WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > AC-130 gunship

Posted by: Imperialist March 04, 2006 10:26 am

Could Romania modify C-130s into AC-130 gunships?

Posted by: C-2 March 04, 2006 01:37 pm

I have also 2 questions :
1.What C-130?
Those that Romania has are from 1961,and the only one that is in flying cond. is a real danger.
2.Why do Romania need a Spectra gunship?
For what?

Posted by: Imperialist March 04, 2006 02:27 pm

http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/26/pag%2022.htm

Posted by: C-2 March 04, 2006 02:49 pm

Soooooo!
Brand new!
Intensivly used since 1972!
Romaero Baneasa couldn't repair the old ones....
But you didn't answered about question nr 2.!

Posted by: Imperialist March 04, 2006 03:42 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 4 2006, 02:49 PM)

Soooooo!
Brand new!
Intensivly used since 1972!
Romaero Baneasa couldn't repair the old ones....
But you didn't answered about question nr 2.!

Yes, I just wanted to show that your "from 1961" info was outdated.
I will address the second question later on.

take care

Posted by: C-2 March 05, 2006 07:35 am

When you are asking a question ,you should know what are you asking!
And 72 is long before you were born.
I wander how old are you....

Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2006 02:11 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 5 2006, 07:35 AM)

When you are asking a question ,you should know what are you asking!
And 72 is long before you were born.
I wander how old are you....

So what, now its my fault that you didnt know about that 1972 C-130? No need to get upset and impose your oldness, C-2.
Besides, look over the question again. It doesnt say "its current C-130s".

take care

Posted by: C-2 March 05, 2006 03:14 pm

I know why you want to build a Spectra gun ship!!!!
To kill all birds survoling Romanian border and infected with the bird flu !
It a similar reason that you want Romania to have submarines:to fight the Hungarian Black Sea fleet!
And new hight performance fighters (in hight number) ;to fight ET before he sets a foot on Romanian soil.
Unless one of your close relatives is someone who get a "comision" from an arms transaction,you should pray that we will not buy toys but get roads,medical care ,and social security and not waste money to make some guys rich.

Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2006 04:54 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 5 2006, 03:14 PM)

To kill all birds survoling Romanian border and infected with the bird flu !
It a similar reason that you want Romania to have submarines:to fight the Hungarian Black Sea fleet!
And new hight performance fighters (in hight number) ;to fight ET before he sets a foot on Romanian soil.
Unless one of your close relatives is someone who get a "comision" from an arms transaction,you should pray that we will not buy toys but get roads,medical care ,and social security and not waste money to make some guys rich.

There is a thing called state budget. And it covers roads, medical care, social security and... yes, "toys". Unless you heard me advocating a 25% or even 50% spending on toys, I suggest you drop the irony. Nobody is saying take away from infrastructure, social issues and health and spend it on "toys", OK?

QUOTE

I know why you want to build a Spectra gun ship!!!!

I dont want to build it, I asked could Romania do it.

Ad-hoc and not state of the art, or state of the art and with license from the US. Very well, the question could be technically silly, but unless you will address that, you should open a new thread, maybe "Do we need defense spending at all?" or "Lets make love not war", whatever.

p.s. you know, there is a whole thread here about high performance jets Romania should buy, are you saying the people there are afraid of alien invasions?

take care

Posted by: C-2 March 05, 2006 07:08 pm

No !no alien invasion!
Just taking a fat comision,getting rich and ddddd that's all folks (like Porkey says).

Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2006 09:19 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 5 2006, 07:08 PM)

No !no alien invasion!
Just taking a fat comision,getting rich and ddddd that's all folks (like Porkey says).

Whoever plans to take commissions will lobby members of government or parliament, not post messages in forums...

Interesting perspective nevertheless.
Now lets get back on topic.

take care

Posted by: C-2 March 05, 2006 09:32 pm

Ok !
Back to the topic!
Why do we need to make from a junky C 130 a gun ship?
We have no answer yet!

Posted by: Imperialist March 05, 2006 09:57 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Mar 5 2006, 09:32 PM)

Ok !
Back to the topic!
Why do we need to make from a junky C 130 a gun ship?
We have no answer yet!

I dont think this is on topic. I asked could we do it, not should we do it.

The AC-130 gunship's primary missions are close air support, air interdiction and force protection. Missions in close air support are troops in contact, convoy escort and urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against preplanned targets or targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include air base defense and facilities defense.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

Pick something.

Posted by: mabadesc March 06, 2006 05:17 am

QUOTE

Could Romania modify C-130s into AC-130 gunships?

C-2, I think Imperialist had an innocent question for the sake of spurring a discussion on the topic. I'm not sure he deserves the criticism and sarcasm he received in return.

As far as the age of Romania's C-130 fleet, I am not an expert on aviation by any stretch of the imagination, but the 25-30 year age of these crafts is not the most relevant factor. From what I have heard, plans undergo major overhauls and modernization processes at set periods of time. It seems to me then that this process of maintenance and servicing is more important.

As an example, last year I flew from Paris to Chicago in an Air France Boeing built in the 1970's (or so the stewardess told me). I admit I wasn't very comfortable, but the stewardess assured me this wasn't uncommon. Also, I'm sure that the plane's jets, avionics, and other electronic systems had been upgraded since it was built.

Imperialist - To answer your original question, I don't think Romania would be able to take a C-130 and turn it into a home-built gunship, or at least it wouldn't be a very efficient ship.

