RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163635,00.html
I saw this system on Future Weapons.. The accuracy wasn't as dead on as I would've expected for a made-for-TV pep-rally demo, but the ordinance was impressive..

With any new weapons system you have a few bad moments until the bugs are ironed out. Yes the old venerable Bofors 40mm has seen its day. Replacing it with the Bushmaster 30mm is a good idea.

As a former grunt, I will say one thing and that is in the field, if I knew a "Spooky" was taking station, I'd say a prayer for those of the enemy who are about to die.

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163635,00.html
I saw this system on Future Weapons.. The accuracy wasn't as dead on as I would've expected for a made-for-TV pep-rally demo, but the ordinance was impressive..

I also seen that episode but can you imagin being on the receving end of that bad boy, ALA is going to be very buissy when this thing issued.

Remember "NO Bushmasters" have been installed; most likely, Congress has not appropriated funding!

Therefore, if it's President Obama or President Clinton; I seriously doubt if "funding" would ever happen! Leader Pelosi ("This is Not a War to be Won; it's a situation to be resolved!" and Majority Leader Reid (The War is Lost and we're going to pick up Seats over It) won't be advocating that we stay in Iraq!

Senator Obama says this: "I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009." And, Senator Clinton is trying to "SURPASS" Obama's Plan!

Moreover, when our military precipitous withdrawl happened in Vietnam; the equipment that our Military was forced to leave behind included Armed & Ready aircraft, boats, tanks, and various other combat vehicles.

Leaving Iraq, in a hurry, will be WORSE - IMHO!!! But, look at it this way; when al-Qaida has our Combat Aircraft and other vehicles; we'll already know the WEAKNESSES of each combat system!

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

quote:

Originally posted by WesLemmon:
Remember "NO Bushmasters" have been installed; most likely, Congress has not appropriated funding!

Therefore, if it's President Obama or President Clinton; I seriously doubt if "funding" would ever happen! Leader Pelosi ("This is Not a War to be Won; it's a situation to be resolved!" and Majority Leader Reid (The War is Lost and we're going to pick up Seats over It) won't be advocating that we stay in Iraq!

Senator Obama says this: "I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009." And, Senator Clinton is trying to "SURPASS" Obama's Plan!

Moreover, when our military precipitous withdrawl happened in Vietnam; the equipment that our Military was forced to leave behind included Armed & Ready aircraft, boats, tanks, and various other combat vehicles.

Leaving Iraq, in a hurry, will be WORSE - IMHO!!! But, look at it this way; when al-Qaida has our Combat Aircraft and other vehicles; we'll already know the WEAKNESSES of each combat system!

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

Your right there both Obama and Clinton said they would cut the military by half when they get into office, same ol sh*t Jimmy & Bill did when they where in office. Oh well that party never changes when it comes to the Military and the Vets.

A Bushmaster on the AC-130U would be the best thing right now (after the tests). The twentys were good and the forty was great (four to five rounds on target) maybe when all the kinks are worked out with the 30s more than five rounds per target? Besides the test force realized the short comings of the 25mm and the 30mm and fixed the problem (parts and ejection chutes). As a retired AFSOFer I've seen the effects of the weapons systems of the Spectres and Spookys. Very many grateful and happy grunts!

quote:

Originally posted by phillystake:

quote:

Originally posted by WesLemmon:
Remember "NO Bushmasters" have been installed; most likely, Congress has not appropriated funding!

Therefore, if it's President Obama or President Clinton; I seriously doubt if "funding" would ever happen! Leader Pelosi ("This is Not a War to be Won; it's a situation to be resolved!" and Majority Leader Reid (The War is Lost and we're going to pick up Seats over It) won't be advocating that we stay in Iraq!

Senator Obama says this: "I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009." And, Senator Clinton is trying to "SURPASS" Obama's Plan!

Moreover, when our military precipitous withdrawl happened in Vietnam; the equipment that our Military was forced to leave behind included Armed & Ready aircraft, boats, tanks, and various other combat vehicles.

Leaving Iraq, in a hurry, will be WORSE - IMHO!!! But, look at it this way; when al-Qaida has our Combat Aircraft and other vehicles; we'll already know the WEAKNESSES of each combat system!

