Why Don't We Have More AC-130 Gunships?!

I find that the AC-130 gunship is one of the most effective and powerful assets to have in the sky covering modern battlefields today. From covering special forces teams and providing intelligence, this aircraft is doing its job day in and day very well.
But it begs the question then, Why Dont We Have More AC-130 gunships in armed forces across the world? Why is it the US military are the only real influence on this effective piece of firepower? Lets discuss it.
Hope you enjoy!
-------------Please Like, Share and Subscribe!-----------------
Come chat with me! Get Discord Free! Here is my server: / discord
Add me on Steam: Matsimus
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @MatsimusGaming
Please help support my Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Matsimus Gaming
AC-130 Gunship

[@F15ElectricEagle]

A-10: "I can totally kick the ass of ground targets from the sky with my 30mm Gau-8 cannon" AC-130: "Hold my beer" and whips out a 105mm howitzer.

[@thatguybrody4819]

the A-10 and AC-130 are like peanut butter and chocolate. each is great on their own, but together, UNSTOPPABLE.

[@thatguybrody4819]

@Joshua Ngau Ajang depends on the situation.

[@herbderbler1585]

At one time they actually played with the idea of wrapping an A-10 around a 105 Howitzer. Unsurprisingly the airframe fatigue issues suffered by the AC-130 were significantly worse on the A-10 so the idea was scrapped. Damn shame it didn't work because that would have been a sight to see.

[@droganovic6879]

@Joshua Ngau Ajang there's no such kill as Overkill friend 😃

[@rafaelpennings7597]

@Joshua Ngau Ajang but how can you combine 6 freedom with 2 democracy?

[@mastergecko1178]

Special forces dude: target designated, go give em hell boys. AC-130: Sorry you still need 8 more kills to unlock me Special forces dude: ???

[@themachine6125]

16 assists if you're running support

[@bryancenterfitt7127]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 that's awesome!

[@MavHunter20XX]

It would be funny if the guy on the comm said that just to be funny before giving support: "Good job, 10 man kill streak, AC-130 perk unlocked."

[@tunguska2370]

Titanfall player?

[@robynsnest8668]

My ass was saved by an A-10 in 91, my daughter flies the AC-130 These two planes are two of the best and are the best friend of the ground solider.

[@Doug.Dimmadome420]

Wow your daughter must be a real bad ass, she doesn't look a day over 1 year! Toughest baby ive ever seen... (jk thank you and your daughter for your service)

[@rattyratstuff7125]

dad was a mechanic in the early 90s before i was born. saved many times during recovery of damaged vehicles by a10 and ac130. mad respect to those guys and gals who fly a slow easy to kill flying coffin

[@luvr381]

The U.S. Air Force has an institutional dislike for slow aircraft, same reason they keep wanting to retire the A-10.

[@systemhalodark]

The super tucano would like a word with you.

[@jasonkrisko6217]

@@systemhalodark to bad the program was put on indefinite hold.

[@hymanocohann2698]

Fighter jocks run the show, they want their toys.

[@Mr.Deleterious]

@@systemhalodark the A10 has 11 hard points for external ordnance and carries up to 16,000 pounds of bang. Basically carries the weight of a "super" tucano underneath it....if im in imminent danger of being overrun and had to call in one CAS aircraft it would be a toss up between the AC130U and the A-10. While nowhere in my mind is the not so super tucano.

[@systemhalodark]

@@Mr.Deleterious Ah yes, the classic "this shit shoots big" point without thinking of doctrine or logistics. If all you have are low intensity CoIn ops, you're not going to squander your $5.9k/h asset and wear down a handful of pilots with constant small sorties all over the place. You keep the big stuff for the big threats.

[@mikegoldstein8168]

I worked with and deployed with units flying the AC-130s. One of their mottos were, "Don't run, you'll only die tired."

[@galistanfrizky]

Perhaps you mean die tried ?

[@Morally_Reprehensible]

@@galistanfrizky no he doesnt

[@galistanfrizky]

@@Morally_Reprehensible okay i though it was typo

[@thunderbird7042]

JohnTheGreat7822 someone say oil?

[@Jakob21.]

@@TonyBustaroni someone sounds salty?

[@DanGoodShotHD]

It's quite literally a flying tank. What's not to love about it?!

[@entengummitiger1576]

Flying yes, but tank? I don't think there is much armor on that thing

[@DanGoodShotHD]

@@entengummitiger1576 ummm okay. Lol

[@silphonym]

more like a flying artillery stand

[@gkcl1]

A flying Artillery Division

[@spamlord7570]

Black Wolf i dont see 36 artillery cannons on it

[@Chaoswolve66]

if you arent dropping million dollar rockets on donkey riding insurgents then your not really at war.

[@combativeThinker]

Matthew Saavedra Awesome comment.

[@Elrond_Hubbard_1]

@Matthew Saavedra this is epic 🤣😎

[@David-ni5hj]

Chaoswolve66 because fuck donkeys, that’s why

[@MidasMakeItRain]

@Matthew Saavedra Hey, we dropped the MOAB cause it was nearing the end of its shelf life.

[@meferswift]

Sending under age kids with akm-47 is more efficient i say.

[@jacksonbowns1087]

Just give the A-10s and AC-130s to the Army and the Marines, they'll at least appreciate them.

[@connormclernon26]

Jackson Bowns that would require the US Air Force surrendering Fixed Wing assets to the other branches, which they’ll do over the screaming banshee that was Curtis LeMay

[@hahahachucklechuckle8432]

newagetojo weird how the smallest branch of service in the us military, is bugger than the entire U.K. military.

[@maxman-357]

Yeah, bring back the Army Air Corps.

[@r0n718]

Useless against a country with an air force or decent SAM’s.

[@maxman-357]

Some branches don't like to get there feet dirty.

[@Dcook85]

Enemy: "Hahaha the AC-130 is so primitive!" AC-130: *sends 105mm shell* AC-130: "Unable to copy say again?" Enemy: ...................... AC-130: "Contact with enemy lost"

[@corbinhbucknerjr558]

Direct hit. Secondaries.

[@michajastrzebski4383]

Alternativelly, you have intel that enemy has a guy with a MANPADS, and your AC130 is not joining a party at all.

[@chaseviking5096]

It's not nicknamed The Angle of Death for no reason.

[@fabulousfishball3535]

@bojo perez what tactic can do so... It doesnt have speed, stealth, agility.

[@darrellgoodman9585]

@@fabulousfishball3535 If you get painted with a laser on the ground your toast if a gun ship is loitering around.

[@hastytkd5768]

“The enemy is aware of AC-130” “Oh, Nevermind, enemy is retreating”

[@1115sss65555]

@@TonyBustaroni its had A LOT more uses than that bud. it saves lives

[@stevewhite3424]

@@TonyBustaroni Ain't it kewl!!

[@Fazzelgaming]

It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.” Thats why we prepare for high tech war!

[@_Matsimus_]

Mr. Turkey you're missing my point but that's fine.

[@laetrille]

Matsimus Gaming Yup, but its the YT comment section we are dealing with here

[@manofcultura]

Mr. Turkey the Russian bear bomber and b52 are given new Life by advanced rockets and air launched cruise missles. Put a fucking rail gun and laser on an ac130; fucking high tech enough?

[@laetrille]

Kenneth kirsch A defensive lazer on a AC-130 would make it invulnerable to all SAM systems.

