Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Comparable aircraft"... A-10?

Hi, I disagree that the A-10 Thunderbolt II is in the same category and can be compared to the AC-130, as the two planes are totally different in size, characterisitics, and tactics/mission. It can also be seen the A-10's wikiarticle (see A-10 Thunderbolt II#See also ), where the AC-130 is NOT in the list of "comparable aircraft".
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me sounds like saying that the Fairey Battle (light WW2 bomber) and the Avro Lancaster (heavy WW2 bomber) are also "comparable".
So unless there is "reasonable", valid opposition, I'll remove the A-10 from this section in the next few days.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The criteria per Template talk:Aircontent and WP:Air/PC are aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability. Size is a consideration but not a main one. Listings don't have to be mutual. An aircraft can be comparable to another but not vice versa due to additional roles one has for example. The A-10 performs similar ground attack missions as the AC-130 so that's why it is listed. That does not mean the AC-130 can perform all the A-10's missions though. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a ground attack aircraft just like the AC-130 is. They share the same mission, and therefore they are comparable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.169.60 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

M61 Vulcan and AC-130H

According to this article, apparently the M61 Gatling gun has been dropped from active AC-130Hs. Anyone know why? Effective range? The reasons for the exclusion may make an interesting addition to the article.Mytg8 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know as well, this information would help the page. --TornadoADV (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many reasons are classified, but basically for accuracy issues. The 20 mm was always used solely as a suppression tool and never as a precision weapon. The 25 mm gun on the Spooky however is a precision weapon. In the fight against Islamic terrorism, the AC-130 gunships have become a precision CAS weapon system and low confidence in the 20 mm Vulcans was cause of the removal starting around 2003. SpecialOpsGuy (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ac-130U Armaments not being changed

Hello, I was reading your references on the AC-130, and while reading, came across something I believe is worth notifying users of. The article says that AC-130U "Spooky"s were going to replace the 25mm Gatling and 40mm Bofors with 30mm Bushmasters. However, Reference 11 cites that the USAF cancelled the project for several reasons, primarily the inacuracy of the 30mm gun. The excerpt from the article in question is below.

Link: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/share/profiles/?slid=52836bbc-64ad-c2d4-9dae-291a895b67d1&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a52836bbc-64ad-c2d4-9dae-291a895b67d1Post%3a4d252120-6dcd-4132-b823-23038489868d&sid=sitelife.nwfdailynews.com

Will keep 40 mm, 25 mm guns in service

"HURLBURT FIELD, FL -- Air Force Special Operations Command has canceled its plans to install 30 mm Bushmaster cannons on its fleet of AC-130U Spooky gunships, the command’s leadership told Inside the Air Force this past week.

AFSOC leadership noted problems with the 30 mm's accuracy as the reason for AFSOC putting the plan on the shelf. The installment of the (2) Bushmaster 30 mm cannons on each gunship in the AC-130U fleet would have replaced the 25 mm Gatling guns and 40 mm Bofors cannons. The plan was visioned as providing a way for the CAS aircraft to act more as a airborne sniper with what AFSOC officials call a "two shot", where the gun can be automatically corrected for accuracy after it fires off its first shot on a target. Unfortunately, the test program never produced sufficient results to keep it alive any longer." -72.69.113.238 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. There's not much detail on the 30 mm gun in the article. Others reports I saw indicated that the 25 mm cannon was not going back in due to its ammo being discontinued or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The same article does mention that they are looking for replacements for the 25mm GAU and 40mm Bofors because the ammunition is outdated and hard to find. The 30mm Bushmaster was discontinued because of accuracy problems at long ranges. For now however, the 25mm and 40mm have refitted on to the 4 AC-130Us that underwent the trial modifications. This should be looked into further.

-72.69.113.238 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Design setion of this article states that the 30mm project was cancelled. The reference alsp says that the 25mm GAUs are not going to be reinstalled on the gunships they were removed from due to lack of ammo for the 25mm guns.

"The four test aircraft, in addition to having their 40 mm cannons replaced by Bushmasters, had their 25 mm Gatling guns replaced. But since the cancellation of the program, the 25 mm guns have not been re-installed due to a shortage of parts and ammunition. The driving force for the 30 mm program in the first place was to solve the shortage of 25 mm and 40 mm supplies."

-72.69.113.238 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The listing in the specs seems fine now, since most of the AC-130Us still have the 25 mm cannon. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Angel of Death" Refernce

Hello. I deleted the Angel of death reference at the very beginning of the page because it was the Ah-64D Apache Longbow that was nicknamed the Angel of death, not the AC-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.169.60 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not?

