End of the road for Spectre

[gf0012-aust]

USAF Plans Serious Look At Replacing Special Ops Aircraft

The U.S. Air Force plans to start taking a serious look at potential replacements for several C-130 variants used by its special operations forces, a service representative said Feb. 5.

Maj. Gen. John Dorris said the Bush Administration's fiscal 2005 budget request, submitted to Congress Feb. 2, contains "seed money" to develop concepts for an "MX" aircraft, which would replace the MC-130E/H airdrop/transport aircraft, and an "AX" which would replace the AC-130 gunship. The analysis could take about two years.

With surface-to-air threats becoming increasingly sophisticated, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) believes it will need to begin fielding the new aircraft in about 2015 as a replacement for its aging Lockheed Martin C-130 variants, Dorris said. He spoke to reporters after speaking at a special operations conference sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).

"After 2015, the ability of the C-130 as it's currently configured, even with enhancements, is not going to be able to go into a lot of the airspace that it needs to go into," he said.

The MX is envisioned as a long-range aircraft that is "able to do the mission in one period of darkness," Dorris said. The latest thinking for the AX is that it would be a "mothership that sends out sensors." The sensors would then report back to the mothership, which would send out "lethal and/or non-lethal projectiles," possibly small, guided missiles.

A new aerial refueling capability will also be needed by AFSOC but probably later than 2015, Dorris said.

To address AFSOC's tanker shortfall in the interim, about 27 MC-130H Combat Talon IIs are being modified to be capable of refueling. That work will be completed by about 2007. AFSOC's MC-130E Combat Talon I's already can perform the tanker mission

By Marc Selinger February 6, 2004

 

[spectre]

Trust me, There is many many years left for both Spooky and Spectre.

Both are going through a MLU (another for the H model)

Both are being fitted for the 30MM bushmaster (replacing the 25MM and the 40MM in the U model and replacing the 40MM in the H model {the 20MMs being long gone in the H })

they are looking into adding the GBU-44B on the UBoats for stand off capability.

 

[Scott]

There's a series of USAF photos of a new Bushmaster installation on an AC-130U from 1/07 at

http://www.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=bushmaster

That is 1 deadly b!tch.

:smokingc:

 

[LancerMc]

Its really not that all surprising since C-130's have started showing the age in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the new "J's" have shown to be unable to meet requirements. The USAF hasn't suffered a lot of losses with their special forces C-130's but the RAF has. The Specters will need to be replaced in the next coming decade, but the new Spookys will prove valuable for many years to come.

 

[spectre]

Its really not that all surprising since C-130's have started showing the age in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the new "J's" have shown to be unable to meet requirements. The USAF hasn't suffered a lot of losses with their special forces C-130's but the RAF has. The Specters will need to be replaced in the next coming decade, but the new Spookys will prove valuable for many years to come.

Yes, the "J"s are almost useless in tactical airlift and that is why the C-130 AMP will be so useful. I agree, Lockheed did a major dis-service when they took away the H model and shoved the J down our throats...it just sucks.

Both the H model and the U model Gunships (as well as the Talons) will be around for much more than ten years more. There just is not anything that can replace them and they have proved so valuable in the types of engagements we now face. With the new wing boxes, the H model Gunships are right up there with the U models as far as capability and life left.
I agree, the original plan was to have the AC-130U go to the 16th SOS and the AC-130H go to the reserves (with the 919th SOW)...but with 9/11 that all changed. there is NO plan not to have that happen and both the AC-130H/U will have much longer lives at Hurlburt under the 16th SOW.

 

[old faithful]

Yes, the "J"s are almost useless in tactical airlift and that is why the C-130 AMP will be so useful. I agree, Lockheed did a major dis-service when they took away the H model and shoved the J down our throats...it just sucks.

Both the H model and the U model Gunships (as well as the Talons) will be around for much more than ten years more. There just is not anything that can replace them and they have proved so valuable in the types of engagements we now face. With the new wing boxes, the H model Gunships are right up there with the U models as far as capability and life left.
I agree, the original plan was to have the AC-130U go to the 16th SOS and the AC-130H go to the reserves (with the 919th SOW)...but with 9/11 that all changed. there is NO plan not to have that happen and both the AC-130H/U will have much longer lives at Hurlburt under the 16th SOW.

Why do you consider the "J",s useless in tactical airlift? Am familier with the H madel myself,and thought that the J,s were an improvment.

 

[spectre]

Why do you consider the "J",s useless in tactical airlift? Am familier with the H madel myself,and thought that the J,s were an improvment.

The props de-laminate in the dirt. The props are much harder to work on in the field. Because of the avionics, the aircraft requires huge AGE AC units on the ground...hard to find in the field.

When we were in Afghanistan, we (H Models) had to fly in ALL of the Italian equipment and personnel into "Salerno" because their J models were not dirt qualified.

They are not as fuel efficient as stated by Lockheed and that is why you will see more and more using external fuel tanks ... thus creating more drag and cutting their legs even more.

They cut out two key positions (Nav and Eng)...which is fine...the C-17 has proven that the computers can not land people and pallets on the PI better than a nave with a grid in his/her hand. And the computer is not great at fuzzy logic....it just shuts systems off. I do not mind being replaced by a computer at all tell you the truth but, you then loose two sets of eyes up in the flight deck looking out the windows to scan for whatever might be heading your way...you can either go without and I can assure you, there have been many times where a nav or an eng saw something i.e. a missile heading their way before a sensor went off and way before the pilot would have seen it. You can replace those people can be replaced by adding two more pilots to the crew ...greatly increasing the cost of the missions (making the crew 4 pilots and two loadmasters), go without and take your chances, or adding a few more Loadmasters....which loadmasters are always in short supply.