[@unholywarrior5626]

laetrille, the latest AC-130 uses chaff, flares, and a laser to counter infrared seeking missiles. 🎯

[@lannart84]

black powder naval cannon is what this plane needs

[@clutchpedalreturnsprg7710]

" Arrggh Matey! "

[@danielsteger8456]

when military budget cuts get serious

[@arcadeinvader8086]

A seaplane variant with a row of napoleon-era cannons so it can land in the sea and do battle with sailships

[@dsandoval9396]

Replace the GAU with a 6 barrel rotary musket and you're gold.

[@simpl3simon806]

My father used to call I. The Dakota gunship during the battle of FB Coral in 1968 in Vietnam . It saved the base from being overrun and saved the life’s of all Australian on the base during the night attacks. Brilliant system

[@Bartooc]

You forgot to mention that it killed the lives of people you invaded.

[@713Tankbuster]

@@Bartooc who cares

[@tubthump]

@@issadraco532 Major General Curtis LeMay, head of the 21st Bomber Command went public the month after the bombing telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all". Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Admiral William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…” You're welcome

[@texasforever7887]

@@Bartooc you mean trying to save the lives of the South Vietnamese who were being invaded by the northern communist. However bygones be bygones and we are building a strong alliance with them.

[@JoshWeaverRC]

@@tubthump I'm sure there is a private out there that said it was unnecessary too. What's your point. You like to cherry pick. Big deal. People have their own opinions and agendas. The proof in the facts in this case and that is since they were dropped there has been no world wars. 25 years before WWI was WWI so by my agenda I'm cherry picking that the bombs saved us from 3 world wars so far. Some say 85 million people died as a result of WWII so that works out to be 255 million people saved. You're welcome! Says the atomic bomb scientist toy.

[@adamskashalashaska5199]

A 10 + m1a2 abrams = ac 130 i love this so much

[@jon_3453]

Devin Debby does the ac-130 have a 120mm canon I thought it had a 105mm canon

[@adamskashalashaska5199]

don't take it seriously i was just making a stupid joke

[@hlvscomendandeche8744]

McPuff its not M60 patton gun its M102 Howitzer modified to fit in the aircraft

[@jon_3453]

McPuff The Stryker is a great troop transport but why not have a 25mm auto cannon like the Canadian LAV-3. Like I guess US bureaucracy was like nah it's too OP let's just give it a .50 cal

[@cnlbenmc]

+Jon _+ well the Stryker was meant to replace the Humvee in troop transport roles in hostile territory and full fledged turrets are big, heavy and expensive (might explain the small ROWS with .50 cal) but there is an upgrade being tested with a 30mm Bushmaster II chain gun in a remote turret.

[@davidparker.2227]

AC130 GUNSHIP aka. the flying Battleship.

[@piggypen7278]

If they are flying battleships then they should move in fleets like regular ones

[@leonardusrakapradayan2253]

Piggy pen that would be a sight to behold

[@TheLiamis]

Not all battleship are fleet vessels. BM were often used in coastal bombardment and river artillery with no support ships.

[@kennethnoisewater1502]

Doesn't have any armour, Doesn't float, has tiny guns compared to a battleship. But apart from that maybe if you're on crack

[@TheLiamis]

@@kennethnoisewater1502 a modern 40mm explosive round does vastly more damage than a ww2 410mm mostly due to its improved explosives, armour penetration, increased precision and much higher velocity.

[@grendelum]

Why don’t we have more of these? Because it doesn’t require a multi-billion dollar development so the defense industry doesn’t get their blank check and the generals that approve said contracts don’t get the multi-million dollar job when they become civilians.

[@nathanboyles6222]

Someone else knows about Welsh? And all the others?

[@mississippirebel1409]

orion khan - And you couldn't be more wrong if you tried lol. Lockheed Martin would LOVE for any governemt to purchase on thise aircraft because the cost $210 MILLION a piece! These aircraft are not cheap and have a lot technology in the them despite what some people think! I know because I was in the US army for 11 yrs and I had a top secret security clearance and I still wasn't allowed to in one of them. You could buy TWO F-35A's and still have a few million left over for the price of one of these.

[@darrellgoodman9585]

And those congressional and senatorial war hawks don't get their cut of the pie.

[@hastytkd5768]

Internal issues are ruining the military. USA should spend their money (and time) training their counter-intelligence.

[@ev3rything533]

usually generals are career military they font get civilian jobs

[@johno9507]

1:20 "Who doesn't love the Ac-130" I doubt the Taliban like it very much!

[@BillyN31]

I was stationed at Hurlburt Fld in Florida. AF spec ops command. We had the 130 gunships. It can level a city block in seconds. Truly amazing.

[@HighSpeedNoDrag]

@mr frank What do you look like regardless if you harbor a pet or not?

[@donavanbangs]

me too early 90's

[@bobmartin7070]

Me to. Late 70's, early 80's. Spectre Crew chief

[@johnharker7194]

The guys in the comment section saw your point, and chose to miss it anyway. F-35s, F-16s, and even A-10s and SU-25s are not built for counter Insurgency. They can be pressed into these roles, but they won't be able to preform as well as planes that are built for the task. plus, you then put hundreds of hours on your fighter airframes just to kill a few Jihad jokes with an 82mm mortar. Gunships have evolved to deal with this. No one is suggesting that this thing should be used to bomb Serbia. But it is equally ridiculous to use fighters to strafe the glorified drug cartels that are being fought in Afghanistan.

[@halseyactual1732]

Might as well use drones for ISR, kit them out with Hellfire missiles, relay the coordinates to bombard them with Excalibur 155mm artillery rounds. No lives placed at risk, and drones are more expendable, not that they should be sacrificed willy-nilly. And even insurgents these days can field MANPADs, the Syrians paid the price for that. But do please explain how F-35, F-16s and A-10s can't do COIN, I'm interested and listening. The F-35 in particular, because that melds CAS capability and ISR into one air frame. The AC-130H is 132.4 million, and 190 for the U variant. This is *more than an F-35* with *less survivability*, that's remarkably risky and extravagant, not to mention the no. of people on board.

[@johnharker7194]

They all can do coin. And no, I'm not one of those knee jerk F-35 haters. The F-35 has fantastic ISR systems. But after it's found it's targets, it's limited to using precision guided munitions, and strafing runs with it's 25mm cannon. Strafing isn't always an option and the bombs are generally expensive and usually overkill. The AC 130 can use what is called orbital fire keep pounding the patch of dirt the enemy is sitting on with lead. It can also stay on station for as long as any realistic mission is in progress. It has a greater combat radius and an entire crew to run it's ISR station, rather than one guy who is also trying to fly the plane and talk to the guys on the ground at the same time. Plus, with the F-35 you are putting a ton of hours on an airframe just to do a job in a less than ideal way. So yeah, I never said that these planes couldn't do coin, I said that they couldn't do coin as well. I don't think the F-35 was given its ISR equipment for coin anyway, more for deep strike/wild weasel activities against enemy air defense.

[@halseyactual1732]

Than what about the B-1? Coupled with ISR intel from UAVs, of which the U.S. has a strong presence of, of which the B-1 can carry 144 SDBs and loiter even longer, wouldn't that be more ideal? And aren't PGMs essential to CAS to prevent friendly fire incidents?

[@johnharker7194]

The Fake SecDef wow you edited some stuff in there while I was writing my comment. Survivability is not an issue. These are used in wholly permissive environments. Even if a goat herder somehow gets ahold of a manpad, and the missile somehow gets past the jamming and flairs, it would probably just knock out an engine. Nobody is flying this over Triple A. I see the number of crew as an asset, not a detriment for it's mission. Many hands make for light work.

