USAF's vision: A common bomber/gunship airframe

[Guest pfcem]

You know, when a  year or so back someone suggested that a large number of Chinese light aircraft could overwhelm the defences of a US CVBG, there was an awful lot of scoffing coming from the USian side of the fence.

 

For "large number of light aircraft", substitute "swarm of UAVs", but I digress.

 

David

397462[/snapback]

Ah yes...the folly of the swarm.

[Slater]

This "swarm" thing has been around for a while. Remember the Hughes AGM-124 WASP from the late 1970's? It was supposed to attack in swarms of 10 or more. Turned out to be less than successful, but I think a couple components survived.

[Tony Williams]

It seems to me that there are two slightly different "swarm" scenarios.

 

One of them consists of overwhelming the target's defences by a sudden simultaneous attack. This was the Soviet navy's planned way of dealing with carrier battle groups: on the declaration of war they intended to launch anti-ship missiles from aircraft, surface ships and submarines, timed to arrive simultaneously, on the reasonable grounds that while the defences might get most of them, enough would slip through in the confusion to cause havoc.

 

If you take the example of a single ship, it is quite easy to calculate what the saturation point of its defences will be. This will vary a lot depending on its defensive systems, of course, but there will be a maximum number of targets it can deal with simultaneously. Any more than that and the ship will probably be hit. The amount of warning time the ship gets is important here, which is presumably why the Soviets put such an effort into developing supersonic ASuMs.

 

The other, more recent, "swarm" issue being discussed here concerns the simultaneous use of numbers of small, cheap UAVs for recce and possible "suicide" attacks. Such UAVs may be difficult to shoot down anyway (hard targets for small arms to zero in on, AA systems are designed to deal with much bigger and faster kit, and missile sensors might not lock on - besides, a SAM might be many times the cost of the UAV). Making many of the UAVs cheap decoys would exacerbate the targeting problem (rather like the last generation of ICBM warheads, featuring several decoys for every real bomb).

 

One area which is bound to see much more development is how to knock down these pesky little short-range UAVs. No doubt several different technical approaches will be taken in due course, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be an effective counter.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[RIPper]

One area which is bound to see much more development is how to knock down these pesky little short-range UAVs. No doubt several different technical approaches will be taken in due course, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be an effective counter.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

397637[/snapback]

 

what about gun-based AAA systems, like good ol' Shilka or the Tunguska? i don't know the capabilities of their radars, but their weapons should be quite effective against UAVs.

[Tony Williams]

what  about gun-based AAA systems, like good ol' Shilka or the Tunguska? i don't know the capabilities of their radars, but their weapons should be quite effective against UAVs.

397697[/snapback]

Depends on how big they are. Some of the little things they are using now have a wingspan about as long as a man's forearm. How on earth are you going to lock on to, or hit, that with anything? Unless it comes close enough to give a shotgunner a sporting chance...

[BansheeOne]

Well, the ground based Phalanx and Skyguard systems intended for C-RAM are supposed to engage mortar bombs in flight. I don't know about RCS, but physically that's no bigger target at the very least.

[Tony Williams]

Well, the ground based Phalanx and Skyguard systems intended for C-RAM are supposed to engage mortar bombs in flight. I don't know about RCS, but physically that's no bigger target at the very least.

397732[/snapback]

The problem is that these are hulking great (and expensive) systems, not very mobile, certainly not self-propelled, and vulnerable to small-arms fire. They're not going to protect you over the battlefield, they're only for defending fixed bases.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Guest pfcem]

It seems to me that there are two slightly different "swarm" scenarios.

 

One of them consists of overwhelming the target's defences by a sudden simultaneous attack. This was the Soviet navy's planned way of dealing with carrier battle groups: on the declaration of war they intended to launch anti-ship missiles from aircraft, surface ships and submarines, timed to arrive simultaneously, on the reasonable grounds that while the defences might get most of them, enough would slip through in the confusion to cause havoc.

