The Future of Gunships?

[sgtgunn]

The USAF has recently shelved its plans to build a gunship version of the C-27J due to funding, and instead will be be giving some MC-130s gunship capability and converting a number of C-130J airframes to AC-130s to replacing aging aircraft.

Since LIC/CI warfare seems to be with us for the forseeable future, I'm curious to here people's opinions on the future of fixed wing gunships.

Will we see a replacment for the AC-130? Are directed energy weapons likely to make an apperance as gunship armament any time in the near future? What about UACV gunships? Do any other nations have interest in developing fixed wing gunship capability?

Adrian

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The USAF has recently shelved its plans to build a gunship version of the C-27J due to funding, and instead will be be giving some MC-130s gunship capability and converting a number of C-130J airframes to AC-130s to replacing aging aircraft.

Since LIC/CI warfare seems to be with us for the forseeable future, I'm curious to here people's opinions on the future of fixed wing gunships.

Will we see a replacment for the AC-130? Are directed energy weapons likely to make an apperance as gunship armament any time in the near future? What about UACV gunships? Do any other nations have interest in developing fixed wing gunship capability?

Adrian

Might see a replacement in the future but for now the AC-130s are good enough.

Don't worry gunships will be around forever.

 

[Todjaeger]

The USAF has recently shelved its plans to build a gunship version of the C-27J due to funding, and instead will be be giving some MC-130s gunship capability and converting a number of C-130J airframes to AC-130s to replacing aging aircraft.

Since LIC/CI warfare seems to be with us for the forseeable future, I'm curious to here people's opinions on the future of fixed wing gunships.

Will we see a replacment for the AC-130? Are directed energy weapons likely to make an apperance as gunship armament any time in the near future? What about UACV gunships? Do any other nations have interest in developing fixed wing gunship capability?

Adrian

The first fixed-wing gunship, the AC-47, aka 'Spooky' or 'Puff the Magic Dragon' had its first appearance over 40 years ago. Since then, other gunship versions (AC-119 and now AC-130) have appeared, but the basic mission has not changed, namely saturation and area suppression fire.

I do not foresee DEW being able to replace the current armament on a gunship any time soon, particularly since we are still having problems developing a reliabe and efficient one in the first place. Never mind a DEW capable of high volume or large area fire support.

I also do not think at UAVs would be used in a gunship role any time soon either, unless a cargo-carrier UAV was developed or an existing gunship was converted into a UAV. While many UAVs do have a characteristic of the gunships, namely long loiter times, I am unaware of any UAV that has a payload capacity approaching any of the gunships. Even the old AC-47s had ~7,000 lbs available to carry the 7.62 mm mini-guns and the belted rounds for them. If a large UAV gets developed which can fly at low level (for a UAV at least) and has a large enough cargo capacity and space/volume, then perhaps a UAV gunship might get developed.

As for other nations developing a gunship... I have my doubts. Largely because the gunship has been in service for over four decades and no other country (AFAIK) has had one enter service as yet. This could be due to limited or specialist tactical use which other countries just do not see often enough, or just that the US military is large enough to be able to afford all the special 'toys' that it wants and needs.

As for possible replacements for the AC-130, three potentials come to mind. These would be ACH-47, AC-27, or AV-22. Essentially gunship versions of the CH-47 Chinook helicopter, the C-27 Spartan, or the V-22 Osprey.

As I understand it, one thing which has been (or perhaps is being) looked at is rationalizing the weapons calibers used on the AC-130 which depending on which might include 20 mm, 25 mm, 40 mm, 105 mm howitzer rounds or 120 mm mortar rounds. If the weaponry could be standardized around one round, then it could reduce the logistical burden the aircraft creates.

Potential advantages using the other aircraft I mentioned are for the C-27, smaller/lighter so potentially less expensive vs. an AC-130, also should have improved STOL performance which assist in operating from forward areas.

For the CH-47 and V-22, being VTOL can take off & land in small areas, also the potential to hover over a target area while proving CAS. This could be beneficial compared to the current practice were gunships have to make slow, banking turns because all the guns fire out from one side of the aircraft (port/left side IIRC).

