like the A-10, there's still a role for "low-&-slow" in the military community. The AC-130 also operates best at about 20,000 feet, while the C-17 is most efficient above 35,000 feet.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2009-03-16 12:35|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2009-03-16 12:35|| Front Page Top

#4 New+Weapon+Obama= It'll never be even considered.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2009-03-16 13:33|| 2009-03-16 13:33|| Front Page Top

#5 One requirement likely to emerge is to operate the gunship safely in an urban environment such as Baghdad.

Safety is everything when operating a gunship in an urban area.

Posted by Shipman 2009-03-16 13:52|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2009-03-16 13:52|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah - we wouldn't want it to go and kill anyone....

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-03-16 13:55|| 2009-03-16 13:55|| Front Page Top

#7 ... had previously hoped to base a future gunship on the to-be-designed 2018 bomber, which would provide a huge leap in capability with the addition of low-observable attributes.

Not that I'm any expert, but I thought one important attribute of a gunship is that everyone knows it's there. Stealth, shmealth, you want the bad guys whispering, "Cheez, Spooky is here!" and heading for the hills. So basing the new gunship on a stealth bomber, besides being frightfully expensive, is the wrong idea.

Posted by Steve White 2009-03-16 13:58|| 2009-03-16 13:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Why not make it a UAV balloon?

Posted by Bright Pebbles the flatulent 2009-03-16 16:23|| 2009-03-16 16:23|| Front Page Top

#9 The AC-130 rocks. Why replace it? Just build more of the same! And a Windows-based fire-control system??? Gag!

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2009-03-16 18:04|| 2009-03-16 18:04|| Front Page Top

#10 The future is unmanned vehicles. Inherently a lot smaller and a lot more 'disposable'.

Posted by phil_b 2009-03-16 19:36|| 2009-03-16 19:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Hey, what's going on up there? Why did you stop firing, we're getting clobbered down here!

Sorry, we had to reboot the weapons system.

Posted by Vespasian Sloting1841 2009-03-16 20:19|| 2009-03-16 20:19|| Front Page Top

#12 What's old is new again. Seems like SoC really wants this with a 30mm cannon.

Posted by ed 2009-03-16 20:39|| 2009-03-16 20:39|| Front Page Top

#13 Or a plane that can take some punishment

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-03-16 20:55|| 2009-03-16 20:55|| Front Page Top

23:36 trailing wife
23:35 buwaya
23:29 CrazyFool
22:56 newc
22:51 M. Murcek
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:39 Muggsy Glink
22:27 newc
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:15 Frank G
22:14 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:09 Broadhead6
22:08 Shavins Big Foot8769
22:06 Broadhead6
22:04 Shavins Big Foot8769
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:57 tipover
21:53 Atomic Conspiracy
21:44 Classer
21:44 Procopius2k
21:40 SteveS
21:35 JosephMendiola
21:29 JosephMendiola