Hello. I was just wondering why there can't be a Call of Duty reference? I mean I thought that it would be at least worth mentioning. I know that it really is not relavent but many people are probably looking at the article because of Call of Duty. Just putting that out there for people to think about. -Supersniper100 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

First, such mentions of aircraft, weapons, etc. in video games aren't notable and it is doubtful that you would find a reliable source that would make more than a passing mention at best. Second, the collective consensus across multiple articles of the same nature has been to exclude such mentions. They are not considered improvements to the articles. Only a minority of people (fans of said games) would find it interesting - to most others it looks like trivia which is removed from Wikipedia articles. If you wouldn't write something in a professional article for a publication or for a scholarly work then it shouldn't be written in Wikipedia either.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is true. I really don't have any say in what is allowed in the article and what is not, so I will stay out of this. -Supersniper100 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be better suited to Aircraft in fiction but I understand nobody has provided a reliable reference that the appearance in the game is notable so it has not been included. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it's notable really, but wasn't it mentioned in the new A-Team movie when the Spooky was sent to kill them? Agent Lynch said "Wow, that is just like Call of Duty". Aircraft in Fiction article if it is? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Variant count

After a couple of exhaustive hours of research across multiple sources, I have the total count of all variants at 47. It seems that some of the sources are out of date in regards to the AC-130U. The original order was for 13, but four more were converted for a total of 17. Also, note that the AC-130E was upgraded to the AC-130H, something that I had to dig around a bit for. Everything should be referenced on the "Variants" section. Ng.j (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

H vs U model

It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but the first picture under the Development section is identified as a H model Spectre. In the picture the gunship has a 25mm, a 40mm, and a 105 mm. The U model Spooky is the only one with all 3 weapons on it and the H model only has the 40 mm and 105 mm. I changed the article once and it was reverted. I just want to know why it was changed back when the gunship is clearly a Spooky. Daft SPARTAN-117 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You could revert it and then invite the person here and show them a source clearly stating that point and maybe identifying each armament. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The argument by Daft Spartan is academic. The airframe depicted is clearly 69-6569, c/n 4343, an AC-130E that was upgraded to an H-model in 1973, according to Lars Olausson's Production List. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the picture is from 1988; the AC-130U didn't go into service until 1995. Ng.j (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the picture clearly shows 2 M61 cannons, not a single GAU-12/U, which is the appropriate armament for the AC-130H. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Idk anything about this myself, so I'll take your words for it. =p All I know about the AC-130 is that it usually causes whatever opposes it to cease to exist rather promptly and violently. So consensus is that it is an AC-130H then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It IS an H-model. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AC-130H "twin 20mm cannons"... blatantly incorrect, among other things

I am an aerial gunner apprentice stationed at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. Cannon is home to the USAF's only AC-130H's, in the same way that Hurlburt Field in Florida is home to our AC-130U's. I came to the page out of curiosity and a little bit of vanity. I have no experience editing Wikipedia pages.

I just wanted to say that the only weapons the current AC-130H carries are the 40mm bofors cannon and 105mm howitzer. Any other guns have long since been removed (and their positions converted to other uses). The article carries several inaccuracies, although they may in fact be relics that were not corrected after changes to the platforms over time.

I don't claim to be an expert as I am only a student, but I can tell you after seeing receiving extensive instruction - and with my own two eyeballs as witness - that none of the AC-130H's in our inventory possess 20mm guns.

The section on armament states that the Vulcans were switched out *about the year 2000*, so ???Chasrob (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey student, ask your instructors if it HAD twin 20mm guns. I can assure you it did. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

JUST CAUSE Errors

This passage not only lacks citations, but is mostly false: "AC-130s also had a primary role during the Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989 when they destroyed Panama Defense Force headquarters and numerous command-and-control facilities."

While an AC130 did fire on the Commandancia, the damage was minimal. Firing fewer than 10 rounds from the 105mm, the shells did penetrate the sheet metal roof of the Commandancia's main building, but none of them penetrated the poured concrete top floor. A single round ricocheted down a stairwell where it detonated. None of the rounds reached the C2 facilities within the building. Far from destroying the PDF headquarters, the defenses were largely intact. After the AC130s departed, it took almost 18 hours of further fighting to take the objective. During that time, the attack had to be reinforced by 3 addition companies (one mech & one airborne from TF Bayonet and one Ranger), with support from AH-64s and direct fire support from M551 Sheridans. Also 'left out' from this passage is the fact that the AC130 at the Commandancia violated three separate fire control restrictions and made repeated strafing runs with its 40mm on a US M113, knocking out the track and wounds all US servicemen on board. [Sources: USAF Technical Report, Effectiveness of AC130 Munitions in Operation Just Cause; TF Bayonet AAR; TF Gator AAR; and the TF Bayonet 15-6 investigation of the fratricide which used the AC130's gun camera video to prove the AC130 was the source of the fratricide.]

Nor did the AC130s fire on any other "numerous command-and-control" facilities. AC130 support was requested by a TF Wildcat company assaulting the Transito headquarters in Balboa, but the gunship mistakenly fired on a US platoon in their assault position, instead. Fortunately there were no casualties in this case. [Sources: TF Wildcat AAR and TF Bayonet AAR]

The Deputy CINC SOUTH - an Air Force general - held an interview with the press in the midst of JUST CAUSE during which he cited the Balboa DENI station's destruction by an AC130 as a perfect example of the accuracy of the weapon system. In fact, no AC130 never fired on that objective; it was assaulted and taken intact by a rifle platoon without fire support of any kind. The building was destroyed later in the day by flames; apparently tracers ahd started a smoldering fire that broke into flames after several hours. Unfortunately, as the DCINC's error was picked up in a number of popular histories and accepted as fact, it ends up having more credibility than the combat reports of the guys who fought on the groun at that loaction. [Source: TF Wildcat AAR & TF Bayonet AAR.]