There had been mention of an AC-X programme to develop a gunship for SOCOM. The specifications were for a smaller, faster, more manueverable LO platform which would fire lethal and non-lethal weaponry, including DEW to either side and above or below the platform. Supporting research was to be done to develop an Advanced Tactical Laser to support the AC-X, but given the power levels, it was to be using a chemical laser. Given the inherent toxicity of chemical lasers, as well the likely limitations on the number/volume of 'shots' compared with using conventional weaponry, I am uncertain that such a platform got further than a tech demontrator. Particularly due to the level of funding required for the R&D to overcome what are IMO significant technological challenges.

As a side note, there was a twin rotary helicopter gunship which saw service during Vietnam. I do not recall if it was adapted from a CH-47 Chinook, or a CH-46 Sea Knight, though it have also been a variant of the H-21 'Flying Banana'. This gunship, however had machine guns and rocket pods which fired in a forward arc like the 'Huey' gunship or later AH-1 Cobra or AH-64 Apache gunships.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

As for other nations developing a gunship... I have my doubts. Largely because the gunship has been in service for over four decades and no other country (AFAIK) has had one enter service as yet.

Columbia has been using AC-47 since 1988. In their current outfit, these differ from old US AC-47 in mounting two .50cal GAU-19 gatlings.

As for heavy side-firing full-scale armament, French SA-321G helos can (and often did) mount a 20mm F2 (Giat M693) naval AA gun in the cargo compartment firing out the door. Complete with armored gunshield, 90-caliber barrel and everything.

 

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

I am not sure about fixed wing gunships but I do believe helicopter gunships have a fantastic future in the defence forces. In fact helicopter gunships are the key in the war against terrorism in the middle east, but I haven't heard much about helicopter gunships having a major role in this war. Helicopter gunships will be able to attack any targets in mountain regions, the Taliban will have no response to such an attack if caught by surprise. The Taliban could be pinned down and picked off. I would personally like to see Australia deploy some Eurocopter Tiger's to help aid and protect Australian ground forces. Helicopter gunships is something that Australia should invest more into, maybe 15 Apaches D helicopter gunships in addition to the 22 Eurocopter Tiger helicopter gunships with the entire 22 gunships close to completion in regards to delivery to the Australian Army. Helicopter gunships have an important role in defence..

 

[kato]

Helicopter gunships will be able to attack any targets in mountain regions

The Baba mountain range goes up to 17,000 ft, the Hindu Kush within Afghanistan to 25,000 ft, the Safed Koh where Tora Bora is located to 16,000 ft.

The Tiger has a loaded service ceiling of 13,000 feet.

the Taliban will have no response to such an attack if caught by surprise.

Umm, people in a jam can get quite crafty with RPGs, HMGs and the occasional MANPADS... especially if, like in Eastern Afghanistan, you have groups operating at at least company strength that can bracket an attacking helo.

I haven't heard much about helicopter gunships having a major role in this war

There's something like 40 attack helicopters stationed in Afghanistan, about 60% American.

 

[Feanor]

I know in the Soviet war in Afghan helos became one of the main ways to deliver ordnance. I'm surprised NATO hasn't put them to more use.

 

[Todjaeger]

Columbia has been using AC-47 since 1988. In their current outfit, these differ from old US AC-47 in mounting two .50cal GAU-19 gatlings.

As for heavy side-firing full-scale armament, French SA-321G helos can (and often did) mount a 20mm F2 (Giat M621) naval AA gun in the cargo compartment firing out the door. Complete with armored gunshield, 90-caliber barrel and everything.

Thanks for that, I had not heard of Columbia employing a gunship. Given the terrain and type of conflict though, it does make perfect sense.

Out of curiousity, how did/does the 20mm/90 cal. Giat F2 compare with the Giat mounted in a chin turret on the Tiger?

I ask because my general impression was that side-firing weapons were usually intended to deliver volume fire vs. targeted. If only a single gun was available, it would seem more sensible to allow it to deliver targeted fire over a wider arc.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

Out of curiousity, how did/does the 20mm/90 cal. Giat F2 compare with the Giat mounted in a chin turret on the Tiger?

The M621 on the Tiger is essentially the low-recoil (rechambered), short-barrel (73cal), single-feed, lighter version of the M693 used in the 20F2 with a 90cal barrel.

The M693 fires full-power 20x139 ammunition also used e.g. by the Rh202 on German AFVs, while the M621 fires the lower power 20x102 also used e.g. with the M61 Vulcan gatling. The difference between these two rounds is not insignificant - using the same AP shell in either ammunition, the M693 reaches a 25% higher muzzle velocity than the M621, and as such of course better results vs light to medium armored targets.