[@johnharker7194]

The Fake SecDef +The Fake SecDef "Than what about the B-1? Coupled with ISR intel from UAVs, of which the U.S. has a strong presence of, of which the B-1 can carry 144 SDBs and loiter even longer, wouldn't that be more ideal? And aren't PGMs essential to CAS to prevent friendly fire incidents?" I think our B1 fleet is pretty much maxed out on missions right now. Last I heard we had them all pointed at china for their real job. But hey, I wouldn't say no to the idea, if you could find a spare one lying around. I cannot say the same about the airforce brass. AC-130s are getting PGMs. Here is an awesome pdf file on it. www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/elliot.pdf The nice thing about gunships is the fact that you can use smart and dumb weapons. Sure, if you're fighting in a city, you might want to use a SDB to knock out a house that has an RPG team in it. Especially if there are army Rangers two doors down. But if you're killing the same RPG team on a mountain 700 meter away from a dug in platoon of infantry, you can just spray them with a burst of 25mm and be really confident you only killed bad guys. Options are good. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for.

[@alexoelkers2292]

Myself and many other soldiers believe the A-10 should be brought back into full production as it has been used extensively in every conflict since it was first introduced and is widely known as a saviour by the men on the ground.

[@wildturkey5838]

The A-10's performance in Desert Storm made it impossible for the Air Force to quietly send it to the boneyard. If the Pentagon ever does a realistic test of the F-35's CAS ability we might see an A10B (or whatever) with some modern avionics. This old retired grunt would want a 'Hog on call if I were in the mud facing the bad guys!

[@Battleship009]

The A-10s in use now are C models

[@spacemonkey1776b]

Russia fears the A10, all that armour becomes nice target practice.

[@springbloom5940]

@@spacemonkey1776b The problem with it, is that its extremely expensive, per target destroyed. It fills a role that is smashed by other cheaper, more practical systems. There are still some things it does better than anything else, but the issue is A) how often we have to do those things and B) is it enough 'better', than 'good enough' to justify its expense. And by 'expense' I mean including manpower that has to be taken from somewhere else.

[@prickjamesbitch]

I as an 11m scared of and comforted when I see it overhead.

[@Dad_Brad]

1) I’d love to see this bird mounted up with the GAU-8 from an A-10. 2) I don’t want to see what the Russian AN-225 gunship would look like. Mother of GOD

[@jasminsekic3758]

an 225 gunship ,they should do it just for the lolz imagine the firepower on that thing

[@hellboy017]

@@jasminsekic3758 If they get a 16 inch naval gun on that, danger close will get a whole new meaning........

[@berttorpson2592]

The GAU-8 would tear the vehicle apart. There’s a reason that the gau is in line with the airframe. It additionally causes enough thrust to actually slow down the A-10 in forward flight. And that’s just an increase in drag if you think about it. The lateral firing would fuck with the flight characteristics so bad.

[@johnnynewsome2265]

@@jasminsekic3758 Imagine it as an airborne aircraft carrier

[@ValeraDisturbed]

I know that Americans in their ignorance call each Slavic - Russian, but to call AN 225 - Russian !?

[@ratwithtails]

I believe there is a place for both "low tech" systems like the Spooky version of the c-130 and high tech systems like the f-22. Its a matter of balancing cost versus capability. Each system has it's place.

[@texasforever7887]

Call in Puff the Magic Dragon when you need it done right!

[@jasminsekic3758]

ahh hammer industries

[@thefish6123]

When an AC-130 gets shot down "MISSION FAILED. We'll get 'em next time."

[@panzerwagen6493]

Last one went down almost 30 years ago....1991.

[@thefish6123]

@@panzerwagen6493 I'm pretty sure some of them remain somewhere, or have been recycled into something else

[@jon79jon]

Blowing up hiluxs in the desert with Gen 4-5 fast jets or low cost cargo planes with big guns?

[@jcgongavoe337]

@MaverickMedia100 always remember how much ammo different planes can carry

[@andrewmoore7022]

Or you know you can just get a turbo prop plane which does the job even cheaper.

[@andrewmoore7022]

Also AC-130J: $165 million AC-130W: $122 million F-35A: $80 million F-35B: $110 million (the STOVL variant)

[@jon79jon]

@@andrewmoore7022 be interesting to compare running costs too. BTW I am all in favour of Turbo Props like A-29 etc.

[@andrewmoore7022]

@@jon79jon Cost per flight hour AC-130J: $7,030 AC-130W: $11,110 F-35A: $16,952 F-35B: $16,904 According to the 2020 report from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

[@pickle4332]

my dumbass thought the title said "why don't AC-130's have more guns" xD

[@apachegaming9392]

Golem_trainer Same

[@acewing1]

They did. The old AC-130's in Vietnam had 2 20mm Gatling guns, 2 7.65mm miniguns, and 2 40mm Bofor guns.

[@chaseviking5096]

That bloody hilarious. It doesn't need more guns.

[@koryknoupf]

These squadrons have one of the highest ops tempos of any unit in our military. Shout out to all the men and women busting their asses to keep these bad Larry’s in the air! IYASYAS!

[@StruggleGun]

It's been awhile since I've been in. What's IYAYAS stand for again? It's been bugging me since I've seen your comment.

[@koryknoupf]

“If you ain’t Spectre, you ain’t s---!!” Happy holidays guys

[@StruggleGun]

Kory's Aquatics & H2O Oh, we didn’t use that saying on the Spooky. The ammo guys did, but yeah brother, happy holidays ghost rider.

[@batcittyatcitty536]

Ehh,not sure about that.much respect to spooky,love what they do, but show me facts where they are flying more sorties than the blackhawk.kinda sceptical.in just my career and I'm not alone,I've spent well over 7 years in hard combat and flew several thousand life saving CSAR missions at both home and overseas.such as during the 19 months in Iraq 04 to 06 ,where we were on 24/7 shifts,only days off are 2 weeks R&R,sleep when you can get it and 3 to 5 missions a 24 hour duty cycle were normal.

[@bret9741]

You are absolutely correct about the loss of the Gatling gun and lower cost weapons. Here is my belief. The air force is run primarily by fighter pilots and secondarily by bomber pilots. They believe the fighter and bomber is the most important part of the air forces mission. Unfortunately they keep moving away from low cost effective solutions like the A-10 and AC-130. Also remember most of the Generals who make these decisions go on to work for the manufacturers of the high cost bombs and rockets. I wish the Air Force required that infantry officers and senior enlisted infantry be a part of the decision making on weapons systems. I can guarantee a couple of soldiers with veto power would guarantee the Air Force made better overall decision when it came to the CAS mission. Don’t get me wrong. Air superiority is absolutely crucial but once that is achieved, the f-22, f-35 is no longer the best weapon for supporting ground troops.

[@crankcasy]

So true

[@aproplumber]

why do you think when the F17 was given the "F" and not the "B", even knowing the F 17 can not fight an air to air fight. Its a bomber. But what hot shot pilot wants to fly a bomber ? non , but call it a fighter and they get in line, so you now have the F 17 and not the B 17 which that first B 17 was a plane that will live in history for ever. The B 24 carried a larger bomb load and had longer legs.

[@Shadowgopher]

@mr frank He's talking about the F-117 Stealth Fighter.

[@michaelwier1222]

The b 24 couldn't take the punishment that the b 17 could

[@10-AMPM-01]

Actually, logistics is first. Air dominance is just a requirement for the first. I worked F-16s for the US. C-130s and C-5s carried most of our soldiers and equipment overseas. The F-22 and F-35 have a combined FMC of less than 70%. You can't trust that compared to an F-16 with a FMC of 94%. Drones would be a better option in an air dominated space. Also, too many manpads to worry about.

