It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AC-17 ???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I was at an airshow a couple of weeks ago and a C-17 was putting on a flying demonstration when I thought what about building an attack version? I mean we have the AC-130 Specter gunship. I would like to know what people think about it. Next question what do we arm it with?




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Waste of an air frame the cost and lifting capabilty of the C17 far outways its use as gun ship.

Cheers

Debaser



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
We could certainly load it up with plenty of firepower-20 and 30 mm guns. It would do a great job ofclearing things-people, tanks, buildings...
The real down side is how large and slow it would be.
In a world where almost anyone can get RPG's and stingers-it would be in extreme danger of being shot down.
Think of all the damage the A-10 takes on it's runs and it is much smaller and faster....



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
No use yet... Cos' at the moment we don't have any tecnique/weapons that is so good that you'd have to replace the old ones...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Debaser
Waste of an air frame the cost and lifting capabilty of the C17 far outways its use as gun ship.

Cheers

Debaser


If it is done the same way as the AC-130 was done this wouldn't be a problem. When they created the AC-130 they took an existing high time airframe and did a life extension on it. I agree 100% tha taking a brand new airframe right off of the assembly line would be a waste. But the original run of C-17s are going to start getting a little long in the tooth. Rather than derate their payload you could convert a few of them to gunships.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
They could've done that with previous cargo planes but they didn't. Instead they are wasting away in the Arizona desert. Imagine the AC-5. Yikes.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
A C-141 or C-5 doesn't have the power or maneuverability of the C-17 or the ability to operate from unimproved runways. I was standing next to a couple of US Air pilots at this airshow and they were about ready to wet themselves.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
True, the C-17 is one rockin' transport. I see them all the time when I'm around McCord AFB (WA). I just wonder if something more could be done with those good old transports. Btw, being up on the flight deck of a C-5 is awesome. I had the opportunity at Oshkosh way back. I've been in the C-17 too, and it looks smaller on the outside. You could pack it with guns for days.

Speaking of C-17s, check out this R/C model. Insane. I've GOT to get one of those.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I've seen the R/C C-17 website. I can't wait to see the test flights.

Just after I got out of the Navy I worked in Jacksonville, Florida building the wing flaps for the C-5B. Lockheed came down with one and gave us a ride that was cool.

Back to my original question. "We get to build an AC-17. What do we arm it with? My first suggestion would be Hellfire missiles and keep the back open for a MOAB.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
You outfit it much like the AC-130 but with a bit more.

2 - M61 Vulcan
2 - 40mm cannons
1 - 90mm cannon
1- 105mm cannon

2 - external mounts for Hellfire, JCM, and other small guided missiles, as well as cluster bombs, submunitions, FAE.

2 - external mounts for Sidewinder and/or HARM.

Gate dropped BLU-82, GBU-43



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I believe there is development going on in the area of replacing the AC-130 - Darpa calls it the "ACX" project and I don't think it involves a C-17.

Thats all I know, someone else with more time can look it up and post your findings...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Here is the thread on ATS about the AC-X
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FredT touched on the topic we're discussing.



I started a thread a while back based on a AWST article. The AF has looked at C-17's to upgrade to an AC configuration. That would make an awesum force. Doubt it would come to fruition, its big and the military needs the ones that they have for airlift right now. The C-130J would give it a big advantage over the H model they use now. What about a Remote piloted model???




[edit on 8/3/2005 by CyberianHusky]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Here's a good article on the subject.

www.military-aerospace-technology.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
wats that one concept where the vehicle has 4 propellers. two in the front and two in the back, and it has the ability to land like a helicopter like the osprey but can fly like the C130, it looks just like the C-130.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
i found it. its the V-44, pretty cool concept, too bad it aint into prototype stage or anithing like that. but pretty cool.




www.military.cz...



[edit on 3-8-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yeah, it looks pretty cool, but I wonder if it might be too vunerable in heavy combat.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I look for the ACX to go the way of the Commanche and the A-12. I'll stick to my idea of using hich time C-17 airframes. I like CyberianHusky's weapons load out, but I wonder if external hardpoints can be added to a composite wing like the C-17's I was thinking of fuselage mounted points



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I look for the ACX to go the way of the Commanche and the A-12. I'll stick to my idea of using hich time C-17 airframes. I like CyberianHusky's weapons load out, but I wonder if external hardpoints can be added to a composite wing like the C-17's I was thinking of fuselage mounted points



I was actually invisioning a couple on the wing and a couple on the fuselage. You can put hard points on composite wings, it's being done and I think has been done in small amounts. The Japanese F-2 has composite wings. You just have to place them towards the middle. It would be best to carry heavier weapons on the wings simply because the body has giant wheel fairings.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberianHusky

I was actually invisioning a couple on the wing and a couple on the fuselage. You can put hard points on composite wings, it's being done and I think has been done in small amounts. The Japanese F-2 has composite wings. You just have to place them towards the middle. It would be best to carry heavier weapons on the wings simply because the body has giant wheel fairings.


Sorry CyberianHusky I didn't phrase it correctly. I don't know if hardpoints can be retrofitted to an existing composite wing. If they have to re-wing the C-17s the cost puts this idea out of reach. If they are going thru the expense of re-winging then they might just as well E check the fuselage and restore the plane to a full load rating.

I was thinking of the sides of the fuselage towards the front for weapons mounting points. Maybe even a pop out launcher that can be reloaded from inside the aircraft. I think that there is enough room for it.





posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
In an article entitled Next Generation Gunships, in the March 2005 edition of "Military Aerospace Technology" magazine the options available the replace the AC-130 are detailed.

It starts off describing the AC-130H (Spectre) and AC-130U (Spooky) and how they are not just cargo planes loaded with firepower but also one of the most complex aircraft the USAF has, for instancethe computers and avionics onboard have over 609,000 lines of programming.

Apparently the AC-X program has looked into using either an upgrade of the AC-130U or a completely new aircraft. The AC-X program requires the new aircraft to have a small size and crew, stealth, high speed, maneuverability, and the ability to carry directed-energy and non-lethal weapons.

The AC-X if not an advanced C-130, will be a derivative of a future transport. The Air Force wants to introduce a family of stealthy transport and special mission aircraft from around 2015-2020; roles would be transport, air-to-air refueling tanker, special forces insertion and gunship. The aircraft’s size would be between that of the C-130 and the Boeing C-17.

Some of the offerings of the major US aerospace companies are as follows:

* Lockheed Martin's MACK - a multi-role medium-lift aircraft for special and conventional forces. Lockheed has not released any artist's renderings on this project.
* Boeing's Advanced Theater Transport (ATT) aka the "Superfrog"
* Boeing's Blended Wing Body (BWB) - which incidently seems to be progressing rather well with a scaled down version already with flight time.
* Bell Helicopter and Boeing's are also offering the V-44 concept, a large 4 rotor version of their joint venture, the V-22 Osprey. (Deltaboy already posted images of that aircraft)

Boeing's BWB Concept:



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join