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

Your right there both Obama and Clinton said they would cut the military by half when they get into office, same ol sh*t Jimmy & Bill did when they where in office. Oh well that party never changes when it comes to the Military and the Vets.

phillystake, Please post a link to this claim since I can not find anywhere that shows that is what they have said. Make sure the link is to something these canidates said NOT what some talking head or blogger says they mean.

You may also want to study some real history as well since you got the information about past cuts WRONG.
* The Regan defense improvements for the "conventional" military were mostly based on the plans put in place and started by Pres. Carter
* The vast majority of the cuts to the military after the end of the cold war were planned (FYI a couple of the planners were Rumsfeld and Cheney)and implemented by Republican Presidents with the support of BOTH parties. These cuts were made in times of peace but the size was maintained by the Bush admin for 5 years during what the admin called a war. Do a search for comments by Rumsfeld about no increase being needed.

Its hard to think of a AC130 without a gatling-style weapon, but I guess those that make these kinds of decisions know what they are doing.

The bushmater II uses the same 30X173 round used in the A-10's multi-barrel weapon. While very effective, I hope they someday scale up one of the bushmasters to model III, which is more on par with the 40mm when deployed in its 35X228 configuration.

Taking the Gatlin Guns off of Spooky will do away with that awesome laser-light effect (Good PsyOps). If you are in the impact area I am not sure there will be that much difference in the practical effects.

Given the fact that they are shooting out of the side of the aircraft, which tends to bounce around, you are not going to get pin-point accuracy with out some kind of smart round. The Bushmaster does have the capability to put enough rounds on target (with fewer rounds fired) to get the same lethality effects as the Gatlin Gun approach. That and it is easier to maintain.

Of course, for this weapon to survive Congress, they are definitely going to have to rename it.
After all, they can’t stand the idea of Bush and Master in the same phrase.

Keep upgrading and keep them overhead.

Where does politics end when we're discussing weapons upgrades ? The person who is Commander In Chief will not have that big an impact on this kind of internal weapon systems improvement. Fear mongering has no place on this discussion. Your approach should be to IMPROVE the chances of our troops accomplishing their assigned missions with the best possible equipment this Nation can produce.
KEEP THE POLITICAL/ELECTION rants to yourselves !
OK-- Now, "SPOOKY" refers to AC-47's and "SPECTRE" refers to AC-130 series gunships. Having seen both in RVN and the AC-130's in Desert Storm, I think we need to make sure we're talking about the correct aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by 3371796:
Where does politics end when we're discussing weapons upgrades ? The person who is Commander In Chief will not have that big an impact on this kind of internal weapon systems improvement. Fear mongering has no place on this discussion. Your approach should be to IMPROVE the chances of our troops accomplishing their assigned missions with the best possible equipment this Nation can produce.
KEEP THE POLITICAL/ELECTION rants to yourselves !
OK-- Now, "SPOOKY" refers to AC-47's and "SPECTRE" refers to AC-130 series gunships. Having seen both in RVN and the AC-130's in Desert Storm, I think we need to make sure we're talking about the correct aircraft.

The AC-130H's call sign is "Spectre." The AC-130U's call sign is "Spooky. " The U-model is the third generation of C-130 gunships. All gunships evolved from the first operational gunship, the AC-47

When discussing the accuracy of the weapons system of the side firing fixed wing gunships, we need to be aware of the historical tactical employment of this type of aircraft and the intended mission(s) it was designed to accomplish.

The Puff/Spectre/Spooky tactical mission concept was never precision engagement of armor or hardened facilities. The design concept for these aircraft entailed two basic missions: day/night interdiction/disruption of enemy supply lines and direct fire "aerial artillery" support of ground forces.

The ordnance load used in Puff was a 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) mix of ball, tracer, and little, if any, API. The original aiming system of the 2, sometimes 3, M134s was not based on optical/electronic sights and stabilized gun mounts, but on basic trajectory calculations and flying the aircraft in a circle or arc around the target area, saturating it with as much "lead" as possible in order to wound/kill any ground personnel and destroy/disable unarmored or lightly armored vehicles such as supply trucks and the like. Puff was mainly an anti-personnel weapons platform.