But hell, the "J" looks cool.

 

[Scott]

The USAF hasn't suffered a lot of losses with their special forces C-130's but the RAF has.

How many AC-130's have USAF & RAF lost?

 

[spectre]

How many AC-130's have USAF & RAF lost?

The RAF had never had an AC-130 and the USAF has not lost an AC-130 since March of 1994 (69-6576 self inflicted) and has not lost one to enemy fire since 31 Jan 1991 (69-6567)

He might have been meaning Special Ops MC-130E/H and British C1Ps (i.e. XV206 and XV206 type)

 

[Big-E]

The Spookies have gotten a major face lift since this thread started. The new Bushmaster cannons and fire control systems make it relavent in today's battle space.

 

[spectre]

The Spookies have gotten a major face lift since this thread started. The new Bushmaster cannons and fire control systems make it relavent in today's battle space.

I do not believe the fire control system has changed...just the new weapons (also adding the capability to carry the GBU-44/b)

The U-Boats have always had the capability to carry AGM-114s and I also have seen Mavericks fitted but I doubt they ever fired them.


It will be interesting if they also update the H-Model to also carry the gbu-44/bs


Here are some tests with hellfires and also dropping parasite UAVs from a Herk N118TC... but also remember, the U-Boats has had the wiring and capability to carry and fire Hellfire missiles since I believe acft 89-0509 (#2)

http://www.1370th.org/rc130/512/killerhercairdrop.wmv

http://www.1370th.org/rc130/512/doddemo.wmv

To make the UAV think work in either the AC-130H or U they would have to make the UAV container MUCH smaller.

 

[Big-E]

I do not believe the fire control system has changed...just the new weapons (also adding the capability to carry the GBU-44/b)

The conversion to AC-130U standard involves a signicant FC upgrade.

 

[spectre]

The conversion to AC-130U standard involves a signicant FC upgrade.

They were built as AC-130Us
none were converted from Hs

 

[alexsa]

They were built as AC-130Us
none were converted from Hs

The reference to conversion appears correct noting the AC-130U's are based on the C130H airframe. It wouel appear they were not 'built' as AC-130U's but aquired as C-130's and then converted.

Continuing the distinguished combat history of side-firing AC-130 gunships, the new AC-130U Spectre gunship is being fielded as a replacement for the AC-130A aircraft. This program acquires 13 new basic C-130H aircraft for modification and integration by Boeing to the AC-130U Gunship configuration.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

 

[spectre]

The reference to conversion appears correct noting the AC-130U's are based on the C130H airframe. It wouel appear they were not 'built' as AC-130U's but aquired as C-130's and then converted.



http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

The Slick H models do not have a Fire Control system that was in question. Also, They were based on the H model aircraft (C-130H not AC-130H which is an E model) and had never flown as a C-130H...so they were built as AC-130Us

 

[alexsa]

The Slick H models do not have a Fire Control system that was in question. Also, They were based on the H model aircraft (C-130H not AC-130H which is an E model) and had never flown as a C-130H...so they were built as AC-130Us

Sorry ... What

Ignoring the AC-130H as I made no reference to this, please read the post. I was defending Big E's "conversion" comment. The AC-130U is a conversion of a C-130H airframe. In other words the aircraft was built as a C-130H and converted to the AC-130U.

While it is completely irrelevant from where do you sumise the airframe was never fligh tested before conversion.

 

[spectre]

Sorry ... What

Ignoring the AC-130H as I made no reference to this, please read the post. I was defending Big E's "conversion" comment. The AC-130U is a conversion of a C-130H airframe. In other words the aircraft was built as a C-130H and converted to the AC-130U.

While it is completely irrelevant from where do you sumise the airframe was never fligh tested before conversion.

They never flew as C-130Hs... Yes, they used the same factory as the C-130Hs but they were essentially built from the ground up as U-boats. They were not compleetly built as an C-130H then taken and cut up to be a converted U boat (all except for 87-0128, which was never ment to be anything more than a test bird but after the loss of AC-130H 69-6576 was delivered to the 4th SOS)

These AC-130Us did not fly with another squadron, they did not carry other tail numbers, they were built as AC-130Us on the C-130H2 airframe.

 

[alexsa]

They never flew as C-130Hs... Yes, they used the same factory as the C-130Hs but they were essentially built from the ground up as U-boats. They were not compleetly built as an C-130H then taken and cut up to be a converted U boat (all except for 87-0128, which was never ment to be anything more than a test bird but after the loss of AC-130H 69-6576 was delivered to the 4th SOS)

These AC-130Us did not fly with another squadron, they did not carry other tail numbers, they were built as AC-130Us on the C-130H2 airframe.

To me it seems to be an exercise in semantics ...... but fair enough.

 

[spectre]

To me it seems to be an exercise in semantics ...... but fair enough.

I agree,
I just meant that they were not fully built as C-130Hs Everything that was different from a slick was not put unto the aircraft to begin with... basically, they were shells with some of the wiring and tubing installed. They were not fully built aircraft before they were "converted"

On the other hand, even though the (what we now call AC-130Hs) AC-130Es were fully built as C-130Es and even though they were never delivered as slicks they were then fully converted into the AC-130Es (then in the 70s re converted into AC-130Hs) Each aircraft were built differently making maintenance somewhat a bitch on the AC-130Hs ...but in my mind, they fly circles around the AC-130U even today.