[@ohsosmooth01]

Minimum cost of these things are $130 million. The Spooky II is $250 million plus a piece, and the Americans operate 17 of them. They're just too expensive for what they are, a cargo plane with guns sticking out the side. From the perspective of the UK only here, even if we put more money than NATO's required minimum (2% of GDP) into our defense budget, we have more pressing things we need to pay for like new submarines and aircraft carriers (of which we have NONE that are operational). I agree that these machines are incredibly effective at what they do. I just think that if the UKSF need such a platform, it'll be; "hey, America! we're sending some lads on a mission , could we borrow one of your spookys to cover their arses?" Even if the yanks say no, you know the mission will go ahead and they'll get it done maybe with AH64 and drone support. That's my 2p worth. 😁

[@jamiekrutzfeldt3522]

ohsosmooth01 spooky 2?

[@ohsosmooth01]

Jamie Krutzfeldt Yeah, AC-130U Spooky II or 2

[@soflexx8594]

The thing is, most of that cost is the aircraft its self, and the USA has thousands of these just sitting around, being pushed around by the much bigger c-3 and c5, just begging for a conversion and a more noble use.

[@gusbisbal9803]

In 1992 they were $40mill. They do not need to be that expensive. They just don't. This is just vendors trying to get as much out of the gov as possible.

[@mtruo001]

I heard a theory that blew my mind and explained Britain's zero navy power. America is the new imperial Rome. The world is under Pax Americana (ie the American peace). Generally, there are no conflicts, and if there were conflicts challenging the status quo, America would just deal with it. From the perspective of other allies in the pax Americana, it's more logical to let America pay for the war and the Allie themselves will try to get away from paying for as little of the war as much as possible. That explained to me why a naval superpower (Brits) would happily step down from it's dominance.

[@kerbalairforce8802]

Gunship mechanic here. I've worked on H, U, and W model Gunships. This is a decent overview. The number one advantage of a fixed wing propeller side fire aircraft is loiter time. My unit has been deployment constantly since 9/11, and yes, the ACJ Gunships are replacing everything with a larger number than are being retired. As for other countries, look up the MC-27 Spartan. It's a lighter, cheaper Gunship that (I believe) the Italians are testing.

[@navismirza5752]

quick question sir, why 105, 155 doesnt weight that much, and much more boom

[@jasonkrisko6217]

It'd put to much stress on the airframe do to a more powerful recoil. The 105 moves the ass of the plane 375ish feet every time it fires.

[@MrAngry3232]

Sure you are...

[@jmsnwrly9251]

jason krisko no it doesn’t.

[@gravestone9831]

@@jasonkrisko6217 more like 6 ish feet I flew on a live fire once it actually didn't feel too bad

[@johnpatz8395]

I've long said that the AC-130 and the A-10's have long been the ugly stepchild of the Air Force, while the troops on the ground love them both, and they are super effective, but the arent sleak and fast, which the Air Force has long prefered. They never wanted the A-10 and only accepted it under threat that the Army would be given authorization to stand up their own wings of fixed wing CAS aircraft, and yet the A-10 and various versions if spooky here have seen more combat than any other combat airframe, and have filled the role like not multibillion dollar supersonic fighter ever could. Am actually concerned that all the funds the AF has been redirecting to the F-35 project will result in the AF being a shell of what it was during these "glory years" over the next few decades. While I hope the F-35 is hugely successful, for the military, I don't care about the contractors "success" in this, but I fear that in the end it will be a massive multibillion dollar boondoogle which sets the AF back decades, as I suspect that the best case scenario for this aircraft is that it's almost as good in the various roles as the air frames it's replacing, and in that it's got some mighty big shoes to fill.

[@judgeomega]

well the US is never going to be invaded by a technologically inferior force. So the only thing we really need is the top of line death dealers. Anything less than that is just petty cash being burnt to exert influence on the rest of the world.

[@kingqball1]

if i remeber ight the f-35 has one thing that makes if fucking amazing compared to our other aircraft. the angle of attach it can have is fucking absurd. 50 FUCKING DEGREES. the pilots ass is pointing in the direction he's going instead of the nose of the air craft at that point. it be able to be out maneuvered by some butt it'll still be pointing at you while you do it. although this only matters in close dog fights not when in missile range

[@spacemonkey1776b]

The A-10 is the only to knock out Russia huge amount of armor.

[@darrellgoodman9585]

@@spacemonkey1776b It worked pretty good against that old Russian Armor that Iraqi army had.

[@sheilaolfieway1885]

If the airforce doesn't want them why doesn't the army and the forces that actually want them use theM? that's what i don't understand if the army loves the A-10 and AC-130 so much why don't they just take them off the Airforces hand so the airforce can focus on what they want?

[@dosilysmith8520]

well ... why not bring back the "Flying Fortress"?

[@sayner4153]

Dosily Smith missles

[@ar2stormriders266]

Dosily Smith Are you kidding me? The B17 is obsolete. We have the B52 if you want start mentioning bombers.

[@risingSisyphus]

Why use bombersw when you have transcontinental ballistic missiles?

[@ar2stormriders266]

achillesRising Because nobody wants to start a nuclear war ( in the right mind considering civilian cassualties) and it would be way too expensive and not worth the ICBM/TCBM if your sending it with a warhead that is other than Nuclear.

[@soflexx8594]

Because a bomb is 50 times cheaper that a missile.

[@RaygunGaming]

"Armor columns, large numbers of infantry" One Word... CBU-105

[@Beaches_south_of_L.A.]

It's really cool to see the video footage of these guys flying around terrorist camps at night. Those poor wretches on the ground don't know what's hitting them. They're running around like keystone cops just getting hammered and with the night vision optics there is no escape. They can run but they can't hide.

[@cryamistellimek9184]

JohnTheGreat7822 man who pissed in your Cheerios?

[@carson2330]

Reddit must be down so he is on KZbin

[@LowStuff]

Want to know why nobody uses them? Look at the Ukraine. Look at Syria. In both conflicts even supposed 'primitive' lowtech factions used MANPADs. The ukrainians, russians and syrians lost quite a few aircraft, fast and slow moving to simple shoulder fired AA systems.

[@engifaarliu9732]

Ukraine conflict is not "primitive" at all. both sides have BULK which can shoot down a jet easily let alone a slow cargo plane.

[@LowStuff]

Well there was one documented incident where the separatists used a BUK. Malaysia Airlines MH-17. And after that the BUK disappeared into russia never to be seen again. Every other aircraft was shot down by MANPADs (Strela and Igla)

[@LowStuff]

Whatever drugs you're taking, take less. I have no idea what you're on about AquaticBoardwalkEngineer

[@lordemarsh6804]

LowStuff true...if i had a manpad i wouldnt be scared of this lil plane

[@christophercole5219]

If you consider the very powerful ECM gear (which I used to maintain) that is on the AC-130 and not on civilian aircraft, your argument becomes less valid. Plus, the AC-130 is never used alone, it has escort aircraft that can eliminate a lot of the dangerous enemy equipment.

[@Diplomatarmoredcars]

There's actually 2 very good reasons we don't have more gunships. 1. We don't use them in urban areas. Which is where most modern day warfare takes place. The rounds ricochet and deflect easily and the US (believe it or not) does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. 2. They are an easy target for even legacy Anti-Aircraft systems. You mentioned in the video that you didn't know much about SAMs, and the answer to the question lays within that absence of knowledge (as it usually does) Any propeller plane is gonna be an easy target. Even when it's just in transit. Then the size of the Gunship makes it a big target. When it's circling a battlefield it's almost a "sitting duck" or Sitting Elephant is more accurate. In closing, We fight insurgencies in urban areas where we can't use gunships and non-urban warfare usually occurs between nations and nearly all nations have air defencses that would make utilizing a gunship a huge liability. It's too big, too slow, and carries too many crew members. The last of which may need to be rescued if they survive the shoot down.