 

If you take the example of a single ship, it is quite easy to calculate what the saturation point of its defences will be. This will vary a lot depending on its defensive systems, of course, but there will be a maximum number of targets it can deal with simultaneously. Any more than that and the ship will probably be hit. The amount of warning time the ship gets is important here, which is presumably why the Soviets put such an effort into developing supersonic ASuMs.

 

The other, more recent, "swarm" issue being discussed here concerns the simultaneous use of numbers of small, cheap UAVs for recce and possible "suicide" attacks. Such UAVs may be difficult to shoot down anyway (hard targets for small arms to zero in on, AA systems are designed to deal with much bigger and faster kit, and missile sensors might not lock on - besides, a SAM might be many times the cost of the UAV).  Making many of the UAVs cheap decoys would exacerbate the targeting problem (rather like the last generation of ICBM warheads, featuring several decoys for every real bomb).

 

One area which is bound to see much more development is how to knock down these pesky little short-range UAVs. No doubt several different technical approaches will be taken in due course, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be an effective counter.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

397637[/snapback]

"Small cheap UAVs" are fine & dandy for small-unit recon but what is being talked about here is future requirements for a gunship & to a lesser degree other CAS aircraft - all the way up to "strategic" bombers. "Small cheap UAVs" simply can not do what gunships, CAS aircraft &/or bomber do.

[Tony Williams]

"Small cheap UAVs" are fine & dandy for small-unit recon but what is being talked about here is future requirements for a gunship & to a lesser degree other CAS aircraft - all the way up to "strategic" bombers. "Small cheap UAVs" simply can not do what gunships, CAS aircraft &/or bomber do.

397878[/snapback]

Of course they can't, and I never suggested that they could.

 

If you look at my earlier posts on this thread, you will see that I was postulating a bomber/transport "mothership", which would be packed with sensors and guided munitions, and would deploy those "small cheap UAVs" to supplement their sensors, and (if some are lightly armed) provide an immediate, low-power reaction to threats.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Guest pfcem]

Of course they can't, and I never suggested that they could.

 

If you look at my earlier posts on this thread, you will see that I was postulating a bomber/transport "mothership", which would be packed with sensors and guided munitions, and would deploy those "small cheap UAVs" to supplement their sensors, and (if some are lightly armed) provide an immediate, low-power reaction to threats.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

397905[/snapback]

Then what is the swarm for?

 

You don't need a swarm of "small cheap UAVs" to suppliment a "mothership" (gunship, attack aircraft or bomber) with its own sensors & weapons.

 

I kind of like (still have a problem with costs of large numbers of essentially disposable sensors) the idea of using UAVs to supplument the sensors &/or to scan ahead of a gunship, attack aircraft or bomber.

 

But the idea that you can replace the guns of a gunship or the bombs (or other munitions) of a attack aircraft or bomber with swarms of "small cheap UAV" as you means of attack, is well...

[Tony Williams]

Then what is the swarm for?

 

You don't need a swarm of "small cheap UAVs" to suppliment a "mothership" (gunship, attack aircraft or bomber) with its own sensors & weapons.

You do if the "mothership" is keeping well back and high up, to avoid the risk of SAMs.

 

Ideally, the sensors of the mothership will provide the ""big picture", with radar able to spot vehicle movements (and maybe even people), which with other sensors would indicate potential targets which needed investigating. The "small, cheap UAVs" would then go in close to see exactly what is happening and confirm whether here is a target there. If so, one of several things could happen, depending on the nature of the target:

 

- some UAVs might be armed with guns or small missiles to take out individuals

- some may carry small HEDP warheads (like the ones from 40mm GLs) or EFPs to instantly take out fleeting vehicle targets in a suicide attack

- some will have laser designators to guide in precision missiles from the mothership

- some may just transmit targeting info to the mothership, to enable a GPS guided bomb to be dropped.

 

That gives a huge range of options to the mothership system, far more than the current gunships can deploy, and with a much reduced risk of losing the plane.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Guest pfcem]

You do if the "mothership" is keeping well back and high up, to avoid the risk of SAMs.

