Lockheed AC-130

RavenOne

RavenOne

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
18 June 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
2,425
Looks like the AC-130J Ghostrider gunships may lose their main teeth in the form of the 105mm gun with emphasis on stand off weapons

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force may remove 105mm cannon from AC-130 gunship

Other changes under consideration to prepare the Ghostrider for a high-end fight include adding small cruise missiles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Anyhow couple of times from last year and this year have seen AC-130J depart from here RAF Mildenhall (my pics below)

1699457445726.png

1699457470249.png

1699457517795.png

1699457540703.png

cheers
 
Sounds like they are trying to get away from orbiting at low altitudes and depend more on cruise missiles with long stand-off ranges.
Orbiting is only practical when you enjoy complete air-superiority and the target only has un-guided AAA.
OTOH, they are busy hanging smart bombs under A-10s, crop-dusters and even Cessna 208 Caravans to allow them to loiter well above light AAA.
 
Hobbes said:
The AC-130 used a 105mm howitzer, not a tank gun.
Click to expand...

Originally, the 105 was a M102 howitzer tube and its M137A1 variable-recoil mechanism in new mount. That piece was replaced by the NSWC Dahlgren 'GAU-XX' mentioned in RavenOne's linked article.
 
Seems to me that when you strip the guns from the gunship you have to start wondering what sort of capability it would provide that isn't done better by more survivable aircraft. The gunship has always been a niche aircraft with a lot of limitations, I don't think it can be made survivable in a fight against someone like China or Russia. If the goal is to keep it higher by only using these precision munitions then it would just become a target for radar-guided SAMs such an enemy would have.

I'm guessing GAU-XX is just a program name and not an official designation?
 
The current consideration is to keep the 30mm and smaller on all AC-130Js - and to keep the 105 on about half, with the rest being fitted for longer-ranged guided weapons.

Originally 37 AC-130J were ordered, but the purchase was later capped at 30.
17 have received the updated GAU-XX, so perhaps the remaining aircraft will see their 105 removed.
 
riggerrob said:
Sounds like they are trying to get away from orbiting at low altitudes and depend more on cruise missiles with long stand-off ranges.
Orbiting is only practical when you enjoy complete air-superiority and the target only has un-guided AAA.
OTOH, they are busy hanging smart bombs under A-10s, crop-dusters and even Cessna 208 Caravans to allow them to loiter well above light AAA.
Click to expand...
Not like the 105mm needs to be all that close to the target... I'd sooner recommend that the USAF replace that 30mm Bushmaster with the new 50mm Bushmaster 3, to give more standoff range.

Bluntly, I don't think that the AC-130 has any contributions to a fight against China. Not without a whole lot of other aircraft that wiped out every single large SAM system in the area.
 
Weird. I was talking to a AC-130J crew just a few weeks ago at the Little Rock Air Show.
They were raving about the new J model, and the new 105 especially. Along with all of their
Whiz-bang PGM options. I wish this tid-bit had come out before then, I would've been curious
to ask about it.
 
More apparent confusion. If they want to be ejecting cruise missiles or decoys out of the back of a C-130 that has potential but that aircraft is a missile truck. Don't pretend it's a gunship. The basic nature of the gunship made it a very specialized aircraft only suitable for certain scenarios. Trying to reconcile that with a desire to be useful against an enemy with large numbers of modern fighters and air defense systems would seem to be a lost cause.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
More apparent confusion. If they want to be ejecting cruise missiles or decoys out of the back of a C-130 that has potential but that aircraft is a missile truck. Don't pretend it's a gunship. The basic nature of the gunship made it a very specialized aircraft only suitable for certain scenarios. Trying to reconcile that with a desire to be useful against an enemy with large numbers of modern fighters and air defense systems would seem to be a lost cause.
Click to expand...
Or even just against an enemy with a large number of MANPADS...
 
Even when used to suppress drug smuggling routes, some of them are pretty well quipped and make for a tough mission.

Thninking over this, where is the surviveable misson for these aircraft? Special forces support on a few lower risk missions?

Possible Persian gulf use in anti small boat tasking to guard civil shipping.
 