[@claods1]

Yes, this baby save my life more than I can count, great and amazing aircraft

[@baderq8ty99]

jordan is converting some of their C-295 transport aircraft into AC-295 gunships with hellfire missiles 70mm rockets and a side mounted 30mm cannon

[@KaiservonKrieger]

Panzer VI Tiger I H Good

[@chaosXP3RT]

Yo, thats pretty dope

[@Dr.Westside]

Nice.

[@doublestack8686]

It means you always have the high ground

[@leandro9311]

I war against a decent military there will be AA weapons including SAM´s, the C-130 gunship its big, slow and needs to fly relatively low so it would be a easy target, never the less, the aicraft would perform pretty good covering Special Forces

[@_Matsimus_]

Leandro Ribeiro you're kinda missing my point but I kinda knew I would get this sort of response. But that's ok

[@chrisnoonan6602]

Its a given that the AC130 is not deployed by us forces until the threat is low or non existent,also they usually have air superiority over the area.

[@olafurmikaelsson4794]

Leandro Ribeiro thats its purpose to cover special forces and its also the psychological warfare

[@paulpovod1046]

chris noonan an strela-2 shot an ac-130 down...

[@chrisnoonan6602]

Yes it was, in a CSAR role, in a location they did not have air superiority over, at a place and time that the enemy would know it would be at, given its losses overall against what it achieved i would suggest it is both an effecient and cost effective platform and it will be used more widely as low intensity conflicts, whether little green men in Europe or Boko Haram in africa are only set to intensify over the next few decades. (IMHO)

[@Chuckwagon524]

You are completely correct. There was one of these over Benghazi when we lost our ambassador. That night could have been far different if the AC-130 was given the go. People always tout the most advanced aircraft are needed today, yet the planes like this and the A-10 Warthog provide gun support. However their weakness is poor defensive capabilities so they do need air cover from F-16's, F15's, FA-18's, etc.

[@Viviana088]

Chuckwagon524 A-10 is a flying tank. The only problem for it is if a fighter comes and intercepts it. But assuming the A-10 has a escort fighter with it, then it should be fine.

[@humansvd3269]

Chuckwagon524 a failing of the obama administration

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

You can have several A-10 being covered by a fighter flying higher

[@spartalives]

No this is a giant mallet tool it’s not for taking a single building or person. Yeah you can do that in a open field. But not between buildings. Why? 105 round has a blast Damage rang of 50-100 meters. Most buildings are well within that distance. So it is impractical to take out one building in a cluster w/o collateral damage. Right tool for the the right job is the axiom. This tool is for pounding a medium to large area with precision (football field and smaller). But is not a precise tool. It it not a scalpel. It is a bowe knife.

[@sergeiboris1544]

so in your opinion cowlike AC-130 is better choise than A-10 or SU-25, btw don't forget about Choppers, Mi-24 only by visiting battlefield can put enemy formations in panic

[@1214101]

We need to keep it, just like the Warthogs, they scare the hell out of the enemy!

[@joshuazoldschool4720]

This an the A-10 ThunderBolt/WartHog are my favorite birds of all time. Nicely done program. 😀👌

[@clark9992]

Possibly the missions this and the A-10 perform, essentially providing cover for ground forces, are not really the missions that the Air Force likes to do?

[@lfox02]

The AC-130 just absolutely spewing countermeasures has got to be one of the most iconic things I've ever seen.

[@gkcl1]

The Angel of Death

[@SC-yx6wr]

It's an impressive system, but the US did lose six AC 130's over Vietnam and they required several fighters each for cover.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That is 50 years ago in a war full of Sam, AA, and Mig threats.

[@1pcfred]

Some say the Vietnamese lost over 2 million in the conflict. It's hard to say for sure though. No one kept that accurate a count.

[@stevenobrien557]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Gee, its lucky they will never face any of those threats again!

[@ohyousooners]

Why you ask? It's all about money and the industrial military complex. Yes, the more primitive weapons are effective and cheaper, but they are not as profitable for Lockheed. $$$

[@jamesharding3459]

mr frank ‘Cause they get paid more to produce ideas and concept art than airplanes.

[@SuperDriver379]

Lockheed Martin brainstorming team to USAF... LM: So we took a truck and made it fly. USAF: yeah so, we have had that since 1938... LM: we covered it in machine guns. USAF: We did the same thing with our bombers in 1940, still not impressed... LM: (grinning) We rolled down the back window and hung a 105 howitzer out of it all driveby style, like a 1700’s flying bettleship... USAF: (In awe of the level of freedom dispensing ability)Fu

[@RR-ty6zz]

Operator1836 why are you having a conversation with you’re self?

[@wilhelmbeller]

I completely agree with you, as a Brit I think we really do need an Aircraft like the AC-130 but maybe just slightly smaller

[@laetrille]

Immenant Yup, greetings British ally!

[@wilhelmbeller]

*****​ well that may be that case for Malaysia, as I am not so familiar with that country I don't really know I am talking out of the perspective of a brit so yeah, but I see your point with the smaller runways, that's why I would recommend a smaller gunship than the ac130

[@wilhelmbeller]

*****​ well that may be that case for Malaysia, as I am not so familiar with that country I don't really know I am talking out of the perspective of a brit so yeah, but I see your point with the smaller runways, that's why I would recommend a smaller gunship than the ac130

[@Leon-tm2qw]

no they dont, would be sucking up too much recources that the army needs

[@MrBandholm]

Not for nothing... But Britain perhaps should focus on getting their army and navy back on track when it comes to clear numbers, before thinking on getting gunships and the like.

[@michaelallen7319]

It is a plane that does great for the very limited role. Not only do you need to have 100% air superiority, both in the air and no enemy ground-to-air defenses, it is mainly a nighttime flight. It's great for special forces, where you go in at night and know where you are going. This is a very slow airplane that takes a long time to get to the battlefield where they can support ground troops. The A-10 or any F-series can get to the battlefield a lot quicker, and in everyday battle response time is a critical factor. Also it is expensive to fly a sortie in the gunship. More weight takes more fuel to take off, it burns more fuel on the journey, and is slow in arriving over a battlefield. It does not have a role in normal close air support. The A-10 for example can fly more sorties, with a higher kill ratio per sortie. The gunship is a fine plane, just one that has a super limited role.

[@mirandela777]

you go mainly at night for one reason: because an ww2 era AA gun, with nothing more then simple optics, no radar no electronics at all, can kill him in seconds !

[@MagnumReaper666]

"Recon", right. Nothing to see here, except that nice big crater.

[@piterpraker3399]

The flying hole-punch - the Art(s and crafts) of War

[@drbelli]

"Coz they are too OP, and the server wont allow us!"

[@piterpraker3399]

Permabanned from the war game. Damn.

[@msgtpauldfreed]

To address the accuracy issue. Gunships fire "tweak" shots prior to combat. The AC-130U has what is called PPIP mode. Projected Projectile Impact Point. The radar (a derivative of what is on the F-15E Strike Eagle) locks on to the 40 or 105mm round and tracks it to the ground. The aim point to impact point delta (miss angle) is computed by the fire control computer and the second round is a dead on hit. The GAU-12 Equalizer is an area suppression weapon, and doesn't have quite the accuracy of the 40 or 105. It was meant to kill large troop concentrations quickly and efficiently. I was on the Test Team that developed the U-boat, so I know a little more about what I'm talking about than the average You Tuber.

