It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


AC-X, the ac-130 gunship replacement

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:57 PM

In late December 2001 a Department of Defense Program Budget Decision (PBD) called for purchasing at least eight additional AC-130U Spooky gunships, and initiating work on a possible replacement gunship aircraft. The PBD added funding to accelerate and fully fund an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration for the AC(X) aircraft. The AC(X) could be either a further upgrade to the existing AC-130 an entirely new follow-on system. A formal procurement program for the AC(X) was expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05).

Special operators want the new gunship, or AC-X, to be much smaller than a C-130, with fewer crew members. They want it to be stealthy, with the speed and maneuverability of a long-range jet fighter. They want it equipped with directed energy weapons and non-lethal technologies, and it should be able to engage targets from any angle-above and below, front and back.

So what do you guys think? Should we make a new, stealthy, DE weapon equiped, super fast, uber maneuverable gunship extrordinare or should we just upgrade the AC-130's?

Methinks the new one would be cool

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 05:06 PM
The new one seems really cool but it sounds really expensive.

They want it equipped with directed energy weapons. That would be nice to have on a AC-130 but why do they want a non-lethal tech something like this should not be used for crowd control a gun ship should be about one thing raining down pain on the enemy.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 05:08 PM
The non leathal weapons would be nice in Iraq - you could control places like Falluja (spl?) no problem, and without catching a bunch of crap for killing people.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 05:12 PM
I guess you have a good point there Mad Man. Do you think there should be a version for just crowd control and one just for lethal weapons or they should be a mix?

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 05:22 PM
During my military service i have seen the AC-130 Gunship in action and it is not a force to be reckoned with. They come in so low with the sound of engines making a sound like God himself has entered the arena. The firepower is awesome and so terrifying when you see where its coming from. Although the C-130 is ageing a little i would personally keep them in service a while longer as they are a proved and tested reliable operational machine however all good things must come to an end and i would be sad to see it go.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 05:56 PM
I would say if you can equip them with traditional, DE, and non leathal weapons, then they should. However, in no way should they sacrafice lethality for political reasons. Maybe they could make the weapos interchangeable so that they could be armed on a mission by mission basis. If not, maybe a non lethal MP version could be made.

I agree that these planes have at least a few more battles left in them
Just watching some of the vids of these things in action show that. BTW, what branch were you in?

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:05 PM
Well i was in the infantary for 5 years then transfer to the intelligence for 2 years before i got out. As i said i have seen the C-130 in action and its too good to throw away its the lord of the sky however i think your idea on interchangeable weapons is good. There is so much cargo space on these things they could have storage for the different types of weapons they could even change their mission role whilst in flight and adapt to the situation on the ground whilst they fly about.

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:48 AM
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???

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by FredT
What about a Remote piloted model???

Hmmm, I didn't think of that...
My initial reaction is that it might be better to have it manned, but I can't really think of any reason why. I don't know muh about the communication methods that are used, are they secure from enemy EW?

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:38 AM
They need a new plane its really getting old. New engines new armament and more efficient structure and reduction of sound all have to be on the list. If they can upgrade the existing C-130's with those things I mentioned would be impressed but I think it would be better and cost less to start a new line o airplanes.

new topics

top topics


log in