I am pretty sure that any airmen on those forward location bases would appreciate having an AC-130 perched around for base defense, drawing away militants and providing counter-fire to remaining combatants left behind the lines by retreating forces or from smuggled in assault teams.
 
Those are damn expensive aircraft with big expensive crews to do just something. Manpad, 358 and now even fpv proliferation is a reality.

So something should be done instead on technical side - like, a hard kill aps?
It's a big plane with lots of space and energy generation after all.

Also, given how much was invested into them for last 60 years, they may have actually paid for a properly durable airframe.
New frame without advanced solutions isn't that expensive to develop, procure and field... especially when they actually pay for some of the most advanced battlefield electronics in existence.

C-130 is controversial - *sometimes* size saves it, but sometimes isn't attractive enough.
 
SOCOM AC-130J pictured shortly after excercising highway takeoff capability during a peer conflict in the pacific:
Screenshot 2024-08-07 at 12.12.49 AM.png
 
Forest Green said:
In fairness, it says 'denied areas' not denied airspace.
Click to expand...
And anything more than MANPADS is still a no-go zone. Even if it's some ancient SA-8 unit.


Foo Fighter said:
Even when used to suppress drug smuggling routes, some of them are pretty well quipped and make for a tough mission.

Thninking over this, where is the surviveable misson for these aircraft? Special forces support on a few lower risk missions?

Possible Persian gulf use in anti small boat tasking to guard civil shipping.
Click to expand...
Anywhere that the most significant threat someone will point at them is MANPADS or AA guns.

AC130s can still work above the effective engagement ceiling of MANPADS, the 105 and 40mm really don't mind and neither do all those interesting drop munitions that can also be used (Griffin, Viper Strike, etc). The 25mm up forward is a bit limited at those altitudes. So the only situation that an AC130 can't do well when MANPADS are around it is swarms of infantry around a firebase or patrol. They need to get into 25mm range for that, because the 40mm and especially 105mm have too big a Danger Close radius.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And anything more than MANPADS is still a no-go zone. Even if it's some ancient SA-8 unit.
Click to expand...
They flew over them, both in Vietnam(including the Hoshimin trail) and in 1st Iraq.
With some losses, sure (others suffered them too), but we should not underestimate them either.
 
Just wanted to drop a few observations from someone who worked/deployed with Gunship folks years ago (AC-130Ws, who effectively testbed the kit the ACJs use today):
  • SAM Threat- Obviously a very real threat BUT the AC130s are better equipped than any standard fighter aircraft to deal with SAMs, from MANPAD to medium-range threats. This is entirely due to the extra space they have available. Their primary disadvantage in reality is their lack of speed to "run away" from inbound threats. To make up for that, they have great MWS coverage, IRCM, DRFM plus the last resorts of Chaff/Flare, all "built-in" vs fighters being forced to sacrifice weapons hardpoints to get a fraction of the coverage.
  • Near Peers Deployment- Clearly NOT the theater of battle they were originally meant for and as some have already pointed out, in such a conflict their only realistic role would shift to being a "missile truck". This is potentially a more valuable mission because while fighters can certainly carry the same kind of stand-off munitions as the ACJs, they lack one major element: endurance. The more modern AC130s still retain much of the C-130's excellent range, which allows them to fly ~10 hour sorties without needing to refuel. The only crewed combat platforms with better endurance in the USAF's inventory are AFGSC's bombers but they aren't remotely as operationally & logistically flexible as the gunships.

Overall, there should be no question that if deployed in their traditional manner in a head-on conflict with Russia or China, the ACJs would be at tremendous risk, but special forces assets are rarely if ever used in such a manner. Special forces find creative ways to apply their trade and the wide range of armaments/sensors the gunships have today and potentially in the future are perfect examples of this line of thinking. There was no SAM/Air Defense threat that drove AC-130s to be fitted with SDBs over a decade ago (which already gives them true stand-off capabilities), that was AFSOC finding new ways to strike at the enemy. Instead of wasting time/fuel to get in close to hit their targets, the SDBs allowed them to strike multiple targets from a single launch point simultaneously.