Spectre was designed for the same missions, but given increased firepower and individual weapon aiming capability for its new gun fit. It could now engage individual targets with larger caliber weapons using HEI for increased confidence in target destruction vs damage with the expenditure of less ammunition. With AP rounds added to the mix of the 20/25mm and 40mm guns, it was given increased ability to damage or destroy enemy armor, mobile AAA vehicles and towed AAA guns, mortars, heavy machine guns, and heavy equipment such as earth moving vehicles (caterpillars), targets upon which the 7.62mm had little if no affect.

Replacing the 20/25mm and 40mm with a new high velocity 30mm weapon with more capable ammunition types is hoped to give greater lethality against targets that are hit, but I don't think anyone believed they would achieve much enhanced accuracy/precision due to moving to the 30mm gun. As someone else mentioned, this is very difficult to achieve with a side firing fixed wing aircraft. The 30mm may be somewhat inherently more accurate than the 40mm due to higher velocity and increased barrel length, but the aircraft itself is not a highly stable gun platform. Thus, to increase the % of hits on target, far more capable sensors, automatic range and trajectory computation, and gun stabilization are required. I don't recall reading anywhere that these systems were being upgraded during the refit of the 30mm guns.

"Precision" engagement of armor with AP, and of light vehicles/structures/personnel with HE/HEI is going to require the system upgrades I mentioned in addition to the 30mm gun.

Maybe I don't see the operational need but I'm willing to listen. I totally agree that a gatling gun is terrifying if not quite accurate, they want to eliminate that capability. They "can't find" replacement parts for the apparently quite adequate Bofors 40mm. Let me tell you, there are any number of quite capable machine shops that would tool up to make all of the parts required.

Now they want to add a 30mm rapid fire with modest sized rounds and are having accuracy issues.

If the Bofors are obsolete, and the new 30mm can't meet accuracy, why not just add another 105mm as that seems to be very accurate per the article? I can see no mission where an AC130 would be called upon to fire only a few 30mm rounds.

But this is just my opinion.

quote:

If the Bofors are obsolete, and the new 30mm can't meet accuracy, why not just add another 105mm as that seems to be very accurate per the article? I can see no mission where an AC130 would be called upon to fire only a few 30mm rounds.

I still think upgrading one of the bushmasters to 35x228 would be the ticket. That round has most of the arse (technical term there ) of the the L60, but delivers it from a faster firing, more reliable, "chain-gun" style design.

As far as missions that require only a few rounds, they abound in urban counterinsurgencies. The Spectre really isn't called to hose down large areas with lead anymore, hence the re-armnament.

Another option would be to replace the bofors L60 with the bofors L70 (fires a slightly larger/longer 40mm shell). This one still is in current production and use with our NATO allies so procurement should be less of a problem.

Mounting another 105 probaly isn't practical due to the weight and recoil issue that would come into play.

Other more interesting proposals have been floated around, like providing a crew accessible rocket launching tube that would go through the fusalage (to vent out the backblast) on an angle similar to the 105 for the launching of Hellfire missles.

The problem ain't getting ideas, the problem is getting the money to develop and test the ideas, and then getting more money to procure and deploy what you just developed...

quote:

Originally posted by ericgeis:
Maybe I don't see the operational need but I'm willing to listen. I totally agree that a gatling gun is terrifying if not quite accurate, they want to eliminate that capability. They "can't find" replacement parts for the apparently quite adequate Bofors 40mm. Let me tell you, there are any number of quite capable machine shops that would tool up to make all of the parts required.

Now they want to add a 30mm rapid fire with modest sized rounds and are having accuracy issues.

If the Bofors are obsolete, and the new 30mm can't meet accuracy, why not just add another 105mm as that seems to be very accurate per the article? I can see no mission where an AC130 would be called upon to fire only a few 30mm rounds.

But this is just my opinion.

The new 30mm due to its increased velocity and new ammunition technology is more lethal against any target than the 25mm or 40mm guns currently used. There is no debate here, it's fact. The 105mm is not inherently more accurate than the other weapons, but it has a huge lethal impact area due to the size of the explosive charge and shrapnel it unleashes.