[@spacemonkey1776b]

Paul Freed was gonna say

[@para_magnus2200]

Paul Freed matsimus was in the British army and is doing training on an artillery crew in the Canadian Army

[@eddgrs9193]

@@para_magnus2200 and yet he has wrong data on many things.

[@para_magnus2200]

Edd Grs he can’t be accurate about everything

[@jimhill4510]

Having been backed up by these ships in Vietnam, I love them. I imagine that if you made a lot more of them, you would force the enemy to get a lot more sophisticated in finding ways to bring them down.

[@stevenobrien557]

SA7.

[@BrickworksDK]

America has a unique fascination with overwhelming and indiscriminate fire-power that's not shared by any other country. This aircraft is simply overkill against nearly all targets in modern asymmetrical warfare. Not to mention, of course, that it's not exactly accurate and that collateral damage is virtually guaranteed. Now, I know that the US doesn't care much about that, but the rest of us do. Besides, as the Mujahideen's showed in Afghanistan, even relatively low-level insurgents can use man-carried anti-aircraft systems, and a gunship circling at low attitude for an extended period of time is an obvious target. Yes, so are attack helicopters, like the Apache, but they're build to utilize every available piece of cover they can find on the battlefield to minimize their exposure to enemy fire, a luxury a gunship doesn't have. Yes, yes, yes... I know... Gatling guns are cool and all that. But I honestly feel you're letting the coolness factor blind you to the rather glaring issues with gunships.

[@Drizzleize]

Except that it IS working, very damn well, and is perfect for the operations that are ongoing, with its 2,500 mile range. Only one has been shot down since Vietnam. The few missiles on a drone, or land-based artillery can't match the ac-130 for time over target or volume of fire.

[@ancientmesopotamian1699]

Allan Johansen Those are mini guns by the way, Gatling guns were used during the American civil war and many other wars from 1862-1911.

[@kokofan50]

You seem to be under some very misguided understandings. The US cares a great deal about collateral damage. Gun ships were created to deal with the problems of accurately bombing.

[@Helljumper1156]

Allan Johansen you forget their anti aircraft system is a rpg carried by jihad joe not really long ranged enough to hit the ac130

[@Arhke]

Helljumper256 Various Manpad/Mountable launchers are able to reach a gunship flying so close to the ground. The newer aircraft are equipped with flares and chaff, which does protect it to some degree. However, with an operating altitude of about 7000 feet it's easily spotted and easily targeted, even by relatively primitive weaponry such as a ZU23. As someone already mentioned, the proliferation of higher tech missile systems on the black market is worrying if a gunship of this kind is going to last. Not to mention the rapid advancement of drone technology. Drones are cheaper and generally more effective in the role of close air support. Gunships are cool as all hell, they've merely outlived their usefulness. That's the way I see it.

[@wideyxyz2271]

What I find highly amusing is the fact the the comments section always drifts away from the point and people start arguing about who is better USA or Russia....Its that kind of tangent that fucks you up in a real war/battle....stick to the point...lol....Everyone knows the strongest nation on earth is Greenland...Nuff said..lols

[@prebenjaeger]

GREENLAND IS NOT A NATION, IT'S A FRONTIER REGION OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK

[@Razzy1312]

The issue with the AC-130 and the idea of a large fixed wing gunship is that they are incredibly vulnerable to AA and that makes them limited in operations.

[@genehakman9422]

You're absolutely right. I can remember my dad talking about the old Spookies saving his ass many times as a combat advisor to the South Vietnamese Navy.

[@PaulScott_]

Coming in late to the conversation but they have already put the 105mm cannon back into the AC-130W. It is easier, quicker and very very cheap to get rounds on target. A 105mm high-explosive round costs approximately $400, while a Hellfire missile can cost up to $100,000, depending on the variant. As for gunship survivability well if you are talking about WW3 with Russia, China, N Korea etc then it could be very ugly. But in other theaters you assess the threat and use the appropriate weapons platform. I don't believe that fixed wing gunships were used that much if at all in Bosnia with the extensive use of AAA guns and missiles but that does not mean that they cannot function on other battlefields. As for the UAV proponents - the MQ-9 Reaper has four weapon stations and the images I have seen they can carry a maximum of 6 weapons. That is 6 weapons, 6 targets, then you call Winchester and fly home to rearm regardless of your range or loiter time over the target.

[@imjashingyou3461]

Your wrong about Bosnia. The Gunship has been used extensively in every single conflict the US has been involved in.

[@loserface3962]

@mr frank but the ammunition of the ac130 is so much cheaper since its just giant bullets

[@loserface3962]

@mr frank ye thats why you fly smart and dont die

[@loserface3962]

@mr frank oh you got it wrong, im using a phone because its mobile warfare not trench warfare

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Until the jihadis get hold of drone swarms, the Ac-130 looks viable.

[@martinvasquez818]

It did prove itself in the 1st Transformers movie, along with the Warthog. That was an really cool scene!

[@gimpsickle5806]

Martin Vasquez it did fuck up scopinok

[@flyboymike111357]

You should do a video on the OV-10 Bronco, it was one of the best COIN planes ever made, it could carry troops/supplies, and one of it's variants was a gunship. There has been talk of reviving it for modern war, but most people don't even know what it is.

[@shidder_mutt]

Why, we already cancelled the program.

[@flyboymike111357]

rowsdower There are still people look at light aviation platforms, and the US will likely be as well with the new Administration looking to build the Armed Forces back up.

[@johnharker7194]

Mike Mac www.google.com/amp/foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068/amp?client=ms-android-verizon they did it

[@flyboymike111357]

john harker Too, little too late. Our SOCOM is largely just an in-house high-tech paramilitary force that seems to have the kind of latitude it needs to make the right call. It spear heading the National Guard, would have been the smart way to GWOT.

[@johnharker7194]

Mike Mac let's see what maddog is gonna do.

[@themoddingprodigy577]

"It's gonna be sunrise now and we'll be a huge Bull's eye with wings" - AC 130 Pilot

[@AJ.z33]

Honestly I’ll never understand how people find things like this fascinating. Things that were designed to turn people into a piles of guts and bones

[@speedy97979]

These type of weapon systems have been around since Vietnam era. Puff the Magic Dragon was was a WWII era cargo plane with 3 mini guns. Then you had Spooky and Spector. All did a jam up job in ground support and taking out SAM sights. North Vietnam was neither poorly equipped or lacking in Air Defense. Just saying. As to why no one else is hopping on board with their own version is beyond my reckoning

[@mandrakevermilyea7488]

Shawn Allison guns ships of other nations fell out of style after World War Two and the fall of the throes Riche- people talk about the super tank race between the Germans and the Russians like it was ground breaking- The Brits, Americans and Nazis had a super bomber race going early in the war that lead to the development of insane planes. The Nazis even attempted to put 30 and 40mm auto cannon in the nose of some bombers to use in air to air and air to ground attacks. Even crazier AA was developed on both sides to counter such planes. The Nashorn and “self propelled flak Pv4 Chasis” are both great examples of German super flak/anti tank guns.

[@LUCNUKEM]

Shawn Allison Ac 130’s weren’t ever used against SAMs in vietnam. They would have been blown out of the sky in a heartbeat if they ventured near north vietnam. They were used for fire base support & to hit supplies going down the ho chi minh trail. AC 130’s that go anywhere without air support defending them from enemy MANPADS, AAA, SAMs, & aircraft gets their shit pushed in. Other nations don’t have their own version because they don’t find themselves having to go fight over enemy territory often needing this type of niche weapon & don’t want to maintain the air support that has to accompany these types of planes in order for them to operate.

