Jump to content
Aero Precision provides OEM part support for military aircraft operators across more than 20 aircraft

AC-130W Stinger gets bombs


Recommended Posts

Big article in this months Air Force Asso. mag about the AC-130W Stinger gunship getting 4 small diameter bombs under each wing(SDB) for a limited standoff precision strike capability. Also says they are testing Hellfire missles on the bird. Now THAT will be a kickbuttski gunship. The mag and article can also be accessed online. Waiting for pics. Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah . . . but in a classic 'more with less' case of mission creep (not to mention more than a little intraservice rivalry), they also want them to start flying in the daylight. Standoff range is great so long as the only guys shooting back at you are the ones you're actively engaging. We've played the "let's fly gunships in the daylight" before and it didn't work out so well for us. Do we really need to learn this lesson twice?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/gunships-daytime/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talonlm you are right and you know what they say, "If you don't remember your history you are doomed to repeat it". We have the old heads retired and the newbies want to try it their way so it will make them look good...and they don't read their history. Not good for our gunship guys. Bill :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it would be pretty neat to have a couple stingers, etc., hanging on rails. Maybe a few .50 cals sticking out for defense - upper turrent and tail turrent! During Red Flag we got credit for flaming a F-15 by the LM on the day we were flying as OPFOR. He had taped 2 rescue stobes together and when we did an airdrop of Form AF1 he got the F-15 that was on our tail. Course the gun cameras from the fighters after that showed a long sting of tracers going straight through the cargo compartment and center wing section. Yeah, we were toast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been flying during the daylight for 2 years now, in theatre...I've done 2 deployments on them. I won't get detailed on the internet, but the W is safe during the day. SDB's are alive and well, and impressive.

W is by no means a standard gunship, or what you're used to seeing. ( I'm also not saying it's better or worse...just a different capability)

And truth be told, you could take a slick, put it in an orbit overhead day or night, and the [email protected] are gonna run and hide.

BTW Spectre 623, I get to see a bunch of students going to the 16th SOS...I actually recommended they read a book written by one of your own "Callsign; Spectre"....(I'm trying to get them to read their history!!). I also throw Sam McGowan's books at them also, for some C-130 history. Couple of them, (told me) they actually read them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMMMMM!!!!! 50's in turrets, etc???? Sure beats the hell out of a green flare from a flare gun out a paratroop door against an SA-7..... I don't know about the rest of you, but it crossed my mind on occasion what would have happened to us trash haulers in Nam if they had put a Mig on our ass. wonder why they didn't....just not worth it, and not that many opportunities?????? I have never heard of a fighter attack on a herk.... anybody know of one??????? The losses to ground fire and so on was sobering enough, just think what we would have felt if a .Mig took one out.......................Giz

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been flying during the daylight for 2 years now, in theatre...I've done 2 deployments on them. I won't get detailed on the internet, but the W is safe during the day. SDB's are alive and well, and impressive.

I haven't been on a gunpigs for a long time, and those were A-models, so I trust you know what you're talking about. Technology, tactics and times do change and this is not Iraq of the 1990s we're talking about--but daylight loitering just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Edited by talonlm
Çuase I apparently can't make a complete thought into a sentence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never heard of a fighter attack on a herk.... anybody know of one??????? The losses to ground fire and so on was sobering enough, just think what we would have felt if a .Mig took one out.......................Giz

Giz,

Back in 1958, a C-130A-II from the 7406 CSS (Berlin for Lunch Bunch) was shot down over Armenia. There's a photo of it in the gallery. Check out msn 3136.

Don R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on Talonlm...lot of the traditional guys took a step back when they heard of daylight flying. But, we're all comfortable with it given the capabilities we have.

AS far as capability goes, I'll spill the beans. We have one of the those Star Trek cloaking devices and warp drives on the engines. Mooj never see us...and its a blast to mess with the fighter guys...:)

As you mentioned, the battlefield has changed. I'm sure the guys who invaded Iraq and Afghianstan had some experiences, but I don't think (currently) we're experiencing anything like the Vietnam era guys did. Now, daylight ops when we go after some other country....well, my @ss might eat the seat cushion....we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And truth be told, you could take a slick, put it in an orbit overhead day or night, and the [email protected] are gonna run and hide.

Did that in Somalia...worked then. ;)

I have never heard of a fighter attack on a herk.... anybody know of one???????

Didn't Argentina lose one to the Brits - took a couple missiles up tailpipes and kept limping along...finally had to strafe the cockpit. Or so the stories go....

EDIT: Looks like it might've been wishful thinking - here's one account:

1 June - C-130 Hercules: Number 801 Squadron CAP (Lt. Cdr. "Sharkey" Ward and Lt. Steve Thomas) destroyed an Argentine C-130 Hercules approximately 93 kilometers north of Pebble Island. Ward's first AIM-9L Sidewinder missile fell short of the C-130, but the second started a fire between the inner and outer port engines. Ward then fired 240 rounds from his Harrier's two ADEN cannons, this action broke off the wing of the enemy aircraft, sending it crashing into the sea and killing the seven crew members. Although this particular C-130 was performing a daylight reconnaissance flight, the Argentinians had been using a C-130 to attack merchant ships re-supplying the task force by simply pushing a bomb out of the back of the aircraft as it flew over (one bomb struck a ship, but bounced off to no effect).[9][10] They were also using the aircraft to lay land mines around Port Stanley and resupply the Argentine forces. The Argentinian crews aboard were captains Rubén Martel and Carlos Krause, vice-comodore Hugo Meisner among the officers Miguel Cardone and Carlos Cantezano joining at petty officers Julio Lastra and Manuel Albelos.[citation needed][clarification needed]

While searching for that, however, found this:

http://www.aewa.org/Library/c-130.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

They shot the snot out of it, but they didn't shoot it down. I can't remember how many died, but there was at least one. The aircraft was forced to land in Peru, if I recall correctly. That incident is why all the slicks carried a full-color American flag on the tail for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4310 Argentine TC-63 was the one shot down by the Harrier.