 

Ideally, the sensors of the mothership will provide the ""big picture", with radar able to spot vehicle movements (and maybe even people), which with other sensors would indicate potential targets which needed investigating. The "small, cheap UAVs" would then go in close to see exactly what is happening and confirm whether here is a target there. If so, one of several things could happen, depending on the nature of the target:

 

- some UAVs might be armed with guns or small missiles to take out individuals

- some may carry small HEDP warheads (like the ones from 40mm GLs) or EFPs to instantly take out fleeting vehicle targets in a suicide attack

- some will have laser designators to guide in precision missiles from the mothership

- some may just transmit targeting info to the mothership, to enable a GPS guided bomb to be dropped.

 

That gives a huge range of options to the mothership system, far more than the current gunships can deploy, and with a much reduced risk of losing the plane.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

398194[/snapback]

That is not a swarm.

 

And, again, if the "mothership" has its own capable sensors & weapons, swarms of UAVs to suppliment are not needed. Nice to have some UAVs to get a closer look as you have described if you can afford them though.

 

Another problem I forsee would be that it would slow your overall reaction. Waiting for the UAVs to arrive on scene before you attack the target (from stand-off range) when a "traditional" gunship, attack aircraft or bomber would be able to attack the target more quickly.

[Tony Williams]

That is not a swarm.

That depends on how many are despatched, and what your definition of a swarm is.

 

And, again, if the "mothership" has its own capable sensors & weapons, swarms of UAVs to suppliment are not needed.  Nice to have some UAVs to get a closer look as you have described if you can afford them though.

 

Another problem I forsee would be that it would slow your overall reaction.  Waiting for the UAVs to arrive on scene before you attack the target (from stand-off range) when a "traditional" gunship, attack aircraft or bomber would be able to attack the target more quickly.

398411[/snapback]

You seem to be forgetting that the AC-130s are not allowed to operate in daylight, as they are too vulnerable to AA fire. The same restriction would apply to any big, slow, manned aircraft which needed to operate close to the ground to fire guns. So adding the ability to launch UAVs would enable them to stand off at a safe distance. By definition, this would be beyond gun range (except guided shells like the new 120mm mortar bombs).

 

Attack aircraft can operate during daylight of course, but their time over the target is very limited, as is their ability to spend time on confirming the targets before attacking. They have their role, but it is a different one.

 

The delay caused by using UAVs depends on the circumstances. A possible scenario is that a mothership is sent to an area where trouble is reported. As they approach, they would launch some UAVs to fly on ahead, while sitting back and examining their own sensor readings. They would use the results of those readings to instruct the UAVs exactly where to look. So by the time targets were identified, there could already be UAVs - some of them armed - in the immediate vicinity.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Guest pfcem]

That depends on how many are despatched, and what your definition of a swarm is.

398464[/snapback]

True.

 

 

 

You seem to be forgetting that the AC-130s are not allowed to operate in daylight, as they are too vulnerable to AA fire. The same restriction would apply to any big, slow, manned aircraft which needed to operate close to the ground to fire guns.

398464[/snapback]

No I'm not. AC-130s are specifically designed to operate at night, they don't need "small cheap UAVs" to locate & engage targets. It has its own sensors & weapons.

 

 

 

So adding the ability to launch UAVs would enable them to stand off at a safe distance. By definition, this would be beyond gun range (except guided shells like the new 120mm mortar bombs). 

398464[/snapback]

No agrument there but that is part of what I see as a problem. It takes more time to attack targets from long stand-off ranges than from "gun range".

 

 

 

Attack aircraft can operate during daylight of course, but their time over the target is very limited, as is their ability to  spend time on confirming the targets before attacking. They have their role, but it is a different one.

398464[/snapback]

True. And UAVs have their roles too. Doesn't mean that thay can do everything manned aircraft (gunship, attack aircraft or bomber) can & do do.