[@emzyfallen7257]

My father worked on these during iraq.

[@robertbacklund4438]

I hate to burst your bubble but as good as the AC-130 gunship is and in spite of how well it has performed for the past couple of decades it has only done so because we have not been fighting anyone that has a real military. If the US Air Force were to use this aircraft against any medium tier military and above the AC-130 would not last 5 minutes over a high intensity battle field. For the past 2 decades the people we have been fighting do not have any aircraft let alone an air force, nor do they have any effective anti aircraft weapons. Most are only just above using sling shots and stones. 100% of the groups we have been fighting use AK-47's, RPG's and IED's. These are the reasons that the US does not buy hundreds of these aircraft.

[@Atrahasis7]

You scatter yourself on this argument. A fit military is a general purpose one, you have to focus for high tech and low intensity conflicts, and be able to make reliable machines that can do both.

[@firebreak4043]

Mmm I sure do love hearing all that “liberation” of the ac130

[@robertv8851]

We need a fleet of these with lasers as well,we also need battle ships,but maybe only four or six battle ships.

[@travissims9375]

On the 105 vs 30mm conversion. Think how much more 30mm GAU ammo you can carry vs 105mm. With the new sensors and guided munitions, this thing will rain death with a longer on station time. 30mm can sweep up anything short of a modern heavily armored vehicle, including soft buildings effectively. If anything more serious shows up, guided bombs are directed right to it by either the ac-130, another plane in the area, drone, or Special Operations team on the ground. Sensor fusion, and systems stability is the name of the game these days. Noone has more money to spend on the military than we do. We're America. We don't give a fuck about cost, why do you think we are one of the only countries than effectively utilizes in air refueling on an almost normal basis. Tactical ability is the driver. Not cost. On other countries adopting it. Noone else is fighting wars like we are. You guys can barely afford to have more than one branch of your military that is competent. Would you rather have a couple cool planes that can see and shoot effectively, or good protection for your ground forces? You all need to focus on what matters, not what seems "cool". Jets are a good investment in the modern era. Especially for the U.K. Any enemy is going to have to GET there to actually be a threat. Good jets can knock them out of the sky or drop them into the ocean. Force projection isn't necessarily the end all of British strategy. A good defence with some teeth has done your Homeland well so far. America needs to project our power on a global scale. Being the wealthiest country in the world we do that very effectively. Maintaining bases around the world, one of the largest, and most advanced ground armies the world has ever seen, the 3 largest air forces in the world, the most powerful navy, with three times more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, along with the largest and most effective Special Operations community IN THE WORLD, if I haven't said it enough yet. All of this isn't cheap. What I'm trying to iterate, is this. The ac-130 airframe, to America. Is just insurance for our tactical teams on the ground. That's it. to you it's the end all be all badass plane in the sky. To think they'd be a better investment than jets is ridiculous. A semi competent jet could knock it out if there were no other assets around to protect it. It exists ONLY because of the military industrial environment that exists only in America. If the SAS or SBS need support, they can call us. We'll help. Just don't sacrifice those guys equipment and livelihoods for some pie in the sky. Give them better training. Give them better food. We have all seen the horror stories of modern British military food. The average American soldiers gets neat toys and support because they already have accommodations met to a decent degree. They have a good amount of money spent meeting their needs, before it's spent on massive projects that flounder and waste it. Put the average soldier first.

[@fathead8933]

redwall216 4 I agree completely. I've seen the comments " it sucks against air threats". Of course it does. It's a cargo plane with howitzers strapped to it. If this plane is in the AO, the door's been kicked in and there is no longer any credible air or AA threat. An anti aircraft gun welded to the bed of a pickup truck is not a credible AA threat for this. One it flies to high for untrained crews to kill it(the trained crews were killed in the Air war portion of the conflict), and two it flies mostly at night. The American military learned from Vietnam where the logic was "we own the day, Charlie own's the night". We now operate better at night than in the day in most cases. But even with night vision aircraft are extremely hard to spot at night . And with it's sensor package it is seeing you long before you will see it. But you are correct we can spend money on systems like this because we've already taken care of the rest of our military obligations.

[@wildturkey5838]

It's amusing to this Cold War veteran that folks forget that the original "Spooky" was an "area" weapon, designed to put lots of bullets into an area to kill/suppress/chase off the bad guys. The new planes are "point" weapons that can take out individual vehicles/buildings.

[@duartejones4353]

redwall216 4 I know you obviously love r military but since you are very well educated on it I need to ask who does the military actually protect when in killing and being killed in places like Afghanistan please tell me the truth and don't say my freedom cuz all I c is a bunch of poppy fields being guarded by army infantry that's weird to me and I find it really weird that heroin use in the states increased after 2001 strange so again I'm only asking why we spend so much money murdering people that don't agree with the complex all we need is a navy everything is just tyrannical we've got nukes we don't need to be everywhere

[@corbinhbucknerjr558]

@@duartejones4353 Because terrorists thrive there. You can ignore them at your peril, or you can go where they are and keep them busy, and dying, on the other side of the world. Or, we mind our business, leave them alone, then watch them fly civilian aircraft full of Americans into skyscrapers in New York City. Take your pick. And I flew Spectre from 1993 until I retired in 1998, and anyone I "murdered" while flying in that aircraft damn sure richly deserved it. You need to check yourself before you accuse any soldier, sailor or airman of "murder". You also need to think critically when you take input from news sources or wherever you get your information that US soldiers are guarding poppy fields, because unless YOU SEE IT with your own eyes, you need to consider the motives and purpose of the sources you are listening to.

[@guyfriedman295]

2:16 sky-exists US- *It's free real estate*

[@StoccTube]

A large detachable cabin based transport plane, like those envisaged for civilian airlines to enable near instant configuration changes from passenger to freight, would enable the same airframe to carry a range of “cabin pods” for military use. A gunship pod, a troop transport pod, a fright pod, a spy pod etc.

[@unt_ins3421]

Just to point out: the AC-130J very likely will have the 105mm cannon when they start bringing j's into mod to become acj's. The test aircraft (09-5787) currently has a 30mm, 105mm and munition rails on both wingtips. It didn't have the griffin tubes though. I believe the combat laser is still in testing, so I don't know if it will be utilized. Source: I walked around it a few nights ago.

[@fishymacaroon6]

The whiskeys already have the 105, and the Js definitely will. People complain when you get rid of the big gun.

[@georgiabowhunter]

I can tell you from first hand experience these are amazing. The C130 is tough as hell. The US Coast Guard flies them into hurricanes. The C130 Gunships fill the gaps left between the Apache, A-10 and fast attack bombers. They can stay on station for hours and when they do start shooting they can destroy just about any ground target the ground forces would need destroyed.

[@jamalihamilton7866]

georgia bowhunter I see coast guard AC 130's fly directly over my job site, just look up and you can see their landing gear down. pretty nostalgic seeing them in real life.

[@sergeiboris1544]

and go down in seconds, plain which bring democracy against civilians and stone armed guys

[@kek207]

Fun fact: Most of the loader will later die of lung cancer because of the shell fumes

[@TheWizardGamez]

You either wanna be extremely high or extremely low when trying to evade radar

[@holeshot895]

Great Video, I wish we had this supporting us in Assault Troop back in the day. Would have definitely made me feel more at ease on the mountain patrols in Kosovo.

[@grippercrapper]

Look at all that safety wire on those bolts and screws. I was an aircraft mechanic in the Air Force and everything has to be safety wired to keep the hardware from vibrating loose. It’s a small detail that most outsiders know little about, but as an aircraft mechanic, you are intimately familiar with safety wire.