The main reason for the 30mm, as I understand it, is a desire to reduce, here it comes, "collateral damage". In today's political climate, it is necessary to prevent as many innocent/civilian casualties as possible. If you fire the gatlings at 5 terrorists standing in front of a 4 family flat, you'll likely kill all the terrorists. However, you'll likely kill people across the street, next door, and do substantial damage to that 4 family flat and surrounding buildings as well. You'll put hundreds of rounds through the roofs which will likely penetrate both living floors due to the CEP of the gatlings and the fact they fire 50-80 rounds per second. With the 30mm Bushmaster, you can control the firing rate as this gun uses an electric motor to cycle the breech. You can burst 10-30 rounds of HE/flachette ammo, killing the terrorists in front of the building and doing light damage to that building, without significant damage to surrounding buildings. You'll likely kill any cars parked in front of the terrorists and folks in the open across the street, but you'll definitely not be throwing dozens to hundreds of rounds through the roofs of surrounding buildings.

In this situation, employing the 105 would take out the terrorists, the entire front half of the 4 family flat, everyone in the open for a half a block in any direction, and do substantial damage to walls of surrounding buildings. If you miss the terrorists, and the round impacts to the roof of the 4 family flat, that entire building is likely toast, although you'll still likely kill the terrorists when the front of the building collapses onto them.

quote:

The new 30mm due to its increased velocity and new ammunition technology is more lethal against any target than the 25mm or 40mm guns currently used.

well, ya, but logic would dictate that engineering that same technology into a 40mm package would more lethal still. The bofors is a quirky, WW2 era design. Considering we now have auto-loaders for weapons far larger, the clip-fed system is entirely antiquated.

It seems that an ideal set up is to have one "big" gun one "medium" gun and one "little" gun. Going to the bushmasterII does solve a lot of technical/logistical problems but it does seem to be kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Luckily the design scales up. I wouldn't be surprised if some day, they take one of them to a 35X228 or a "super forty" configuration.

quote:

Originally posted by phillystake:

quote:

Originally posted by WesLemmon:
Remember "NO Bushmasters" have been installed; most likely, Congress has not appropriated funding!

Therefore, if it's President Obama or President Clinton; I seriously doubt if "funding" would ever happen! Leader Pelosi ("This is Not a War to be Won; it's a situation to be resolved!" and Majority Leader Reid (The War is Lost and we're going to pick up Seats over It) won't be advocating that we stay in Iraq!

Senator Obama says this: "I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009." And, Senator Clinton is trying to "SURPASS" Obama's Plan!

Moreover, when our military precipitous withdrawl happened in Vietnam; the equipment that our Military was forced to leave behind included Armed & Ready aircraft, boats, tanks, and various other combat vehicles.

Leaving Iraq, in a hurry, will be WORSE - IMHO!!! But, look at it this way; when al-Qaida has our Combat Aircraft and other vehicles; we'll already know the WEAKNESSES of each combat system!

From A Proud Vietnam Veteran

Your right there both Obama and Clinton said they would cut the military by half when they get into office, same ol sh*t Jimmy & Bill did when they where in office. Oh well that party never changes when it comes to the Military and the Vets.

Hey boys...don't leave out George HW Bush. He is afterall, the president most responsible for the peace dividend 90's drawdown.

I have seen the Bushmaster on Future Wepons and even on a stable ground based platform had trouble with accuracy.
I would rather see us mount an A-10's Gat instead. Add 1 to replace the 40mm and then go backwards by adding a 7.62 Gat to replace the 25mm. That way you have a real choice on how much firepower you need for your target.

quote:

-10's Gat instead. Add 1 to replace the 40mm and then go backwards by adding a 7.62 Gat to replace the 25mm

The cannon on the A-10 is not needed or wanted, its heavy, with monsterous recoil, and less accurate than the single barreled weapon.

A 7.62 minigun? Again, the aircraft isn't flooding the jungle with lead anymore, not very useful. Also the "if the enemy's in range so are you" concept comes into play in spades. If you are flying low enought to make the 7.62 effective, just about every thing the enemy has is effective.