 

 

 

The delay caused by using UAVs depends on the circumstances. A possible scenario is that a mothership is sent  to an area where trouble is reported. As they approach, they would launch some UAVs to fly on ahead, while sitting back and examining their own sensor readings. They would use the results of those readings to instruct the UAVs exactly where to look. So by the time targets were identified, there could already be UAVs - some of them armed - in the immediate vicinity.

398464[/snapback]

That works for relatively small numbers of relatively "weak" targets & armed UAVs have already been doing that. But when the targets are more numberous &/or "harder" to kill...

[gewing]

True.

No I'm not.  AC-130s are specifically designed to operate at night, they don't need "small cheap UAVs" to locate & engage targets.  It has its own sensors & weapons.

No agrument there but that is part of what I see as a problem. It takes more time to attack targets from long stand-off ranges than from "gun range".

True.  And UAVs have their roles too.  Doesn't mean that thay can do everything manned aircraft (gunship, attack aircraft or bomber) can & do do.

That works for relatively small numbers of relatively "weak" targets & armed UAVs have already been doing that.  But when the targets are more numberous &/or "harder" to kill...

398513[/snapback]

 

 

In that circumstance the UAVs would designate or provide precise GPS coordinates for the weapons the Mothership or more conventional attack/strike aircraft would deploy.

 

If there is a light UAV with sensors and a designator every 1-km as they fly over an area of interest, they should be able to refine targets for the mothership quite well. If they are lightly armed, to hit fleeting targets and such, then the mother ship can concentrate primarily on weapons for the area attack or bunker busting missions.

 

 

If the UAVs allow the mother ship to deploy something along the lines of an extended range laser guided heavy rocket, so that it boosts to the target area rapidly, with a warhead large enough to do something when it gets there, then imo there re more possibilities.

 

Just as a silly example, imagine the mothership carries a pod of 9" rockets, with a GPS/Laser designated guidance package. They might carry a 300 lb warhead, and have a booster powerful enough to give a short time of flight to a standoff range of 10 or 15 km, and equipped with a diamondback wing pack for an extended range 100+ km capability that is accepted to take longer.

 

heck, I still like the idea of a rocket boosted version of the SDB.

 

With multiple uavs, the mothership could potentially use the whole pod at once on multiple time critical targets, but it would not have to.

 

If a standoff range of more than 10 km is considered, I am not certain even the gun mortar concept will be ideal. I like it, but...

 

What if the aircraft had a multiple weapons launcher that could be re-loaded from the inside, and deploy a variety of weapons.

I can roughly imagine several ways this could be done, but they WOULD tend to lack the mortars ability to hit targets directly to the side. Say a "rotary" launcher that accepts a variety of different missile tubes as selected from inside? THere could be a palletized feed system to feed the launcher. For instance there might be several basic weapons. The Loitering attack muntion and the Precision attack munition from the Netfires launcher could be the primary rounds. A variant that dispenses Sensor FUsed weapons, and either an advanced armor penetrating or general purpose blast frag(off the top of my head I don't remember what the warheads for PAM and LAM are) and perhaps a CKEM variant and a fiber optic guided missile.

 

I can envision the launcher, too bad I can't do anything with the idea.

 

Maybe in combination with the Gun mortar? If that was the case, the launcher might concentrate on heavier missiles for targets the mortar is not right for.

[Tony Williams]

No I'm not.  AC-130s are specifically designed to operate at night, they don't need "small cheap UAVs" to locate & engage targets.  It has its own sensors & weapons.

Quite so. But a gunship limited to only the hours of darkness is a lot less useful than a mothership/UAV combination able to operate 24/7.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Simon Tan]

An 8" GPS/laser guided missile will do the job nicely thanks.

 

Simon

[Brasidas]

pfcem, again you're fighting above your weight class intellectually.

[Guest pfcem]

In that circumstance the UAVs would designate or provide precise GPS coordinates for the weapons the Mothership or more conventional attack/strike aircraft would deploy.

 

If there is a light UAV with sensors and a designator every 1-km as they fly over an area of interest, they should be able to refine targets for the mothership quite well. If they are lightly armed, to hit fleeting targets and such, then the mother ship can concentrate primarily on weapons for the area attack or bunker busting missions.

