Yeah, all of these qualities (I'm assuming they carry over to SR) are why this aircraft is being used for this particular operation.

Field testing shows that ammo situated in a comfy chair prior to firing provides less wear on the barrel. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The thing is, the AC-260 has the same 30 Body… and 10x the capacity. So the rules obviously remain a little wonky. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

AC-130s work well in the current day, because quite frankly the targets they are employed against usually have limited ability to fire back with anything that's a threat to the aircraft.

The Taliban doesn't really have the anti-air weaponry these days as they did back when they were fighting the Soviets. Us not supplying them any more with a never ending supply of anti-air stuff probably has something to do with it - they've depleted their stocks to a huge degree since then.

Against any enemy with good anti-air defenses, the AC-130 is a sitting duck.




-karma

A sitting duck with a hundred million gigantic guns, but yeah.

That's why you send in other things (spec. forces, jets, cruise missles) in before you send the AC 130 in.

EDIT- to take out the air defense assets

Well. 2-3 gigantic guns, or possibly 6 or 8 medium/small ones, depending on the loadout. Spooky/Spectre is 2-4.

It is a fairly hyperbolic amount of firepower, so I was using hyperbole, but yes...(sadly?) I do know how many guns a Spectre mounts.

Hehe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I know, but I found the difference between a hundred million and… 3… to be hilarious. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It has enough flares to give any heat-seeking projectile a run for its money. It's a trip to watch.

And probably ECM out the ying-yang. But, hell, I'm a civilian, what do I know?

Anyhow, I just had a thought, A-10 Warthog replacement (Probably a LAV) with an Anti-Tank Laser. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Not exactly what you're asking for, but I enjoyed the idea.

indeed it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOx_wHhitqk

This is why I said "anti-air defenses". Plural. As in a complete defensive system.

Take an AC 130 above any one of the major world powers and start shooting, and see how long the AC 130 survives.




-karma

*shrug* AFAIK, gunships are only meant to be used when air-superiority is held. That includes knocking out major AA abilities. It's only fair to judge something in context. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Right, and usually you only achieve massive air superiority when either A) The people you're fighting against are far below your tech and equipment level or B) the people you're fighting against are already losing badly.

It's a tool used in asymmetric warfare. You won't see them above battlefields of more evenly matched opponents.




-karma

Well, only because they don't exist. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Still, there can certainly be times when 'equally tech' ground armies are fighting, but one side has clear air-superiority.

Where's the FB "Like" button for this option?

A big, slow aircraft like that is fodder for any tank or IFV with even just a 20mm gun, so.... Sure they avoid the Stinger missiles quite well all those flairs, but it's direct fire guns they should worry about.

The angel wing deployment. God that is a beautiful sight from a monster of death. Their on board computer systems run on around 700,000 lines of code. I believe the space shuttles ran on about 3,000,000 lines of code.

The military is actually looking for a UAV variation of the AC-130 that is zeppelin based. Other than it's weapons, the biggest advantage of the AC-130 is it's loitering ability, and one thing that restricts this the most is crew fatigue. Without a crew and mid-air refueling, the ship would only need to return to base for ammo and maintenance. The ship doesn't need to be fast, just stay up high for long periods of time, observing a large area until it is need and then rain down hell as desired.

Well I suppose that raises the question of just how much heat a blimp with electric motors would create.

Possibly so, Brainpiercing7.62mm, but that's what the AC-130 has guns for; bigger ones. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Not much. In airplanes a significant portion of the power from engines is utilized to generate lift. In a lighter than air craft the lift isn't created by the engines. They only need enough power to overcome air resistance. Additionally, SAM missiles typically require an impact in order to detonate. Light enough material and the SAM just rips through the LTA portion of the craft. Compartmentalize the LTA portions and ground weapons are really quite ineffective against it as the leaks will be small and contained. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

The major problem with zepps was that they had all their lighter than air gas in only a few compartments. Anti-aircraft flak would rip a large number of holes in its skin and cause a huge amount of gas loss.

If you want to get old school I believe it was a zeppelin-mounted railgun that featured early in William Gibson's "Count Zero."

@StealthSigma: True, though I'm curious as to the construction of the airbags now, whether or not they have self-sealing capability.

The other thing is - how many people are even using anti-air weaponry that aren't Stingers or Russo-Chinese variants? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)