USAF C-130J Harvest Hawk

[Clayton Bigsby]

Why do AC-130s have loadmasters? Calculate W/B? Can't the FE do that? Or do you ever carry cargo, besides ammo?

[Guest]

There is a LOT for the NAV in a AC-130...J or not. The Nav is the liaison between the ground party and the aircraft...in addition to being the navigator and working with the FCO to confirm the actual target in the 1)NAv system, 2) on the chart and 3) on the LLLTV or IR. the FE - nothing for that person to do..correct.

But isn't there a co-pilot? Can't he do any of that stuff? I admit right now that I am not an AC-130 expert. Not even close.

I've only had a couple rides in an AC-130 and they were a long time ago and they were not during a 9G TIC at night in shitty wx. However, it looked like the co-pilot had some excess capacity to pick up those duties.

[dhtut]

No. They didn't. I can say with certainty that they absolutely did not do TF, and with 99% certainty that they didn't do threat pen. 500-1000' NVG contour, maybe.

I misread his post and thought he simply said LL. WE did NVG mod-contour (some years) and MSA-500'.

Were you even in the TII when gunships flew LL?

1. Maybe, maybe not. Dhtut comes from the old school of the 2x20mms so he may disagree, but I don't think we need an area suppression weapon... at least right now. Bringing a bushmaster w/ 200 rounds per minute and a 105 prox on the line at the same time should do the job, in my opinion.

2. Sorry, but technology will never fully replace experience. Doesn't matter if you threw a james cameron 3d FMV avatar system on the airplane. In the hands of the wrong guy, it won't save him from reporting a dog as a dude on a motorcycle. Same reason why crusty old warrants flying 64s in the korengal valley are almost always right about whats going on.

and now I come from the new J model...and an AC-130J doesn't need an FE. :)

Edited April 25, 2010 by dhtut

[LJ Driver]

I misread his post and thought he simply said LL. WE did NVG mod-contour (some years) and MSA-500'.

Were you even in the TII when gunships flew LL?

Umm, I don't know, when did the gunships stop flying LL? You realize of course that I wrote something that you then completely validated, then attempted to undermine what I wrote by questioning how long I've been in the T2.

[FlyinGrunt]

1. Vibration. Beats me, but I'm guessing so. The 25mm off the Harrier is working fine, at some pretty sick RPM. This is the same airframe that mounts a 105mm, after all.

2. Eng/SO: Dead on. Nothing beats a guy who's been watching the green screen for 20 years to tell you what 4 dark pixels are. Without compromising OPSEC, let's just say that there are many airframes out there mounting higher fidelity sensors, and our SOs do a much better job. Experience.

3. Nav: yeah, that's the thing: Gunship navs rarely do nav things, hence why the J model crew just ain't gonna cut it. Hal 9000 doesn't talk to the ground party, etc, and it doesn't do MGRS over lousy comms with Army dudes.

4. As for the co . . . now that's an idea. Doesn't the J have autothrottles? That alone would free up the co to do a LOT more, probably for the improvement of the mission.

[Guest]

1. Vibration. Beats me, but I'm guessing so. The 25mm off the Harrier is working fine, at some pretty sick RPM. This is the same airframe that mounts a 105mm, after all.

The Harrier gun and the GAU-8 don't even compare wrt to vibration. I'm not an engineer but I'm thinking there are significantly different forces to account for in the 105mm and the GAU-8. I don't know the answer, I just asked because the GAU-8 vibration is a big issue.

[ClearedHot]

ARGH......

Best gunship ever is NOT a C-130.

Unsure why folks want to see an evolution in capability like you will with a C-130J, rather than a revolution like you would with say a AC-757.

Why do we insist on a platform that keeps us squarely in the heart of most threat envelopes? With all the 757/767 airframes parked in boneyards around the world, why not put the sensors and weapons on a platform that can overfly a vast majority of current lower threats, cruise to the target are at high subsonic speeds, and has the unrefueled range to fly across the ponds.

For the record, the C-130 platform WILL handle the GAU-8 vibration...as will a 757 with a beefed up floor.

Christ, sometimes it is like pushing a noodle trying to get people to think 20-30 year sin the future. Trust me. with 3,000+ hours in the gunpig, I LOVE the 130 platform, but it is NOT the best solution for the future.

[arg]

Well, I guess the Eng could play cards with the Nav because there's nothing else for them to do. Two people to make/get coffee seems wasteful.

2

There is a LOT for the NAV in a AC-130...J or not. The Nav is the liaison between the ground party and the aircraft...in addition to being the navigator and working with the FCO to confirm the actual target in the 1)NAv system, 2) on the chart and 3) on the LLLTV or IR. the FE - nothing for that person to do..correct.

The copilot can do all that. Its the Jay model after all isnt it? You dont need any more crewmembers.