If the UAVs allow the mother ship to deploy something along the lines of an extended range laser guided heavy rocket, so that it boosts to the target area rapidly, with a warhead large enough to do something when it gets there, then imo there re more possibilities. 

 

Just as a silly example, imagine the mothership carries a pod of 9" rockets, with a GPS/Laser designated guidance package.  They might carry a 300 lb warhead, and have a booster powerful enough to give a short time of flight to a standoff range of 10 or 15 km, and equipped with a diamondback wing pack for an extended range 100+ km capability that is accepted to take longer.

 

heck, I still like the idea of a rocket boosted version of the SDB.

 

With multiple uavs, the mothership could potentially use the whole pod at once on multiple time critical targets, but it would not have to. 

 

If a standoff range of more than 10 km is considered, I am not certain even the gun mortar concept will be ideal.  I like it, but...

 

What if the aircraft had a multiple weapons launcher that could be re-loaded from the inside, and deploy a variety of weapons.

I can roughly imagine several ways this could be done, but they WOULD tend to lack the mortars ability to hit targets directly to the side.  Say a "rotary" launcher that accepts a variety of different missile tubes as selected from inside?  THere could be a palletized feed system to feed the launcher. For instance there might be several basic weapons.  The Loitering attack muntion and the Precision attack munition from the Netfires launcher could be the primary rounds. A variant that dispenses Sensor FUsed weapons, and either an advanced armor penetrating or general purpose blast frag(off the top of my head I don't remember what the warheads for PAM and LAM are) and perhaps a CKEM variant and a fiber optic guided missile.

 

I can envision the launcher, too bad I can't do anything with the idea. 

 

  Maybe in combination with the Gun mortar?  If that was the case, the launcher might concentrate on heavier missiles for targets the mortar is not right for.

398610[/snapback]

VERY, VERY expensive...

[gewing]

An 8" GPS/laser guided missile will do the job nicely thanks. 

 

Simon

398687[/snapback]

 

 

I did say the silly end of things...

 

I considered 8", but overkill is better!

[gewing]

VERY, VERY expensive...

398780[/snapback]

 

 

 

as if ANY form of effective bomber or gunship will be cheap?

[A2Keltainen]

as if ANY form of effective bomber or gunship will be cheap?

 

Effective against whom? If you have an enemy without a airforce and effective air-defence, something that could happen in for example African conflicts and recently happened in Afghanistan, then you could use simple and cheap bombers and still be effective, and that especially holds today when you can get GPS guided bombs relatively cheap. Imagine a bushwar like scenario where your SOF units send coordinates to your bomber converted old C-47s and C-130s, who then drop GPS guided bombs on those coordinates.

[Guest pfcem]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...t-Gen%20Gunship

 

Future Bomber a Foundation for Next-Gen Gunship

 

Jul 22, 2007

 

Air Force Special Operations Command (Afsoc) is planning to buy a fleet of bombers to house its future gunship, breaking with a decades-old tradition of using C-130 transports to carry heavy fires into the sky.

 

Requirements for the Air Combat Command’s (ACC’s) bomber and the gunship are still being drawn up. But, both commands agree on some key characteristics: a degree of low observability (LO)—not necessarily full stealth—and endurance. The future gunship will look nothing like today’s lumbering platform, and it could actually wind up appearing more like a B-2. “I don’t think the transport next-generation gunship will be on a mobility platform because you are not going to need to carry around all that weight,” says Lt. Gen. Michael Wooley, outgoing Afsoc commander. “If you are not carrying around that big gun and all of that heavy ammunition you don’t need a big [transport] that is in itself vulnerable.” Wooley will be replaced by his current vice commander, Maj. Gen. Donald Wurster, later this year.

 

ACC has announced it will not push the state-of-the-art for its next-generation bomber, which must be fielded beginning in 2018. That time frame and limited funding are prompting the Air Force to scale back earlier aspirations for a highly stealthy platform equipped with exotic directed-energy weapons. Afsoc has traditionally latched onto the Air Force’s larger buys when procuring a platform in order to prevent having to dedicate funding to a separate development project.