The rate of fire on the M693 is marginally faster, 800 vs about 740-750 rpm (though iirc there are versions of either with higher and lower fire rates, generally in the 740-900 rpm region). Far more importantly, the M621 is single-feed (one ammo type only), while the M693 is double-feed for ammunition switch.

The French Navy still only uses the M693 in its 20mm mounts (even modern, e.g. planned on FREMM), probably mostly due to the double-feed, while Nexter exports the same mounts only with the M621 - traditionally, Giat previously did that too.
The French Army uses the M621, in helicopters both as chin guns and probably in the future as door guns (system integrated on Cougar last year).

Just noted that i said M621 in the post above. Changed that to M693.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I know in the Soviet war in Afghan helos became one of the main ways to deliver ordnance. I'm surprised NATO hasn't put them to more use.

Actually they have lots of Cobra's, Apaches, Blackhawks and Chinooks deployed to Afghanistan.

 

[kato]

And Super Stallions, Super Pumas, Gazelles, Mangustas... even a couple Hueys here and there, although that's mostly PMC it seems.

Well, it's actually not that many altogether. Probably somewhere around 100-120 transport helos and 40-50 attack helos these days. For all of Afghanistan.

 

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

The Baba mountain range goes up to 17,000 ft, the Hindu Kush within Afghanistan to 25,000 ft, the Safed Koh where Tora Bora is located to 16,000 ft.

The Tiger has a loaded service ceiling of 13,000 feet.


Umm, people in a jam can get quite crafty with RPGs, HMGs and the occasional MANPADS... especially if, like in Eastern Afghanistan, you have groups operating at at least company strength that can bracket an attacking helo.


There's something like 40 attack helicopters stationed in Afghanistan, about 60% American.

If their are 40 attack helicopters why has their been no or little information about this. If these attack helicopters are being used why are so many ground force personnel are getting killed. Either these 40 attack helicopters aren't being used the way they should or not enough of them have been deployed. No matter how high a mountain range is, the Taliban forces still must climb down the mountains at certain times. Special Forces can be used to gain access to certain mountain pathways up into the mountains and use censors planted on the mountain paths to indicate Taliban movements along these paths if they venture down the mountains, this is when the helicopter gunships come into play.

 

[sgtgunn]

If their are 40 attack helicopters why has their been no or little information about this. If these attack helicopters are being used why are so many ground force personnel are getting killed. Either these 40 attack helicopters aren't being used the way they should or not enough of them have been deployed. No matter how high a mountain range is, the Taliban forces still must climb down the mountains at certain times. Special Forces can be used to gain access to certain mountain pathways up into the mountains and use censors planted on the mountain paths to indicate Taliban movements along these paths if they venture down the mountains, this is when the helicopter gunships come into play.

Helo Gunships - particularly the US Army's AH-64s and USMC's AH-1s - are playing a major role in Afghanistan, but they have limitations. Helo payloads are limited in higher elevations and by hot temperatures. They only have so much range, and have enormous areas to cover. If an AH-64 has to respond to a remote combat outpost being attacked 200 miles from it's base, cruising at 140 knots it's still going to take over an hour to get on station.

Fixed wing gunships like the USAF AC-130U, while far fewer in number, can cover huge amounts of territory, can loiter over an area for far, far longer, have a much more rapid response time (at least for distant targets - traveling at 260 knots). They are also far less vulnerable to the sort of low tech ground fire likely to be encountered in theater - HMGs, MANPADS, etc. due to their higher operating altitude and advanced ECM. A lucky RPG shot can down a hovering AH-64. The Afghans developed very effective tactics in dealing with Soviet Mi-24 Gunships, downing large numbers with US supplied Stinger MANPADS.

Let's not forget the UAVs either. The US and UK are operating MQ-1, MQ-3 and MQ-9 armed UAVs in Afghanistan. These drones, especially the larger MQ-9 Reaper (love the name) can cruise at 170 knots, operate at ceilings of 25,000 feet, has a range of 3,2000 nm (5,900km!) and can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles. It can also carry 500lb LGB and is being tested for the JDAM. They are (comparatively) small targets for ground fire, can loiter for long periods of time with no worries on crew fatigue ("hey take over Bob, I have to go to the bathroom") and while a Hellfire is an expensive way to kill a Taliban mortar or machine gun team, there is no denying it' effective!