4255 originally 67-7183 renumbered as 1452 for USCG and renumbered 67-7183 when it came back to the USAF.

It had a Pacer Coin mod and was on an anti drug mission when shot up and forced to land. MSGT Joseph Beard a loadmaster was killed. The aircraft was repaired and returned to flight. later to the boneyard and to beer cans.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I failed to specify my post, I was referring to Nam..................I woulda thought had the opposition had been so inclined, a great number of herks, hueys, goonies, Boo's, Pookies and chinooks would have been nothin' but big smokin' holes in the ground, and as far as that goes, the body count for them would have been much higher.Personally, I'm glad they didn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Giz,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of very many offensive actions the NVAF bubbas undertook. I have heard of a few attacks against the Navy while they were shelling the North's coastal assets, a helo incursion here and there, but no organized campiagns, nothing like what we were doing to them. I always figured the NVAF was used as more of a point defence asset than anything else. Some of you folks were there; was that the case? Or were there more incidents, just nothing really to talk about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At Red Flag sometime in the late '90s, we hung an AIM-9 on a rail that had been used for our QRC-8402 pods on a Talon II. We had to take the pod off to install the Red Flag tracking pod. The adapter we put on was a standard adapter to hang missiles.

We took a picture and sent it in to Jane's...never heard anything after that. ;) I'm certain they looked at the background, figured it was at Nellis, and assumed it was just the stunt that it was...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Giz,

Back in 1958, a C-130A-II from the 7406 CSS (Berlin for Lunch Bunch) was shot down over Armenia. There's a photo of it in the gallery. Check out msn 3136.

Don R.

Not trying to split hairs here, but would like to provide a little clarification.

The acft. Don is talking about was assigned to the 7406 Support Sqd (SS). This sqd., along with the 7407 SS and the 7405 SS were part of the 7499 Support Group. All three sqds. had a different classified recce mission.

The 05th flew EC-97Gs daily back and forth from Wiesbaden AB to Berlin. Hence the," Berlin for Lunch Bunch". These acft. were equipted with then state of the art cameras which were used to observe SA2 missile sites. Later the sqd. along with the Berlin for Lunch Bunch label was moved to Rhein Main and renamed the 7405th Ops. Sqd and assgned C-130Es. I was long gone by then but believe the mission stayed very much the same.

I looked at the photo of 56-528. I'm not convinced this is really 528. I say this because the tail number looks altered. Today we call it photoshopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobdaley,

I had heard some of the three rescue birds we sent to the boneyard were reused, but I was wondering if you were intending to refer to the temporary loaner we got back in 1983?

4142 65-0987 1451 HC130H HC130P Loaner from ARRS Flying 71RQS

The story went, back in the day, that we ended up with the USAF rescue birds (our 1452, 1453 and 1454) because they were not needed and the tails we ordered were diverted as slicks to support SE Asia?

Edited by n1dp
oops
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Metalbasher, I take it these MERSs? were hung on the IFR hard points? For the few years I was on fighters we hung the bombs on TERs (triple ejector racks) and MERs (multiple ejector racks) on the hard points. A great pic I might add. I figured someone out there in Herky Land had some. Thanks for posting them. Bill

Edited by Spectre623
speelin'
Link to post
Share on other sites

So....as far as bombs on -130's go (besides pushing them out of the cargo compt)...anyone know about this picture. I remember seeing it on here and know its been around. I also think about it when some of the guys I work with...say "this has never been done"

Is this an Argentinian Herk? Some mod they threw together during the Falklands War?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to split hairs here, but would like to provide a little clarification.

I looked at the photo of 56-528. I'm not convinced this is really 528. I say this because the tail number looks altered. Today we call it photoshopped.

Larry, I agree that the photo of 528 looks "photoshopped."

Didn't one of the squadrons also fly C-118's out of Wiesbaden? I have a photo of one with a bogus tail number. The tail number it's wearing is actually of a crashed C-121.

I also have a photo of a couple of EC-97G's parked at Wiesbaden. This was before the extreme paranoid security of today. There are no fences and there is a young boy wandering around the ramp.

Don R.

Edited by DC10FE
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I had heard some of the three rescue birds we sent to the boneyard were reused, but I was wondering if you were intending to refer to the temporary loaner we got back in 1983?

4142 65-0987 1451 HC130H HC130P Loaner from ARRS Flying 71RQS

The story went, back in the day, that we ended up with the USAF rescue birds (our 1452, 1453 and 1454) because they were not needed and the tails we ordered were diverted as slicks to support SE Asia?"

All the Coast Guard B , E, H models were contracted from Lockheed for the Coast Guard by the USAF. They all had USAF tail numbers on the production plans and received Coast Guard numbers on delivery. When 1452, 1453,1454 were turned over to the USAF, they reverted to their USAF tail numbers.

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...