 

What exactly entails LO is in the trade space that ACC and Afsoc will iron out with contractors. Col. Billy Montgomery, Afsoc’s top planner, says his needs for LO are likely less demanding than for the bomber, though a diminished radar cross section is needed to safely infiltrate hostile airspace and provide support for ground troops. “I think what we are trying to do with our gunship platform is not exactly the same thing that Air Combat Command would want its next-generation bomber to accomplish,” he says. “The level of stealthiness and LO technology is not to the same degree that you’d want a take-down-the-door next-generation bomber or F-22 to have. It would be better than what we are flying around.”

 

The speed with which anticipated weapons—both directed-energy and kinetic—can be employed allows the command to focus on LO instead of pure stealthiness. LO would involve tactics as well as technology. Special operators still expect to execute their traditional operational concept of orbits for close-air support, and flying in predictable patterns can compromise survivability. However, retractable weapons—rather than the guns protruding from the AC-130 platform—would reduce the time in which the future gunship would be most visible to an adversary’s radar and warning systems. “When [weapons] are as accurate as they are, and as we hope they will continue to prove to be, once you are on station you are going to do what you need to do with great accuracy. So, it is low observability, not no observability,” that is needed, says Wooley.

 

The existing fleet of AC-130H/U aircraft are anything but LO with four engines and a 105-mm. howitzer protruding from the left side of the aircraft. “We’d be very careful about having weapons tubes that would protrude from that next-generation platform,” Montgomery says.

 

LO would allow Afsoc to provide more consistent close-air support, including taking operations out of the dark and into daytime, Wooley says. Gunships often operate at low altitudes within range of shoulder-fired missiles and anti-aircraft artillery and they have traditionally operated at night, earning the nickname the night stalkers, for added protection against visual detection.

 

Afsoc’s need is not as urgent at ACC’s, so planners expect to initiate the gunship platform buy at the tail end of the bomber purchases.

 

ACC says its bomber will not take advantage of advances in unmanned technology but will require a pilot in the cockpit (AW&ST May 7, p. 30). While Afsoc officials seem to be leaning in the same direction, they’ve not closed the door to an unmanned gunship. “One thing is true. The person on the airplane is the endurance-limiting factor,” Wooley says. “If you can figure out how to take the person out of the airplane, the endurance becomes longer. Then you have to worry about the oil in the engines as the next endurance problem.”

 

However, Army Gen. Bryan Brown, U.S. Special Operations Command chief, says he wants to be careful not to sever the critical relationship between on-site pilots and special operators on the ground. That relationship has grown since activities in Vietnam and has become something ground soldiers depend on when under fire. “We want that man in the loop . . . . The expectation of the forces that we support is that there is a thinking, breathing, highly trained special operations aviator in the cockpit they can count on,” Montgomery says. “It is very personal. It is very intrinsic to the relationship that we build with our SEAL [sea, air, land] special forces and ranger counterparts.”

 

Because the gunships may operate in populated areas, planners are emphasizing a need for high accuracy for its weapons suite. Directed-energy weapons—including lasers or potentially high-power microwaves—are a possibility. Afsoc has been experimenting with the Advanced Tactical Laser, a C-130-based chemical laser system, against various targets.

 

However, that system is not suitable for operational use and Montgomery says the command is interested in waiting for a solid-state laser, which would eliminate the need for onboard chemical storage. “We can demonstrate that you could go up to the types of targets that would be useful and that we have traditionally been called upon [to destroy]—discreet groups of individuals, areas where there may be collateral damage implications where you may need a very high-precision type of weapon and one that gives you the discretion to employ very carefully. We are not going to hold our breath waiting for the laser. We are going to continue to move forward with the Air Combat Command initiative.”