[@davidchristensen6908]

I would want to hear from the infantry that call these in for support. Out of all the weapons on this platform what weapon is used most and what is the most effective? Anymore precision and small seems to over rule big and sloppy. The big canon will take out a tank but a 30 mm that can pump thousands and thousands of rounds will kill and scatter troop and small vehicles. It may not take out a heavy armored vehicle but it will hit tires, hoses and support personnel. All I know is I want the solder and the marine on the ground to pick up a radio and be able to say spray there and I want a plane a10, c130 or a helicopter something to show up and protect them, reduce the threat or take it out. If I am asking a young man or woman to put their life on the line I want them to have the best back up my money can buy when they call for it. So what do the men on the ground think is the best combination on a c130. That’s who we ask

[@andrewp8284]

If by heavy armored vehicle you mean tank, yeah a 30 mm probably won't work. But I'm pretty sure plenty of armored vehicles aren't rated against 30 mm, and that's assumed from enemies on the ground. Firing from the sky is a different angle (literally).

[@hastytkd5768]

CAS helps soldiers, F-22’s and air superiority is just another liability that needs to be protected.

[@tomriley5790]

Personally I think the OV-10 would have been perfect for Afghanistan

[@caveman13801]

Tom Riley q

[@darrylnelson6264]

The threat of having F-22's, F-35's, F-15's, F-18's and F-16's allows an AC-130 to be able to fly. Air Superiority comes from having all of them.

[@TheLiamis]

Its just a flying battleship. USS Massachusetts airborne version.

[@stealthcone]

I imagine the plane firing a broadside

[@darwinharmon8341]

You answered your own question. The military industrial complex doesn't make nearly as much money supplying cheap shells for older guns when they can charge much more for their overly complicated and expensive munitions

[@kefkaZZZ]

We need a C-130 sized gunship drone to replace the AC-130.

[@floggerfish2112]

The aircraft that destroyed a whole iraqi division that was retreating in just one night

[@BlitzFromBehind]

chauchua Bernardo Many cheaper planes can do the same. AC-130 is a good artillery platform but there's no use for it if the enemy airforce is still operational.

[@GOBFBC2]

good thing the US doesnt fight enemies with functioning airforces, and prefers to use their military on militant groups that their own foreign policies has produced ;DDD

[@BlitzFromBehind]

^^ well said

[@maxwellritz3156]

Johan R. You left out how the US is usually the reason said country doesn't have an operational air force

[@BlitzFromBehind]

Maxwell Ritz​ Yeah because talibans had an airforce just like the iraqi insurgents and syrians had an airforce consisting of planes from the 1960s. There has not been a single time a "modern" army has shot down a jet of an other "modern" army. During the gulf wars only a handful of MiG 29s (not the new variants.) were shot down by coalition forces, not just America alone.

[@phoboskittym8500]

One reason is that they are giant targets for man portable surface to air missiles, and can only be used in places where air dominance has been achieved

[@SkullKing11841]

I would suppose that a lot of countries don't have the budget to have an expensive aircraft dedicated to low threat environments, they'd prefer more attack helicopters or fighters that they can use in both. AC-130's are expensive to operate at $45,000 and any large cargo aircraft will be the same when converted to a gunship. That is not far off the operating costs of a modern fighter jet. If you want low cost platforms for COIN that can hang around for a long time and provide support there are other options available.

[@Riceball01]

Not to mention that a lot of air forces just don't have the heavy or even medium lift to spare to dedicate one or more planes to the gunship role. What lift capability they may have would need for their intended role of hauling stuff around.

[@SinerAthin]

Aren't AC-130s, despite their cost, cheaper than a standard jetfighter?

[@konradson]

This is not a beautiful plane for parades. Fighters are...

[@wepntech]

meh, these are bad-ass though. second kind of beauty, first kind of cool = functional.

[@dosilysmith8520]

well while the fighters are in parades and Flying over the Super Bowl ... the REAL fighters will be on the battle field

[@konradson]

Very true, but people don't see it. People love to see fast beautiful Blue Angels or Thunderbirds, not the fat bulky C130 they use to show with the fighters. Warthog also experienced problems in the Military budget... But F35, which is too expensive... only Trump seems to have a word on it. Spain is supposed to buy F35, both for Air Force and Navy. F35B has some sense, as it may be the substitute to AV8B Harrier II+ but for the Spanish F18, it is nonsense, as Eurofighter is a more suitable option, as a European plane, where the Spanish industry is involved. Or even new F18E which is an easier (not only cheaper) way to improve what Spain already has, if Spain wishes to have more than a single model in the Air Force. Spain is substituting C130 Hercules with A400, which is a bigger plane. The Spanish industry could easily use the C130 as gunners. Spanish build smaller transports where thought to be capable of using cannons, rockets, and so on as early as the 70's (C212 Aviocar, CN235 and C295), while on their transport duties, under their wings... Although never used this configuration, by any of their users (at least to what I know), not Spain, not France, South Corea, not even the Turkish, or any American nation (including the US), has used a gunner from these planes...

[@soflexx8594]

I would be much, much happier if i saw an ac130 than a standard f16 or f18

[@Gorilla_Jones]

I'm pretty sure it takes a gargantuan effort of logistics and support to have this thing not shot out of the sky. Also, military conflict with China is inevitable. You're very short sighted. That being said I love this platform. And the A10.

[@nemanume]

"why do we need more AC-130 ?'' Who is we ???

[@kalle911]

I guess not too many rich enough countries fight insurgencies.

[@johnstambaugh9283]

An AC-47 saved my company. We had just got to the small air strip and were told by the ARVNs "BO-Cou VC tonight" We were combat engineers tasked with re-building the air strip. No support except for some 20 ARVN. We had some injuries and could not get the medivac chopper to land. I am guessing it was a AC-47 that showed up. What ever it was had the enemy fleeing or dead. Next day we got two track mounted twin 40mm. Two track mounted quad fifties. 5 or so 80 mm mortars and about a dozen 40 mm mortars with crews to man everything. Felt a lot safer. Never did see the wounded again. 588th Engineers in Tay Ninh 69-70

[@Innomen]

You answered the question in the first two minutes: Because this thing would get its ass kicked vs a real military.

[@ScotsDestroyer]

exactly, it would be a burning shell in no time.

[@chaseviking5096]

And the fact that you idiots think the us would put this in the air where AAs and Planes are going to be is funny as fuck. It would destroy even a first world countries troops. The US isn't stupid enough to put it in a area where it's not going to stand a chance.

[@ellnic]

multiple drones are way cheaper and if a drone gets shot down, build a new one and the operater can still pilot it. Shoot an AC1-30 down and not only is it a potential loss of life, youd need to train more pilots if they did die.

[@johnquisenberry2402]

Yes, keep this beast! and variety is the spice of life. Literally!

[@hisevilness_com]

I was thinking about sticking this onto a Airbus400M Atlas & C-295 with reinforced fuselage.

[@almerindaromeira8352]

Paul Raver there is an ac295 gunship, i think is used by Jordan

[@hisevilness_com]

Yeh he developed a AC version of the C-295. Only one of a view who actually know what he is talking about.

[@EstebanMataVargas]

After seeing these things kill a couple of Decepticons, One feels inclined to think the Air Force would commission a few dozens more.

[@davidc.g.1952]

In 2006 Columbia converted AC-47 into gunship service with U.S. aid. Lockheed is making the C-130 and would love to do the conversions. The naval application for anti-piracy support missions also exists in support of light naval units and unarmed police units that come under heavy fire.