That's the frame of mind I recommend having while thinking of how the gunships can play a role in a near-peer conflict going forward. They have CLEAR limitations but they're not as boxed in as most assume.
 
Last edited:
RavenOne said:
Looks like the AC-130J Ghostrider gunships may lose their main teeth in the form of the 105mm gun with emphasis on stand off weapons

www.defensenews.com

US Air Force may remove 105mm cannon from AC-130 gunship

Other changes under consideration to prepare the Ghostrider for a high-end fight include adding small cruise missiles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com


cheers
Click to expand...
www.twz.com

AC-130J Ghostrider Gunships Will Keep Their 105mm Howitzers, For Now

With a pivot to the Pacific and needing to keep the AC-130 relevant, its armament may change, but its Howitzer will stay put for the time being.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Good decision IMO. It's not a *gunship* without the guns. Maybe some way to easily swap out the 105mm and add some pallets with cruise missiles or decoys is feasible but removing that gun capability completely would be a waste. Though if you want to drop missiles out the back it seems like you could adapt MC-130Js or other types for that task with less internal rearrangement.

I'm not sure what to think about the 25mm GAU-12/U being gone. Seems like such a weapon was good for area suppression. Though maybe these days the extra stand-off distance provided by the 30mm chain gun is needed even in "low intensity" conflicts.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Good decision IMO. It's not a *gunship* without the guns. Maybe some way to easily swap out the 105mm and add some pallets with cruise missiles or decoys is feasible but removing that gun capability completely would be a waste. Though if you want to drop missiles out the back it seems like you could adapt MC-130Js or other types for that task with less internal rearrangement.

I'm not sure what to think about the 25mm GAU-12/U being gone. Seems like such a weapon was good for area suppression. Though maybe these days the extra stand-off distance provided by the 30mm chain gun is needed even in "low intensity" conflicts.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that the 25mm was removed because there's not much call for area suppression in modern gunships. Something I strongly disagree with, but the old gunship armaments reduced the area suppression load over time as well.

I think the capability should remain, whether 25mm GAU12 or M230 or Mk44 Bushmaster 30mm. Even if you basically never use it except on the training range.

An event like Blackhawk Down would have been greatly different with a couple of 20-25mm gatlings overhead. As would the Libyan Embassy situation.
 
Just to clarify: the GAU-12 and Bofors weren't "removed" from any existing AC-130s.

They were last fitted to the AC-130Us, which were retired in 2020, and neither Gunship variant since the U-boots entered service back in the 1990s (AC-130W and AC-130J) were ever equipped with them.

My brief experience with AC-130U folks suggested a hint of dislike for the GAU-12 due to mechanical failures/jamming issues but at that point in time they'd been in service for >20 years and it wouldn't be surprising if age was a factor. They spoke highly of the Bofors given it's heavier punch (but not too heavy).
 
Eagle2009 said:
Just to clarify: the GAU-12 and Bofors weren't "removed" from any existing AC-130s.

They were last fitted to the AC-130Us, which were retired in 2020, and neither Gunship variant since the U-boots entered service back in the 1990s (AC-130W and AC-130J) were ever equipped with them.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm talking "removed" as in the aircraft in service do not have the weapon installed.

The early AC-130As had a quartet of 7.62mm miniguns, and a quartet of 20mm M61s. Massive area saturation.
Later AC-130As "lost" 2x miniguns, and had a pair of miniguns, a pair of 20mm M61s, and a pair of 40mm. (some of those were converted from the early models)
AC-130Es "lost" the remaining miniguns, and had a pair of M61s forward, with a Bofors and a 105mm aft.
AC-130Hs had the pair of 20mm M61s forward, with a Bofors 40mm and a 105mm aft. (difference between -E and -H is electronics and engines, not weapons)
AC-130Us traded the pair of 20mm for a single 25mm GAU12, retaining the Bofors 40mm and 105mm.
AC130Ws got 1x Bushmaster 30mm with no other guns, drop tubes aft, and a bunch of stuff hanging under the wings. (previously known as MC-130Ws)
AC-130Js have a Bushmaster 30mm and 105mm, with the addition of the drop tubes and wing-mounted weapons from the -Ws.

