I thought I made a comment that I was going to end this process with some final thoughts concerning the "
GUNSHIPS" in general in my last post but, my brain got ahead of my
which isn't unusual as some know from past posts. But to get a sense of where I might be going with this, you might want to ask yourself (
If you keep up on these things.), Why hasn't he ever summitted the
ORBITAL AC-235/AC-295 Light (Pocket) Gunships that we and several foreign countries are using now?
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...verting-06778/
But first I'm not finished addressing the full line of the AC-130 gunships and I pickup with the newest most current version and deadliest by far the
AC-130J GHOSTRIDER...
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...0j-ghostrider/
(Along with the AC-130W, they can carry in 2 wing mounted launchers 6 to 8 HELLFIRE II missiles.)
Another OVERVIEW...
https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Articl...fleet-growing/
The
BLK 20 Gunships have been in operation for about
2-3 years now as flown by the
73rd Spec Op SDRN, this next addresses the
BLK 30 as the
4th Spec Op SDRN receives it's first one.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...0j-ghostrider/
And I end this part with a "
niche" article, the first
all reserve crew to fly a
Gunship since
1995.
https://www.919sow.afrc.af.mil/News/...-reserve-crew/
There you have for for the
AC-130 Gunships in the last 2 posts of mine-done.
So where does this leave us?
At this point we're
2 aircraft behind the
AC-130W and
AC-130J BLK 30, I do not include the
AC-130J BLK 20 because it's an interim aircraft
only until the technologies had "
matured" to improve the avionics and electronics onboard the aircraft intended for the
BLK 30 models which all will be made into.
My "
Deep Process" over these handful of years and I mean from all aspects to include my "
emotional" if you will feelings on the subject by the numbers.
1. I
truly love these planes from a technical aspect right down to the crews that serve on them to put all the aspects of these complicated machine together in a very unique and deadly weapon. Most importantly the bravery of these crews to ensure the protection of the ground forces they support. Please look up the "
Sprit '03".
https://www.wearethemighty.com/histo...2#rebelltitem2
https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Articl...03-remembered/
https://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...31-1991.19898/
Alright so I helped!
2. They were amongst the first items I looked into for my first "
modern" submission format in my Patch/Submission Thread on
Pg.5 and more being discussed in the same on
Pg. 7 back
2011. And of course prior to and since in the Jets/Plane Thread.
3. What I know and more encapsulated in this one indisputable fact going back to "
Puff The Magic Dragon" which at first was just armed with
(3) 7.62mm GAU guns.
I have verified this information I don't know how many times over the years to include the newer gunships as well.
"The armament chosen for the gunships was the General Electric rotary-barreled
M-134 machine gun, known as the “minigun,” which could fire either
fifty or a hundred rounds of 7.62-mm ammunition per second. Initially three miniguns per ship would be fixed-mounted in a side-firing configuration. Positioning the aircraft at the proper altitude and angle was the only means of aiming the weapons.
Using this armament, a C-47 flying at
three thousand feet in a tight circle could place a bullet in
every square yard of a football-field-sized area (five thousand square yards) in approximately
17 seconds.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...e-vietnam-war/
That's over 50 years ago!!!
4.And while considering the above information, consider this also, to save me time in discussing attack capabilities of these aircraft.
An
AC-130U SPOOKY in
2011 as posted in my first submission noted above could at that time,
track and simultaneously attack 3 targets stationary or moving. That would increase over time. The
AC-130W/J can do the same with at least
10-12
targets.
5. We cannot match the up to
10hr+/- loiter time on station or the
exponential increase in ground target combat coverage since "
Puff"
6. I have asked over the years about adjusting the flight path to a straight-line or semi-circle (Thinking map, North on top entering from the
SE corner to
middle of the map and exiting off the
SW corner.) to allow it to engage targets of opportunity on it's flight path. I was just trying to think outside the box.
7.
LUCKY 7 and Reality; Both Don and Andy were patient enough to inform me of the game realities of the
code. If it
could be done it would be a
massive undertaking, of which I'd
never ask them to do.
8. Not long after this I came to the conclusion this platform is probably the
most "niche" of ANY piece of equipment in the game. we have, even more so then the MP's I submitted for deletion from the
USA OOB. And yes they were deleted.
9. We have always had and will only have
1 50 meter attack hex,
"Puff" 50 years ago had a "
kill zone" equal a
box of 4 50 meter hexes any of the "newer"
AC-130 (With possible exception of the AC-130A) Gunships could hit
any targets on our maps.
10. We will never benefit as players with the current situation, if there's no benefit why keep it? So from above, I asked you to consider why I never asked for the
AC-235/295 to be submitted though I posted on them numerous times.
The
better question now, knowing how I love these aircraft and crews is with the information I provided you over the last two of my posts is...Why hasn't he submitted the
AC-130W and AC-130J?
I think you have my answer now.
When I first started equipment submissions using the Threads I started for that purpose and news, Don patiently and sometimes more strongly (M-60 RISE submission) stressed the importance of added value to the game and player. I would recognize this more on my own, but the more so recently (Last 8yrs or so.) due to the ever
decreasing OOB SLOT situation for many countries.
It's time, I put a lot of work into these over the years from many different angles, however,
I would ask to be allowed to submit every Gunship in the USA OOB for deletion.
I have a jet in mind of which there is
only one, that was the
most prolific fighter bomber in the USAF for at least
12 years and we have only
1 version. To have even 1 or better 2 more would serve the game and players better. And we'd still have
plenty of room to get into the game what we need for the
last submission to close out 2025 in the game in
2026.
But the
Gunships have to go to make that happen.
I'm convinced of that now.
AC-130 Gunships "
Blue Skies and Following Winds"
EDIT: Just finished my walk does wonders after a great dinner and clears your head. So...Word teched throughout for a better flow of info./
#10 moderately reworked./And I present an
OPTION so at my very
basic level of understanding, I know equipment sometimes get embedded into
scenarios and
campaigns from the players thus making some equipment removal a
PITA.
Understand I ask this from the
perspective of any piece of equipment being removed.
Will X weapon system stay "
active" once removed from any
OOB if put into the "
RED" or "
GREEN" OOB's for the purpose of
maintaining them in game submitted scenarios and campaigns?
I understand in the game I believe for generated games the player could always use them by selecting the Allies button and "
RED" or "
GREEN" OOB.
I'm just curious is all. I'd still like to see them
removed from the
USA OOB IF POSSIBLE.
Regards,
Pat
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Linear Mode