No. They didn't. I can say with certainty that they absolutely did not do TF, and with 99% certainty that they didn't do threat pen. 500-1000' NVG contour, maybe.

And I can say you are wrong. Do you think you need a radar to do TF? We did practice threat pens.I was in Gunships when we were serious about LL. Before the GSOLL term came about.

Why do AC-130s have loadmasters? Calculate W/B? Can't the FE do that? Or do you ever carry cargo, besides ammo?

The FE was responsible for that up untill the late 70s. The IO would do it after that.

But isn't there a co-pilot? Can't he do any of that stuff? I admit right now that I am not an AC-130 expert. Not even close.

I've only had a couple rides in an AC-130 and they were a long time ago and they were not during a 9G TIC at night in shitty wx. However, it looked like the co-pilot had some excess capacity to pick up those duties.

Perfect for the Jay model

I misread his post and thought he simply said LL. WE did NVG mod-contour (some years) and MSA-500'.

Were you even in the TII when gunships flew LL?

and now I come from the new J model...and an AC-130J doesn't need an FE. :)

AC and EC are IMO good missions for the Jay model. But, lets see how the gun vibes affect the fragile stuff in the Jay.

[LJ Driver]

And I can say you are wrong. Do you think you need a radar to do TF? We did practice threat pens.I was in Gunships when we were serious about LL. Before the GSOLL term came about.

Umm, yes I do think you need a radar, a TF radar no less... Maybe not in the near future, at least not like the current system. But please explain how you do TF without one. Visually? That's called vis LL. On NVGs? That's called NVG LL. "Threat pen" at what altitude? I'm not sure what GSOLL means.

[arg]

Umm, yes I do think you need a radar, a TF radar no less... Maybe not in the near future, at least not like the current system. But please explain how you do TF without one. Visually? That's called vis LL. On NVGs? That's called NVG LL. "Threat pen" at what altitude? I'm not sure what GSOLL means.

I got a T.O. to back up my statement watchyoo got?

[ClearedHot]

Umm, yes I do think you need a radar, a TF radar no less... Maybe not in the near future, at least not like the current system. But please explain how you do TF without one. Visually? That's called vis LL. On NVGs? That's called NVG LL. "Threat pen" at what altitude? I'm not sure what GSOLL means.

You do NOT need a radar...

[tac airlifter]

You guys might be using the language differently. You certainly do need a TF radar to do true TF. If you don't have the actual radar then you're just doing what slicks do: modified contour. You can "follow the terrain" visually and calculate your own start climb points/turning radius on a chart, etc. and the actual flight profile will follow the terrain. But that isn't the same as what the T2 guys do.

[Guest]

Why do we insist on a platform that keeps us squarely in the heart of most threat envelopes? With all the 757/767 airframes parked in boneyards around the world, why not put the sensors and weapons on a platform that can overfly a vast majority of current lower threats, cruise to the target are at high subsonic speeds, and has the unrefueled range to fly across the ponds.

The problem would be slant range. I don't know what the mil dispersion of the weapons you are thinking of are (and I don't want you to post them here) but, for example, 5 mils at 30k slant range is a 150' miss. Not good enough. A 757 at 15k in 30 degrees of bank is looking at a six mile shot.

For the record, the C-130 platform WILL handle the GAU-8 vibration...as will a 757 with a beefed up floor.

Cool, there are plenty of spare GAU-8s in the bonyard.

Has that been tested, I haven't heard about that? I know there have been several ideas for using the GUA-8 and almost all of them fail because of vibration (I think the Dutch use it on a ship). It's a ton of vibration, nothing at all like M61 A1 or the GAU-12/U.

We've had a lot of bad rounds blow the guns up, too. I would thing that would be pretty terrible in the interior of the airplane unless you gave everyone a titanium bathtub to hang out in while you were lettin it rip.

I would love to see those boneyard guns get back into service downrange.

[FlyinGrunt]

as for the gun blowing up - yeah, there are similar concerns with the 25mm as well. We put a kevlar curtain around the thing to mitigate that in case a barrel ever does blow up . . . not a titanium bathtub, I know, but better than nothing.

[LJ Driver]

You do NOT need a radar...

Right. As requested, please explain how you fly TF without a radar. Still waiting.

If that's the case, let's reduce the weight of the T1's and T2's and get rid of our fugly, drag-inducing nose, radar, mission computers, etc... Further, I suppose that is good news for the Shadows, slicks, C-17s, C-5s, -8s, PC-12s, etc! Hey fellas, you can do TF now!! Woohoo!

I got a T.O. to back up my statement watchyoo got?

Hey, me too! For my aircraft, which was actually designed to TF, the guidance simply states that an operational TF system is required. This includes a radar, among other things...

Edited May 17, 2010 by LJ Driver

[arg]

Right. As requested, please explain how you fly TF without a radar. Still waiting.

If that's the case, let's reduce the weight of the T1's and T2's and get rid of our fugly, drag-inducing nose, radar, mission computers, etc... Further, I suppose that is good news for the Shadows, slicks, C-17s, C-5s, -8s, PC-12s, etc! Hey fellas, you can do TF now!! Woohoo!

Hey, me too! For my aircraft, which was actually designed to TF, the guidance simply states that an operational TF system is required. This includes a radar, among other things...

Terrain Following is WHAT you'r doing with the airplane. The radar is HOW you'r doing it.

See the difference?

[tac airlifter]

Terrain Following is WHAT you'r doing with the airplane. The radar is HOW you'r doing it.

See the difference?

I don't mean to be rude, but how much LL experience do you have? You can't fly a route aggressively enough visually to do the same thing with an aircraft that a T2 guy with TF does. Modified contour is what you're describing.

[FourFans]

TF. Touchy Feely about someone else doing something remotely like your job?

We get it. No one does TF like T2s. But you can still miss rocks by seeing them with the M1 eyeball too.

FF

[LJ Driver]

Terrain Following is WHAT you'r doing with the airplane. The radar is HOW you'r doing it.

See the difference?

Terrain Following by its commonly accepted definition is low level by electronic means. IE, can you employ your "terrain following" technique in IMC or 0% illumination? If the answer is no, you're not doing TF. If the answer is yes, you're using some electronic means to prevent your airplane from hitting a mountain. Unless I am very behind in the latest wizardry (I'm not), then that electronic means is a radar that gives you a pitch-bar/cue to fly the ADI from, and thus keep you clear of terrain.

Edited May 19, 2010 by LJ Driver

[tac airlifter]

TF. Touchy Feely about someone else doing something remotely like your job?

We get it. No one does TF like T2s. But you can still miss rocks by seeing them with the M1 eyeball too.

FF

I'm not a T2 guy or even a 130 guy now. But if you don't understand exactly what the language means then you lack the overall understanding of what asset brings what capability to the fight. If you want to be taken seriously when talking to other communities, expecially in joint ops, then you need to use the right language.

[LJ Driver]

TF. Touchy Feely about someone else doing something remotely like your job?

We get it. No one does TF like T2s. But you can still miss rocks by seeing them with the M1 eyeball too.

FF

Rojo, I'm sure if someone told you that their plane did airdrops and max efforts you would be ok with that? What if they said, "well, we dump fuel and compute our TOLD to land and takeoff on the available runway, so yeah we do the same thing you do."

TF is a very specific mission set that is executed by few weapons systems. If you want to call clearing terrain visually and "following" it in the vertical with your "M1 eyeball", great. We all do TF now I guess.

[Texaco]

Rojo, I'm sure if someone told you that their plane did airdrops and max efforts you would be ok with that? What if they said, "well, we dump fuel and compute our TOLD to land and takeoff on the available runway, so yeah we do the same thing you do."

TF is a very specific mission set that is executed by few weapons systems. If you want to call clearing terrain visually and "following" it in the vertical with your "M1 eyeball", great. We all do TF now I guess.

"2"

Flying NVG altitude (500' above highest terrain/400+1 contour w/in 3nm) is different than true 300' mod contour which is different than 100' Threat Pen which is different than Radar TF in the WX at 200'. There's many ways to fly low level in a -130, but TF using a TF radar is pretty specific.

Just like SKE formation is different than 2000' tac form which is different than close trail at 200'.

I can't believe I just defended a Talon guy... (j/k, kind of...)

[ClearedHot]

Right. As requested, please explain how you fly TF without a radar. Still waiting.

TERPROM

[Carpetbagger]

TERPROM, TERCOM, DSMAC are all passive on board systems that allow "all weather" terrain following flight. Most of those systems have been installed on missiles for many years. Most, 'cause there is always something new and exceptions to nearly every rule, USAF/NATO manned aircraft that fly "TF" use active radar systems for guidance, with passive systems secondary. This discussion is very terminology oriented - "who can and can't fly TF." Paradigm shift... you can fly TF without a radar. Just hope your passive systems and DTED are REALLY accurate.

[LJ Driver]

TERPROM

Right. That's still not TF, but just so we are 100% clear, you are stating that gunships at some point in their past flew contour, "terrain following" profiles, below MSA, without visual cues (ie at night with no illum, or in IMC, or both), with only DTED/TERPROM data? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Even current DTED data does not allow this yet, and past data from the timeframe that 'dhtut' is referring (early 1980's) absolutely does not support this, not to mention that even a basic EGPWS system relies on precise GPS information that was not available until the 1990's.

Call it semantics if you want, but defining TF as everyone else on the entire planet does, gunships do not and did not fly TF.

Edited June 15, 2010 by LJ Driver