A
aesop081
Guest
munky99999 said:
C-17 Globemaster III
At least get the name right..........
Best Air Support ?
- Thread starter toglmonster
- Start date
C-17 Globemaster III
At least get the name right..........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What were the first two?
Globemaster III, But I know of no other Globemasters...
Globemaster III, But I know of no other Globemasters...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Here you go. First two and the current one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globemaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globemaster
A
aesop081
Guest
Koenigsegg said:
condor888000 said:
Did you think i was talking out of my a$$ ?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Hell no. I'm sure you've forgotten more about aviation than I've learned. Just felt like chucking that out there in case somebody decided to try and dispute it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
No, I knew you were right. ;D (don't hurt me...)
It was just that I was not fully aware of the predecessors to the Globmaster numero III
But now that I was given the link, I know. I remember both those planes, I just did not know that they were Globemasters, thank you for the link.
It was just that I was not fully aware of the predecessors to the Globmaster numero III
But now that I was given the link, I know. I remember both those planes, I just did not know that they were Globemasters, thank you for the link.
A
aesop081
Guest
condor888000 said:
My commentwas meant towards "Koenigsegg"
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Alright, misread it then. My bad...
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The AC-130 has lots of limitations, the USAF refuses to allow them to fly during the daylight hours for example, because of their vulnerability to SAMs, AA and enemy aircraft (although the last is a small factor these days). This is a result of an AC-130 being shot down over Ras-al Khafji during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
The C-17 is complimentary to the C-130 (one is strategic and one is tactical), so arguing for one or the other is arguing apples vs oranges. As for ground attack and close air support, nothing today can beat an A-10, but unfortunately no one builds them anymore, and like the OV-10 Bronco mentioned earlier, recreating the tooling etc. would be very expensive.
Some other opinions: Bring back something like the CF-5 http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352.0.html
The C-17 is complimentary to the C-130 (one is strategic and one is tactical), so arguing for one or the other is arguing apples vs oranges. As for ground attack and close air support, nothing today can beat an A-10, but unfortunately no one builds them anymore, and like the OV-10 Bronco mentioned earlier, recreating the tooling etc. would be very expensive.
Some other opinions: Bring back something like the CF-5 http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352.0.html
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
a_majoor the CF-5 lacks the loiter capability that the AC130 holds, we technically have a very viable ground attack fighter in the CF-18.
I more talking about the CAS that the AC130 provides for hours, there are numerous accounts of them staying in an area and making it safe till daylight all on their own.
I more talking about the CAS that the AC130 provides for hours, there are numerous accounts of them staying in an area and making it safe till daylight all on their own.
A
aesop081
Guest
a_majoor said:
Yes that is true. However , my main point is that using the OV-10 for air support would be like using a circullar saw to drive a nail.......
A
aesop081
Guest
Just so we have terms of reference for the OV-10:
(figures for the Rockwell OV-10D)
Max combat radius : 367 Km with max weapons load and NO loiter
Max weapons load : 1200 lbs
Can be fitted with a centerline 20mm M197 gun with 1500 rounds of ammunition but thsi can only be done if no other stores are carried
(figures for the Rockwell OV-10D)
Max combat radius : 367 Km with max weapons load and NO loiter
Max weapons load : 1200 lbs
Can be fitted with a centerline 20mm M197 gun with 1500 rounds of ammunition but thsi can only be done if no other stores are carried
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
While the CF-5 is not the best possible choice, I was thinking of its virtues of being small, light, capable of using austere airfields and reasonably cheap. If you go through that tread, you will see many alternatives were floated, although the ultimate factor for Canada is whatever is chosen needs to be available right now.
The CF-18 is indeed a capable aircraft, but I wonder about it being able to operate from an austere airfield or even a section of road. Sometimes I think the follow on and replacement for the CF-18 should be the JAS-39 Gripen from Sweden for the virtues listed above.
The CF-18 is indeed a capable aircraft, but I wonder about it being able to operate from an austere airfield or even a section of road. Sometimes I think the follow on and replacement for the CF-18 should be the JAS-39 Gripen from Sweden for the virtues listed above.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
And I have no doubt that the Ground Attack Fighter has it uses, same as the Attack Helicopter, but nothing in my mind has beaten the loiter power of an AC130.