So the gunships as a "service overhead" don't have a major area saturation gun anymore.



Eagle2009 said:
My brief experience with AC-130U folks suggested a hint of dislike for the GAU-12 due to mechanical failures/jamming issues but at that point in time they'd been in service for >20 years and it wouldn't be surprising if age was a factor. They spoke highly of the Bofors given it's heavier punch (but not too heavy).
Click to expand...
wouldn't surprise me, either. AFSOC was on the bottom end of funding priority for a really long time...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right. I'm talking "removed" as in the aircraft in service do not have the weapon installed.

The early AC-130As had a quartet of 7.62mm miniguns, and a quartet of 20mm M61s. Massive area saturation.
Later AC-130As "lost" 2x miniguns, and had a pair of miniguns, a pair of 20mm M61s, and a pair of 40mm. (some of those were converted from the early models)
AC-130Es "lost" the remaining miniguns, and had a pair of M61s forward, with a Bofors and a 105mm aft.
AC-130Hs had the pair of 20mm M61s forward, with a Bofors 40mm and a 105mm aft. (difference between -E and -H is electronics and engines, not weapons)
AC-130Us traded the pair of 20mm for a single 25mm GAU12, retaining the Bofors 40mm and 105mm.
AC130Ws got 1x Bushmaster 30mm with no other guns, drop tubes aft, and a bunch of stuff hanging under the wings. (previously known as MC-130Ws)
AC-130Js have a Bushmaster 30mm and 105mm, with the addition of the drop tubes and wing-mounted weapons from the -Ws.

So the gunships as a "service overhead" don't have a major area saturation gun anymore.




wouldn't surprise me, either. AFSOC was on the bottom end of funding priority for a really long time...
Click to expand...
Interestingly, at least some of the Whisky gunships also got 105s towards the end of their service lives but not 100% sure the whole fleet got them. This was directly related to the AC-130Hs being retired and the AC-130Js being behind schedule and the need to fill that gap.

Concerning the GAU-12 problems, I wonder if it wasn't just a plain old wear and tear problem more than anything else due to the fact the gunship models likely fired more rounds than any models fitted to the Harrier fleets, especially over a ~30-year career by the time they were retired. Then again, could have just been jaded crews complaining to complain.

My time was AFSOC felt like we had a bottomless pit of money overall, especially during the sequestration years (new dorms, hangars, runway expansions, all new base housing, etc), and that included weapon system investment. Have to remember that they get funding from the Air Force and SOCOM, which makes a big difference. Case in point: the Whisky gunships went from concept to the first converted airframe in less than two years, which is not exactly typical Air Force development speed.
 
Last edited:
Eagle2009 said:
Concerning the GAU-12 problems, I wonder if it wasn't just a plain old wear and tear problem more than anything else due to the fact the gunship models likely fired more rounds than any models fitted to the Harrier fleets, especially over a ~30-year career by the time they were retired. Then again, could have just been jaded crews complaining to complain.
Click to expand...
It may also be that the GAU-12s were never expected to fire more than ~300 rounds in one sitting before the bird came back to let the ordies work on the gun.

But I'd generally expect "shot to hell and back over 30 years" was the main reason.
 
Scott Kenny said:
AC-130Es "lost" the remaining miniguns, and had a pair of M61s forward, with a Bofors and a 105mm aft.
AC-130Hs had the pair of 20mm M61s forward, with a Bofors 40mm and a 105mm aft. (difference between -E and -H is electronics and engines, not weapons)
Click to expand...

There was another change between the baseline C-130E and the baseline C-130H...

The main wing structure was modified, and the specific aluminum alloys used therein changed, to increase the wing's fatigue life.

Problems had appeared early in C-130A wings, so the C-130E got some changes to structure (and I seem to remember alloys), but that mainly moved the stress points to a different area of the wing and only returned the fatigue life to that originally planned.

The USAF decided they wanted a longer fatigue life, so they rolled wing changes in with the electronics & engine changes for the C-130H.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom