You can run, but you will only die tired.


http://www.defensenews.com/vid...-most-lethal-gunship

Cool!

What is amazing to contemplate:


C-130J Top Speed - 416 mph

A-10 Warthog - 439 mph


The C-130 hauls faaaar more, has substantially more firepower, is more versatile, and has significantly longer legs and loiter time. We need to be building a fleet of the J Ghostrider.

The AC-130 gunship has come a long ways since the days in 1968 when I was parked near them at Ubon Thailand. I was a crew member on the C-130 Blindbat aircraft and occasionally we got to see them work at night over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
I also lost a good friend on one of them that was shot down over Laos in 1970.

Ken

quote:

What is amazing to contemplate:C-130J Top Speed - 416 mphA-10 Warthog - 439 mph

Check that.

The USAF fact sheet lists the AC-130 as a top speed of 300mph. They are vastly different aircraft with vastly different capabilities. The AC130 is extremely vulnerable to ground fire, and in anything in contested airspace it doesn't fly. The orbiting pattern it takes to lay down fire is spectacular when it can be sustained, but is predictable. The A-10 is vulnerable as well, but is a more survivable platform. It's an orange and grapefruit comparison.

May God have mercy on the souls of the targeted.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigjimttu:
The USAF fact sheet lists the AC-130 as a top speed of 300mph.

The USAF lists the top speed of the AC-130J as 362 kts. That would be 416 MPH.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Fact...130j-ghostrider.aspx

The older AC-130U is shown with a top speed of 300 MPH, which is about 260 kts.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Fact...104486/ac-130hu.aspx

The AC 130 gunships in Viet Nam weren't completely vulnerable unless from the air. Then they were screwed if they couldn't dive and evade the attacker. But like the Blind Bat C-130s most of them had top secret ECM (electronic countermeasure equipment on board. It sat on the Nav's table. and it was there for the purpose of ground fire (57mm AAA, and SAM missles that were radar controlled.) For the 37MM AAA which wasn't radar controlled, the counter measure equipment was our eyes!!! Many "break lefts-break rights" during 8 hours of flying at night.
The Blind Bat birds were the test beds for new equipment like that. We had all kind of fun but we couldn't shoot back!
I would guess that the current AC-130's have much better equipment for avoiding ground fire than the AC-130s of my time.
I'm sorry for taking up your time, but my memory is still very sharp from my 40 missions over the Trail in 1968.
Thanks for your time,
Ken

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigjimttu:
The USAF fact sheet lists the AC-130 as a top speed of 300mph.

The USAF lists the top speed of the AC-130J as 362 kts. That would be 416 MPH.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Fact...130j-ghostrider.aspx

The older AC-130U is shown with a top speed of 300 MPH, which is about 260 kts.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Fact...104486/ac-130hu.aspx

Yup, and Vne of A10 is 450 kts or about 520 mph. Plus, it turns, dives, and shoots back. Any variety of C130 does zip for maneuvering at it's max cruise speed.

But AC-130's don't exactly fly in the weeds either. Then again with all the cameras and other sensors it possesses it doesn't need to.

If my butt is on the ground and in trouble, I believe I would rather have an AC-130J overhead.

quote:

Yup, and Vne of A10 is 450 kts or about 520 mph. Plus, it turns, dives, and shoots back. Any variety of C130 does zip for maneuvering at it's max cruise speed.

Really? I have had slick Es as fast as they would go on the desert floor out turning F-4s......

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

quote:

Yup, and Vne of A10 is 450 kts or about 520 mph. Plus, it turns, dives, and shoots back. Any variety of C130 does zip for maneuvering at it's max cruise speed.

Really? I have had slick Es as fast as they would go on the desert floor out turning F-4s......

What were you smoking at the time?

So you didn't know that USAF C-130s have been practicing defensive maneuvering against fighters for decades? A C-130 has a sustained turn rate significantly higher than F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s. Did you not know that either?

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:
So you didn't know that USAF C-130s have been practicing defensive maneuvering against fighters for decades? A C-130 has a sustained turn rate significantly higher than F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s. Did you not know that either?

What's your definition of "sustained turn rate"? One wing anchored to a tetherball post?

A C130 doesn't get anywhere near max cruise on the deck. Whatever that speed is/was back when you were supposedly flying them, I assure you almost any fighter designed since the 1930's will get inside you with matched speeds. Some will stop and wait for you to lumber by and then fry you. MANY WW2 era bombers will still out fly a brand spank new C130 and they were routinely clobbered by their fighter contemporaries.

No four engine turboprop will pull a sustained high G turn without either coming apart or over riding the inputs. Pull out yer manual and look up ultimate loads fer yer lumber hauler. What does it say? +3, -1.5? Maybe, if you're brave. Don't use too much aileron, you might drag a wing.



Out turning a guy who blasts by you at 1.2M on the deck is meaningless bullshit. You wanna compare make believe fantasy what if "defensive" scenarios, carry on. The only chance you have of surviving an engagement against tactical air is invisibility cloak.

How much and what kind of military flying hours do you have? I need to know how much to simply my explanation.

AC 130 primarily fly at night in an active combat area fir a reason.

I don't know anything about planes (other than eetc valuations) but I am seeing some c130 taking off and landing at Patrick Air Force base as I drink some beers on cocoa beach pier and it's pretty damn cool.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
I don't know anything about planes (other than eetc valuations) but I am seeing some c130 taking off and landing at Patrick Air Force base as I drink some beers on cocoa beach pier and it's pretty damn cool.

Mike

Definitely a "cool" piece of equipment but a fighter it's not. Any discussion of out turning or out thinking a fighter in yer Herc is fantastical bullshit.

The maneuverability of a C-130 is irrelevant. It's primary weapons are side mounted, and require a pylon turn to bring them to bear. The newer upgrades bringing viper strike and sdb's helps alleviate this some, but the bird still has to do an orbiting turn most of the engagement. This is very vulnerable to manpads, aa, air interception... Even if the plane can evade those, it's still not putting ordnance on target. It's a fantastic aircraft for what it was meant to do, which is CAS in uncontested, low threat environments. It is not meant to attack in all weather conditions against sophisticated defenses, especially daylight. the A-10 and AC-130 are fantastic implements of war if used for their intended missions, and with respect to their limitations.

Doppleganster,

Allow me to contrast what you have speculated against what I have actually done.

I have two tours flying C-130s, was trained in C-130 air combat maneuvering, and was also an instructor in C-130 combat tactics in my squadron. Several times I flew against fighters and I, as well as everyone else, were surprised at the survivability of the C-130 in an air-to-air environment. I did most of this 25-30 years ago against F-4s and A-7s. More than once I had the fighter jockeys flying against me admit they could not get a shot on my plane.

I flew one of the--if the most--gutless versions of the C-130s, the "E" model. Many times I sustained 285 KIAS on the deck in LEVEL flight. (KIAS means knots indicated air speed). The max allowable airspeed was 326 KIAS, and it could usually cruise at 300 KTAS (knots true air speed) at medium altitudes. B models and H models were/are faster, and the J model faster still. We routinely flew and maneuvered at 250 KIAS at 10,000 feet and below.

Our turn rate was significantly higher than that of of any fighter at the time and that still holds true for many of the fighters of today. That isn't hard to understand if you have a basic understanding of air combat maneuvering.

In 2003 I got to witness the rehearsal for the 100th Anniversary of Aviation Tattoo. A Tattoo is a flying ceremony that honors aircraft returning from combat missions. The first aircraft to takeoff was a Stearman. Then came the early WW II bombers (B-17, B-25) then the later WWII bombers (B-24, B-26), then a P-51, an F-86, and some others. Then a C-130 (I assume an H) took off. The C-130 used less runway and climbed out steeper and faster than the P-51.

A P-51B's max speed on the deck was 371 mph or 322 KIAS. (The P-51B was a tiny bit faster than the P-51D.) An H-Model C-130 could likely match the P-51 and J can likely exceed it. I am not exactly sure because I never flew an H or a J, but my guess is well informed.................

Here is an example of some airshow maneuvering in a C-130J:

http://m.military.com/video/ai...-demo/1336078645001/

No, the C-130 was not built for air combat maneuvering. However, with a trained crew, they are a damned hard target to shoot from the air, and that is a FACT.................

INTJ

Guess I could waste more of my time deconstructing the nonsense you posted but I think it's pretty safe to assume you flew a super-mega-herc that could do magical things and you were somehow able to control the beast from your uprated left seat lawn chair.

Might I suggest you locate some CURRENT not IMAGINARY C130J pilots and ask them how they'd do in a daylight 1V1 engagement against? F15? F16? Mig29? How bout same era ... F5! Be sure to explain them thar complimicated concepts like "(KIAS means knots indicated air speed)" and "(knots true air speed)" so they don't git confoosed by no semantics. I suspect when the laughing stops them boys is gonna look atcha like you been smokin' crabgrass.

I gotta spend more time in the Aviation forum.

quote:

Originally posted by DOPPELGANGSTER:
INTJ

Guess I could waste more of my time deconstructing the nonsense you posted but I think it's pretty safe to assume you flew a super-mega-herc that could do magical things and you were somehow able to control the beast from your uprated left seat lawn chair.

Might I suggest you locate some CURRENT not IMAGINARY C130J pilots and ask them how they'd do in a daylight 1V1 engagement against? F15? F16? Mig29? How bout same era ... F5! Be sure to explain them thar complimicated concepts like "(KIAS means knots indicated air speed)" and "(knots true air speed)" so they don't git confoosed by no semantics. I suspect when the laughing stops them boys is gonna look atcha like you been smokin' crabgrass.

I gotta spend more time in the Aviation forum.

"Deconstruct" my post? You? SERIOUSLY?

A word of advice. Don't spend any more time in the Aviation forum. Those of us who are real aviators don't have much use for Internet "experts" like you.........

quote:

Originally posted by INTJ:

quote:

Originally posted by DOPPELGANGSTER:
INTJ

Guess I could waste more of my time deconstructing the nonsense you posted but I think it's pretty safe to assume you flew a super-mega-herc that could do magical things and you were somehow able to control the beast from your uprated left seat lawn chair.

Might I suggest you locate some CURRENT not IMAGINARY C130J pilots and ask them how they'd do in a daylight 1V1 engagement against? F15? F16? Mig29? How bout same era ... F5! Be sure to explain them thar complimicated concepts like "(KIAS means knots indicated air speed)" and "(knots true air speed)" so they don't git confoosed by no semantics. I suspect when the laughing stops them boys is gonna look atcha like you been smokin' crabgrass.

I gotta spend more time in the Aviation forum.

"Deconstruct" my post? You? SERIOUSLY?

A word of advice. Don't spend any more time in the Aviation forum. Those of us who are real aviators don't have much use for Internet "experts" like you.........

That hurts, coming from a guy who actually chose the handle "INTJ".



I'll be sticking around - Mr. Briggs "Real Aviator".

Well for what it is worth an RAAF Herc, back in the 90's I think, played silly bugger dogfights with a light twin running drugs across the Timor sea. Seemed to have no trouble matching the drub plane in aerial manoeuvring.

Can't argue flying stuff, but from my cargo compartment experiences as a paratrooper, I hated the twisting rolling and turning of the C130s over the Nantahala NF, I can imagine a 130 giving a fast mover a hard time at low altitude. I swear those GA ARNG 130s could turn on a dime and climb like a rocket over those Appalachian hills.

A Herc would have no problem with a light twin. I once remember flying with a couple of civilian pilots in a Piper Seneca. I was a C-130 pilot at Little Rock at the time. As we were climbing out at 110 KIAS we noticed a C-130 was climbing out parallel to us from the air base. The guys in the twin joked how we didn't need to worry as the Herk couldn't keep up. I said "You guys do know he is climbing out at 180 KIAS?" There was just silence at that point and it well illustrated how little many civilian pilots understand about the C-130.

I was always very aware of how uncomfortable aggressive maneuvering was for most troops in the cargo compartment. We were allowed to fly a low level before every troop drop, but in the high heat and humidity of Ft Benning in the summer, we would usually only fly one low level in the morning and everything else was direct to the drop zone. One time 60 troops filled 75 sick bags. On the plus side, a low level always made them motivated to jump out......

I do know of some airstrips in PNG-Ok this is back in the 60's- that the only reason a herc couldn't use them was the Herc was too big. Mind you I have never seen a strip the ole Caribou could not get in and out of. Now there was a cargo plane that you would need an old biplane to combat it.