 

The Air Force and Navy have been experimenting with the potential use of active electronically scanned array radars—like those on the F-22 and F-35—to emit high-power microwave pulses that can confuse or damage an adversary’s electronics systems. These could include air defense sensors or communications nodes. Asked whether Afsoc would employ this capability on its future gunship, Wooley simply said, “Suffice it to say we have teams linked up with the F-22 and F-35 crowd and are very interested in those areas.”

 

A retractable 120-mm. mortar weapon is the likely centerpiece of the future gunship’s kinetic weapons suite, and it would replace the existing 105-mm. howitzer. “There has been a lot of work done on the 120-mm. rounds in terms of guidance and seeker systems, and that would be a relatively simple retrofit or modification” to the existing AC-130H/U fleet as well as a candidate for the future gunship, according to Montgomery. “The beauty is you don’t have the recoil we had that creates a lot of stresses and wear on the aircraft itself. . . . They have some great guidance systems with 120-mm. rounds that have already been researched by the U.S. Army.”

 

Afsoc is also now exploring a very small—3-7-lb. class—precision-guided weapon for use on the existing gunship fleet and the next-generation solution. Afsoc tested the Northrop Grumman Viper Strike weapon on its gunships recently with positive results, Montgomery says. The weapons were released from the outboard pylons of AC-130s. The Army has also used the system for a small strike capability from its Hunter UAVs.

 

Anticipating potential actions in populated areas, Montgomery says precision and low collateral damage are imperative for any systems fielded as modifications on today’s gunship as well as on the future platform. The command would like to field a small strike system soon, though Montgomery says there is a “hold” on the purchase of Viper Strike for Afsoc. He declined to give a reason.

 

In the meantime, Afsoc is testing the addition of a new 30-mm. gun on the first of its four new AC-130Us. The total AC-130U fleet is at 17, including four purchased through war supplemental bills, and all will receive the gun. The 30-mm. gun will replace both the 25- and 40-mm. guns on either end of the aircraft. Wooley says the 40-mm. gun was a “problem child. We have literally had to go to naval museums to get a critical piece to get one of those guns firing.” The new 30-mm. weapon is more accurate, achieves a higher rate of fire and has ammunition in plentiful supply. Also slated for installation onto the AC-130U fleet is a low-light target designation system.

 

Existing AC-130s also need new center-wing boxes, a structure that has caused difficulties for the entire fleet of Air Force C-130s. Wooley says the gunships are being flown at a “troubling” rate. The AC-130 fleet is at a slight advantage over the rest of the C-130 fleet. Knowing the stresses caused by operation of the 105-mm. howitzer, the Air Force previously strengthened the gunship’s center-wing boxes, buying some time. That, however, is running out.

 

Gunships are flying at three times their anticipated rate, and Afsoc is proposing that funding for center-wing boxes for the AC-130 fleet be accelerated by three years from a 2012 start to 2009. “Quite frankly, we believe the airplanes will begin to be grounded by ’10 at the current usages,” Montgomery says. “That line in the sand is being pulled forward because of heavy utilization.” Planners expect to require six years to retrofit the AC-130H/U fleet with the new center-wing structures.

[Colin]

If the USAF endorse an idea about CAS, I generally leap to the conclusion that it is a bad idea.

 

Look at the Canberra, likely the most successful light bomber of the Jet age and then at the A10 likely the most successful ground attack aircraft of the jet age (although the Russian one is supposed pretty good also) Do they have anything in common?

 

If the plane is flying close to the ground it will need armour, if it is flying at 30,000 ft that same armour is near useless weight.

 

How about using a common airframe with an cargo airliner, loaded with a some sort of bomb bay, although it does not need be like a traditional bomb bay, perhaps with a small slot fed by a revolving drum or a angled tube similar to the sonobouy launcher.

 

For the Ground attack, take all the lessons learned from the A10 (including talking to the pilots, mechanics, FOO’s ) put them tighter and build the next generation of A10, similar but improved with the ability to upgrade as technology changes.

 

Keep them fairly inexpensive, as they will get shot up. But they will pay for themselves if it saves a couple of overpriced fighters getting shot down by an ancient quad 23mm.