US Squadron of AC- 130 ' could end ISIS in few months time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No doubt there 8 risk and danger but that's what gunships are for. They can engage ground targets from an altitude higher than the range of most manpads.

Having said that there is no free lunch. It's always risky. If AC-130 can't handle ISIS they should put them in museums.

a reply to: Xeven

Uhm, no they don't. They operate in the heart of MANPADS territory. That's why they only operate in areas where the defenses have been compromised and knocked down, and operate almost exclusively at night.


They weren't designed to be the sole source of air support. They were designed to cover firebases, and troops on the ground. If they were able to take on targets by themselves we wouldn't need a huge TACAIR fleet, we could just buy more Gunships and be covered.

a reply to: Xeven

Regardless, they were hit by ONE MANPADS and brought down. Now you want to put them up against an enemy, by themselves, that has who knows how many MANPADS, and potentially has large caliber AAA guns that will eat them alive.

a reply to: Xeven

An AC-130 can be downed by a shoulder mounted SAM missile
As it was in Vietnam.

a reply to: alldaylong

We have had AC-130 COVERAGE all over Iraq during the earliest days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Of course there is danger but certainly no worse than during the war to take out Saddam. If AC-130 cannot engage a 2 bit army like ISIS then they should be retired but they can l.

No one is saying the AC-130 should go alone lol.

it's just perfect for this type interdiction mission else it's useless.

a reply to: alldaylong

Sure it could happen but AC-130 Defenses and operation altitude has come a long way since Vietnam.

War is never easy or not dangerous.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The U model gunships can pressurize and fly above man pad coverage. Still dangerous though.

Was not suggesting they go alone but they have very good defenses vs manpads but they certainly can be at risk. It's war after all.

a reply to: Xeven

The US has carried out two airstrikes in Iraq, a convoy and artillery were hit with laser guided bombs carried by F/A18's.

Pretty much as Zaphod and I said.

No need for AC130's when a small squad of jets can be in and out in a matter of minutes.

www.abc.net.au...

a reply to: Xeven

They still have to get within range to identify and hit the target. That means coming lower. It has nothing to do with being able to pressurize, it has to do with target discrimination and accuracy.

the only way to win is to make them think we are crazier than they are.

Air drops and strikes are FOR ISIS not against it as the msm would have you believe
this is all about the oil in Iraq in Kurdish controlled regions
www.ft.com...

originally posted by: all2human
Air drops and strikes are FOR ISIS not against it as the msm would have you believe
this is all about the oil in Iraq in Kurdish controlled regions
pave way for future pipeline
www.ft.com...

You do know that what your saying makes no sense. The Kurds who have close ties with the US have oil. ISIS could threaten that oil. The US drops supplies to refugees and bombs some ISIS positions and some how some way you warp that into this is all for ISIS a group openly hostile to the US.

a reply to: MrSpad
The Obama Administration Is No Friend of Kurdistan, believe me, the US is blocking the sale of Kurdish oil in the world market
As for ISIS being supported by the US..with American hardware and training ,i declare them guilty until proven innocent

: www.ekurd.net...
guardianlv.com...
www.aawsat.net...
www.foxnews.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58
I believe the call sign was "Spirit 03". Not meaning to be a nit-picker on you, just for being accurate. Here's a link with info about the incident. www.shadowspear.com...

a reply to: Mikeultra

I'm used to calling them Specter, so my brain flipped it. Thanks for the correction.

I found these 2 videos on You-tube showing an American F/A-18F Super Hornet bombing ISIS in Iraq. Enjoy...

but that would be far too easy and things are not done like that in this world. the only effective military operations on this planet are carried out by non-state actors fueled by religious fervor, not well established and technology advanced states, who's hopes for the future are pinned to successful negotiations.

even if they are used, the AC - 130s, the only people that will die are innocent sunnis who happen to be resisting ISIS...its just the way things are...the United States is incapable of locating and targeting large numbers of ISIS fighters...only the international press has that capability.

Can't wait to see the ISIS scurry around on the ground with 105 Howitzer popping in their path. Really hope they have deployed these by now or at least about to. ISIS needs deaded.

a reply to: Spacespider

If anyone would truely be interested in ending the "war on terror" what you really use is about a dozen KC-135 tankers.

Make a few low passes while dumping fuel, just as the fuel cloud reaches the ground, ignite it with a simple flare.
No more terrorists; or anything else for that matter.

Repeat this manuver a few times and there will be no one left willing to fight. Incinerating a few towns and villages should show the world how to deal with these terrorists.

That is if anyone is serious about putting a stop to such activity. Otherwise this is all another part of the money machine in action.

Send the A-10 warthogs in.

Don't go after the people of ISIS but all the US armored equipment they captured and the gun trucks.

With out the armored equipment and gun trucks they are at a disadvantage.