As to upgrading it to a US-spec AC-130, one of those puppies costs over $200 million, so I'm not sure it would be worth it.

Maybe a better choice would be a Warthog - an A-10, which is also a great ground attack ship, but on a smaller scale.

That's my opinion...

P.S. I'm still in awe about the fact that the AC-130 carries a 105 mm howitzer as part of its armament.

Cheers to both of you.

Posted by: Iamandi March 06, 2006 11:21 am

Well, Romania do'nt need AC-130 Gunships, because they cost more money with weapons systems and electronics then simply transport planes and of course we don't feel the need to have something like this category of planes.

Like Mabadesc say, we need something like A-10 maybe. Do not forget about IAR-93 take out of the usable inventory.

At reduced scale some helicopters can do even better for us than Hercules-Gunship.

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist March 06, 2006 11:47 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Mar 6 2006, 11:21 AM)

Yes, but we cannot build A-10s, we can only buy them, whereas if we could make some workable gunship out of "junky" C-130s, that could mean some jobs here and maybe some markets in Africa or somewhere.
Anyway, it was just an idea, after I've read that Romania planned to buy more C-130s.
As for "does Romania need it", in my view, A-10s would be more than Romania needs, whereas AC-130s would be more suited for our level.

take care

Posted by: Iamandi March 07, 2006 07:13 am

Yes, will be jobs for some workers but this is so limited... You don't think about some serie production/up-grade to "gunship", no? Because will be not so much, maybe 10 maximum. And, don't forget about electronics and weapon systems. We don't have it, and we will buy them, all of them. If Romanian military industry had in production some of the equipments, maybe we will obtain something, but so....

Iama

Posted by: Jeff_S March 07, 2006 08:26 pm

My advice would be to think about how any Romanian gunship would be used. Several different types of aircraft have been mentioned in this thread: A-10s, helicopters, and fixed wing gunships a la AC-130. While they are all used in close air support, they are very different.

A-10s were designed to attack mechanized forces in the contested airspace of NATO/ Warsaw Pact Europe. They don't depend on having complete control of the air. A fixed-wing gunship does. If the enemy can get even an old fighter in to the air, you're dead (unless the fighter pilot is stupid enough to fly along the wrong side of the gunship for a close look... then HE's dead

)

What role do you see for these gunships? Ground support on peace-keeping/ peace-making missions like Afghanistan? They could be useful there. They can stay on station a long time, and put out an amazing amount of firepower.

Another thing to keep in mind: "fixed-wing gunship" does not have to equal "AC-130". The US used AC-47 gunships in Vietnam. These were much lower-tech than AC-130s, they used lots of parts taken from other aircraft. But they were effective, as http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8758/charlie.jpg cartoon shows.

(For those who noticed I skipped discussing attack helicopters, you're right. It's just a prejudice of mine. I think they're too fragile and too maintenance-intensive. Take me in to battle in a transport helicopter, but give me fixed wing CAS once I arrive)

Posted by: Iamandi March 16, 2006 08:07 am

Because in this topic is writed about romanian C-130 from 1961, look at our neighbour - Bulgaria:

Alenia Aeronautica Signs Agreement with Bulgaria for Five C-27J Aircraft and Options for Three More

Source: Finmeccanica
Feb. 24, 2006

"Bulgaria’s ministry of defence today signed an agreement to supply five C-27Js, the tactical military transport aircraft produced by Finmeccanica subsidiary Alenia Aeronautica and the US company Lockheed Martin. The agreement includes options for a further three aircraft. This concludes the talks that began in April last year with the Bulgarian government's selection of the C-27J to replace the country's fleet of Soviet-built An-26 aircraft.

The C-27J will be used to transport troops and materials not only at home but also abroad, as part of operations for NATO (of which Bulgaria has been a member since April 2004). It will give the Bulgarian armed forces, which are currently upgrading their equipment, an aircraft that fully meets the interoperability standards demanded by NATO.

The first plane is scheduled for delivery in June 2007, and the rest will be delivered at a rate of one per year. The C-27J is the most advanced programme of next-generation tactical military transport aircraft available.

In addition to Bulgaria, the Italian and Greek air forces have also ordered 12 planes each. In the United States, Alenia Aeronautica is in talks to provide the C-27J as part of the US military’s programme to upgrade its tactical airlifter fleet, while in Canada, it will bid for contracts to replace the country’s search and rescue fleet.

Finland, Australia, Taiwan, Ireland, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, as well as new NATO members such as the Czech Republic, are also evaluating the C-27J. "

Maybe - and i say that with F16, second hand, in my mind - maybe we are afraid of new eqipments...

Iama

Posted by: Burner April 15, 2006 05:19 pm

We need some more Hercs. The C-130J would be nice.

But what are we to do with a gunship?

Use it for... what? Better invest in a true airlift fleet, modern and larger than it is today, not in gunships.

Posted by: Imperialist April 15, 2006 08:03 pm

QUOTE (Burner @ Apr 15 2006, 05:19 PM)

But what are we to do with a gunship?

Use it for... what? Better invest in a true airlift fleet, modern and larger than it is today, not in gunships.

WWIII is on its way, havent you heard? Me thinks a gunship would be more useful than an airlift fleet.

Actually, forget about it, some investment in infrastructure (dams, briges) would be more useful.

take care