Say we have 1 AC130 in theater and 6 GAF, I call in for CAS now sure that GAF fight will make it their first not even a question, and they will save our butts short term and likely keep us in the fight long enough for the AC130 to arrive but it's ordinance and loiter is limited by allot. Vs the AC130 which conceivably could loiter for hours with out refuel or re arm thus keeping us safe much much longer then the the GAF ever could. Plus as you mentioned it functions out of austere airfields much like the CF-5 and the Grippen.
In terms of bang for your buck CAS the AC130 is the way to go IMO...now bang for your buck in terms of firepower and loiter time, in terms of crew's etc it's and expensive commodity.
Say we have 1 AC130 in theater and 6 GAF, I call in for CAS now sure that GAF fight will make it their first not even a question, and they will save our butts short term and likely keep us in the fight long enough for the AC130 to arrive but it's ordinance and loiter is limited by allot. Vs the AC130 which conceivably could loiter for hours with out refuel or re arm thus keeping us safe much much longer then the the GAF ever could. Plus as you mentioned it functions out of austere airfields much like the CF-5 and the Grippen.
In terms of bang for your buck CAS the AC130 is the way to go IMO...now bang for your buck in terms of firepower and loiter time, in terms of crew's etc it's and expensive commodity.
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 760
it would be nice to have a budget and manpower to have all the tools and cool toys for forces to have wating for the radio call to action.
a gunship fat chance whether it be ac130, ah64d or any other model out there. we cannot afford the hardware let alone afford the upkeep. that is what you have allies on the net for, provide what you cannot provide. Canada provides the fighting man, boots on the ground, the allies provide the aircraft to move and protect the boots on the ground.
second thought is how long would it take to train a full crew to operate and maintain a ac130 gunship?
2 to 3 years for training, how many millions of dollars would this eat that could be put to better use ?
for sake of arguement 2 years to get the planes and the crews ready for combat, if we start today. that would be beginning of 2009 before the crew would be ready for in country operations. mandate for operations as of now is 2009, unless the government pushes to extend the troops over there for another 3 years. so the gunship crew is in place for a few months then could be sent home and wait for the order to charge again ? waste of money for equipment, training, and ammo.
use some of the older airframes that require replacing anyways? a lot of money for short term weapons systems?
use some of the new fleet for this gunship? we then lose airlift because the airframe would have to be convert to gunship and not easy to put in and take out as the need is there for cargo or guns. cannot do both jobs.
money would be better spent on protection equipment for our new fleet that is being ordered and built.
or we find a nice deep pocket like Alberta or Bill Gates to pay for everything and let them maintain.
No gunships, keep the plan simple.
just my thoughts, but would be cool to see the Maple leaft on a gunship maybe the US forces would give Canada a gift of one or 2 aircraft already converted?
a gunship fat chance whether it be ac130, ah64d or any other model out there. we cannot afford the hardware let alone afford the upkeep. that is what you have allies on the net for, provide what you cannot provide. Canada provides the fighting man, boots on the ground, the allies provide the aircraft to move and protect the boots on the ground.
second thought is how long would it take to train a full crew to operate and maintain a ac130 gunship?
2 to 3 years for training, how many millions of dollars would this eat that could be put to better use ?
for sake of arguement 2 years to get the planes and the crews ready for combat, if we start today. that would be beginning of 2009 before the crew would be ready for in country operations. mandate for operations as of now is 2009, unless the government pushes to extend the troops over there for another 3 years. so the gunship crew is in place for a few months then could be sent home and wait for the order to charge again ? waste of money for equipment, training, and ammo.
use some of the older airframes that require replacing anyways? a lot of money for short term weapons systems?
use some of the new fleet for this gunship? we then lose airlift because the airframe would have to be convert to gunship and not easy to put in and take out as the need is there for cargo or guns. cannot do both jobs.
money would be better spent on protection equipment for our new fleet that is being ordered and built.
or we find a nice deep pocket like Alberta or Bill Gates to pay for everything and let them maintain.
No gunships, keep the plan simple.
just my thoughts, but would be cool to see the Maple leaft on a gunship maybe the US forces would give Canada a gift of one or 2 aircraft already converted?
C
couchcommander
Guest
FormerHorseGuard said:
That's the spirit! Moochy moochy moochy! ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
How long would conversion and training take? Does anyone have a good estimate? How about converting our two 130H tankers. ;D
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Having talked to an Air Force pers who's information defeats my own (which isn't hard when were talking Air Force stuff) It's not worth the money, energy or effort to do anything more then scrap then into pop can's. They haven't the hours left to be useful and any mre money really just throwing in into a black hole.
*Edit for spelling
*Edit for spelling