An AC130 was called in to destroy a PDF 120mm mortar that had been shelling Fort Clayton. It attacked the target and reported the weapon, crew and vehicle had been destroyed. A ground recon a few hours later reported no evidence of wreckage of any kind; in fact, the AC130 had fired at the wrong location and reported false BDA. The mortar continued to fire on US dependant housing for two more days, as the AC130s were never able to knock them out, depsite the aid of counter-mortar radars.

The other notable 'contribution' of the AC130s that night was the diversion of the TF Red Devil's reserve on three separate occassions due to the AC130 mistakenly reporting a PDF sally from Flaminco Island. It turned out the 'enemy' was a US HMMWV manning a roadblock.

The aircrews may indeed have received awards for JUST CAUSE, but these should be seen for what they were: obvious attempts to paper over the multiple failures of the AC130s during the operation. The fact that Wiki gives greater credence to erroneous popular histories than it does to official combat reports and 15-6 investigations enables this kind of deception to succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.85.245 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here, but I'd caution you to avoid inflammatory rhetoric such as "obvious attempts to paper over the multiple failures". I vehemently disagree on effectiveness of the gunship overall. I also disagree with your assertion that decorations for the airmen were just a way to hide a system's failures. Just because it took 18 hours to take, it doesn't mean it was usable. Most command posts serve as radio communication hubs. If the towers/antennas were destroyed, then the desired effect may have been accomplished. If it was surrounded by thousands of troops (which it was), taking the HQ may have taken longer because of them and reinforcements, not because of what the AC-130s did/didn't do.

I would also caution you to be a little more even-handed in your assessments. You seem to have a large quantity of knowledge on the subject, but it is largely Army-centric. We need more information like what you have, but that must be tempered with other information available. It also needs to have perspective. I don't know much about TF Red Devil's reserves being diverted for a non-existent threat, BUT honest mistakes happen in war. Likewise with the mortar, (I'm not aware of a 120mm mortar system...???) shooting at someone in the jungles is NOT easy even with counter-mortar radars. Not knowing how counter mortar radars work, I can think of a number of ways that would be complicated to make work especially in a time-compressed jungle combat environment. Alleging a false report instead of calling it a mistake isn't WP:NPOV. Buffs (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AC-130U Plus 4

According to the Recent and Planned Upgrades section, 4 U's had their GAU-12/U gatlings removed. Later, when the Bushmasters were removed, they were not replaced, true? If so, shouldn't the Specification section on the U's reflect that 4 planes have the 40mm and 105mm only, similar to the H's? Chasrob (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

El Salvador/Honduras? Howard AFB?

The paragraph about USAF AC-130s being used against insurgents in El Salvador and Honduras is uncited and quite a serious claim. Perhaps the author confused the use of AC-47s by those respective countries in the 1980s (which did involve American advisors). If these are allegations of classified activity it needs to be deleted until proven true. Also, while it's likely true AC-130s operated out of Howard AFB before 1989, there is again no citation of their use either for anti-drug operations of US special forces operations in the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.5 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

New Barrels, 40 mm

Is this of sufficient interest to be included? http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123331925 LionFlyer

Thanks for posting, but I doubt it. These are about replacement parts for the existing cannons on the AC-130. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

30mm or 105?

In the Operations since 2001 section, it states holes were cut out of the AC-130W Stinger II for a 105mm and has a cite for this. In the intro and Specification section, the Stinger II mounts a 30mm autocannon. Which is it? Chasrob (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the whole history of their modifications but the AC-130W is currently outfitted with a 30mm gun and Griffin missiles GhostriderJuliett (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvmWBx6BLw#t=125 it's the 30mm, but the Military Times citation may mean some carry 105s? Chasrob (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The weapons talked about in the last paragraph in the Military Times article sounds more like the planned armament for the J models according to a briefing given by Brig Gen Elton, who was also the source of information in that article. If I had to guess I'd say the author of that article got his information mixed up. The Whiskeys are only armed with a 30mm gun and missiles. Asides from that one article I've never seen any other source refer to them having a 105. GhostriderJuliett (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The J models will have a palletized system with a 30mm cannon that fires out the troop door and missiles that are launched off the cargo ramp so the weapons aren't permanently mounted in the aircraft, its also designed to be used on Marine KC-130s and the MC-130. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3200:392:1DE:A6C0:A38D:BDA1 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That is what will most likely be on the AC-130J but nothing is final and personally I wouldn't claim anything as fact unless it's operational and I can walk out onto the flight line and beat it with a hammer. Plans change a lot. As for weapons systems on other aircraft that is a thing being talked about but it's only just being talked about. GhostriderJuliett (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Only 47?

Only 47 AC-130s have ever been built? Is this a typo? Karnage2015 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Never mind. Apparently it's correct and has been referenced well. Seems quite small. Karnage2015 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There were thousands of C-130s built. Chasrob (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)