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see some kind of smaller, "side firing" UAV gunship, like a mini AC-130. Even if it only carries one gun - like a 25mm GAU-12 or if something smaller is needed, a 30mm M230 or a couple of .50 GAU-19 and a couple of Hellfires, JDAMs, or GBU-44 Viper Strike glide bombs for hard tragets.

Adrian

 

[Waylander]

AFAIK Apache crews in A-stan (US, Brits and Dutch) now use much less hovering attack profiles than they did at the beginning due to the mentioned ground fire. The amount of small arms fire, RPGs, HMGs and the occassional AAA and MANPAD can be lethal if the OMF can get a grip on a helicopter.

Nevertheless the Attack helos in A-stan proofed their worth. I don't get the connection between the casualties and the presence of ground forces. As if one weapon system makes so much difference that no soldiers are killed. This is not a videogame were the mission begins and one starts to kill Talibs with a rain of 30mm and FFARs.

As for vulnerability. The USAF only operates the AC-130s at night. Tells you something about their vulnerability. A well concealed 20mm in ambush position is a big problem for a gunship circling around on a sunny day. These gunships cannot fly so high because they have to be able to employ their bofors and gatlings.

 

[kato]

On a side note, with the 10th Mountain Division as surge troops, there's now ... let's say quite a bit more than 40 attack helos in Afghanistan.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

There could also be a future in non-dedicated gunship platforms. As some previous posters have noted, this has been already done to some degree with rotary wing platforms (arguably the earliest experimental AC-47s were something of this as well), and I think there's significant potential for a similar fixed-wing concept.

The USMC's Harvest Hawk system already does this to a degree, as it allows for KC-130J tankers to accept and use a modularized missile package, 30m door guns, etc.

Since good number of nations already operate C-130s or similar medium cargo aircraft, it seems to me that a palletized and/or modular gunship could gain traction. Although it certainly isn't an ideal solution to providing gunship support (countermeasures, crew proficiency , operational effectiveness, etc. probably wouldn't be able to compete with that provided by a dedicated AC-130 crew), it would present a useful and economic compromise for many air forces.

There's also the possibility of fitting transport aircraft with clutches of missiles and operating them as standoff launch platforms, although this system would operate best in concert with other systems such as UAVs and/or ground spotters operating in concert with the launch aircraft in an NCW environment.

 

[Toptob]

he USMC's Harvest Hawk system already does this to a degree, as it allows for KC-130J tankers to accept and use a modularized missile package, 30m door guns, etc.

Since good number of nations already operate C-130s or similar medium cargo aircraft, it seems to me that a palletized and/or modular gunship could gain traction. Although it certainly isn't an ideal solution to providing gunship support (countermeasures, crew proficiency , operational effectiveness, etc. probably wouldn't be able to compete with that provided by a dedicated AC-130 crew), it would present a useful and economic compromise for many air forces.

Reading this topic the Harvest Hawk system came to mind immediatly! I love the idea of modular systems, in fact I like everything modular. I think MPA's could be modular too. But you make some good points about the limitations of such a system. I agree that the crew and support structure would be impaired, but more importantly the Harvest Hawk has a more limited collection of firepower to its disposal then the AC-130!

I think however that larger airforces like those of Turkey, India or the UK could set up a dedicated squadron with gunship personell and equip airframes as needed. This way they could for instance maintain proficienty on several aircrew with one frame, but maintain the capacity to deploy several proficiently crewed gunships. I think that both Turkey and India would find the ability to deploy gunships very usefull in current and prospective security concerns.

I also think that a cargo aircraft is the best platform for a gunship because there is lots of space to fit in some nice big fat and powerfull sensors, and people to interpret and act on that information in real time. And ofcoarse you can say that there are more then enough dedicated ISR platforms, and that we have UAV's now. But next to modularity, multyfunctionality is my favorite functionality ! And when you need a gunship anyway why dont save the money and flying hours of one platform when there is one in the air already (that c(sh)ould be able to do both!).

I think that a palletilized system could also be applied to different airframes and be possibly be employed on the C27, C-235, C295, An-26/32 in the future. I like the concept and I certainly am of the opinion that the fixed wing gunship has a definite future in warfare.

 

[mickk]

The future of Gunships lies in optics. Close support will always require "eyes on target". You will soon see night vision that is as good as a clear day in your backyard. Same for the troops, and soon live eye in the sky real time images transmitted to troops displayed on HUD device.

Then its game over baby.