AFP: No you didn't miss anything just more of the usual blather that misses the forest for the trees.
Tom: Yes they do operate AC-130's in environments where there may be risks of encountering enemy air defenses that is part and parcel of the crafts purpose. It was not built to shoot up 3rd world shit holes with no ADA it was built to operate where there may in fact be a threat to the craft from the enemy. It has in fact been done for decades. Once again you completely fail to pay attention facts. That and numerous missions the plane is built, trained for , doctrine developed for, and yes used in, the US has done just that. Really Tom we have been over this repeatedly. It wouldn't kill you to pay attention for once.
They added it back because they still need a large foot print weapon. While SDB can pretty handily smack through buildings and bunkers it has a relatively small foot print by comparison. The cannon is handy for things like heavy buildings or large area targets which is what M 102 is used for in the first. Hellfire has a pretty decent sized footprint but it still isn't as big as the 105mm. Until they find a weapon offers a heavy punch in a smaller package it is easier for now to just add the 105mm back. So unless the USAF suddenly starts doing something like mounting Bofors 57mm with Sensor Fused Munitions the 105 works.
No Tom I don't think that. Unlike you I actually have opinions with variety beyond whatever has the biggest gun, largest bullet, most noise, or the biggest explosion. I have pointed out numerous times where certain weapons are a better fit and base it on actual real world outcomes acknowledged by real experts. Something you chronically fail to do yourself, fail to learn, and constantly fail to acknowledge. I act like your unreasonable, nonfactual, unrealistic, and frankly constantly just wrong assessment of just about everything military from equipment to history is a forum constant.
Immy: No. First no one said couldn't be used near friendlies I said risky and that is a matter of fact not opinion. Weapons like unguided artillery have a certain amount of deviations from point of aim plus deviation of planned impact point coverage from the AOE effects of the weapon. The 105mm is not a precision weapon by any means and is firing a ballistic projectile whose highest degree of accuracy comes at the cost of firing it at almost the shortest ranges for the weapon. The dispersion for the M 102 at its max effective range is anything but precision. Especially compared to the guided weapons that the AC-130 can carry. Same for all the other gun weapons. They can fire a lot further out than they are typically used but their accuracy degrades rapidly with distance. That is a matter of truth for all unguided projectiles.
The AC-130's grossly overstated "low collateral rate" just so happens to match up with their very low use rate and they do in fact cause plenty of collateral. If you want to try and point to how they are used I point out that it is nonsense given it is just as easy to misuse the AC-130. In fact I seem to recall a known and designated hospital in Afghanistan getting the shit blasted out of it by an AC-130. It is not more accurate because someone designated the wrong target that is not ever a factor in determining a weapons accuracy. That is user error.
Last I checked we use both guided and unguided weapons in the same general conditions and in the conditions where we added or started to prefer guided capability, collateral dropped like a rock, first shot accuracy at all ranges significantly improved, and the ability to use the weapons closer to friendlies improves.
edited 5th May '17 7:33:31 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Can you lot take all this shouting at each other to P Ms? I've just woke up and I've got a killer of a headache and I've been ill since last Saturday.
Immy:Add something like an Excalibur kit on the 105mm and give the big gun much longer reach and significantly better accuracy. Then they could possibly do away with the external mounts. The Excalibur kit works in part by turning the shell into a glide body that can do nose dives straight down onto the target.
Which now that I think about I have to wonder why we haven't started working giving more advanced ammunition types to the AC-130 family of gun ships? We have more advanced fusing and guidance kits and the AC-130 certainly has the ability to designated for guided weapons all they would need is an onboard munition programmer. The 105mm could get guided shells and the Bushmaster could fire the new sensor fused air burst munitions. They could set it for impact, delayed impact, or timed air burst as needed and away the rounds go.
Who watches the watchmen?Don't they make laser guided shells for howitzers and artillery? I know the Army has some for their 155's but I'm not sure about the 105's.
Tom: The Copperhead Anti-Tank shell for the 155m Howitzer is laser guided so there is some technology basis already in place for it. There isn't much in the way of guided ammunition for the 105mm howitzers yet despite the fact we are still using the M 102.
Garcon: The Air bursting ammo is meant for soft targets like infantry and various vehicles but can engage some harder targets. One of the big reasons for the Hellfires and the SDB bomb family mountings was to push out their range further when acting as fire support to keep them out of the reach of SHORAD more effectively. A 105mm that has a similar glide body design as the 155mm Excalibur with improved accuracy would mean they could use the gun more often and in more situations. The guided shells would still be overall cheaper than the bigger bombs and missiles and they could start using it without having to come down to more dangerous altitudes to achieve accuracy. They could stay up at the nice cozy higher altitudes and tell targets to fuck off all day long.
edited 6th May '17 5:03:46 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Aside from questions of practicality and expense, it's at least possible that they have, but have felt no particular reason to announce it. As others have said, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban are not exactly first rate foes, even if they are dangerous in their own very serious ways.
I'm not sure anyone rates first-rate lately. Russians have shown....yeah not a lot of confidence in being first-rate there. Dangerous yes, a powerful opponent yes, but first-rate? Nope.
Syria is exhausted, so they don't have any first-rate potential anymore. Even compared to ISIS.
China has potential in being a first-rate military but has yet to demonstrate it.
Britain is lol anymore.
France runs out of resolve and ammo, mostly ammo way too fast.
Though Best Korea...they have first-rate fighting spirit, with third rate equipment.
rollin' on dubs
The problem with guided shells is the shock of firing the gun. It took decades for transistors to get to the point where they could both fit in a shell and survive the trip (so to speak).
Excalibur took quite a while and for now is limited to 155. Copperhead was limited to laser guidance (one of the reasons it's all but withdrawn). Lasers have their own issues, the least of which is a separate designator to "laze" the target.
Now the SDB and Hellfires are teh awesome and expands the niche of the AC-130. The Cold War era gunships couldn't go into some areas because of collateral damage.
An AC-130J can use better sensors AND toss a SDB or Hellfire to limit the damage. Terrorists love hiding in hospitals and in villages where people live when they are not in caves.
The old Specter could just level the target. A SDB can hit one house without leveling the block.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....Taira: Shock isn't an issue and Excalibur is type classified, standardized, supplied, and in service with high velocity Naval Variants already under way. Copper Head had to survive high shock as well and it is an older design its only serious draw back was it had to remain below cloud level and had to have good visual conditions like most laser designated munitions. The US also successfully designed rounds that survive the high pressure high shock of tank guns being fired. The US has also fielded the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit as of 2013, same thing.
Who watches the watchmen?From what I understand, modern French military doctrine is to limit how much they commit themselves from the get go, avoiding situations where long-term resolve will be necessary.
After all, what has good ol' American resolve gotten us over the last 15 years? Are Iraq and Afghanistan shining examples of stable, liberated nations?
The MOAB target site after the bomb.
Not as devastating as I thought it would be. I guessing some of the blast effects were affected by various terrain features.
The US Air Force's Last Tail Gunner Has Retired.
We're at the End of an Era folks. Tail gunner duty is now officially relegated to the history books and nothing more.

Regarding the AC-130 and friendly fire:
The AC-130 flies lower and slower than most other attack planes in the Air Force's arsenal. That alone is going to minimize friendly fire. Also, the BFG isn't the AC-130's only tool any more than the Avenger is for the Warthog. Recall that AC-130s have always carried a variety of smaller guns for precision work. The newest AC-130s have cut back on those, but still keep a few on hand.
Regarding the BFG vs standoff weapons: Did I miss something where they said they were getting rid of the missiles and bombs? Because if not, then the gun didn't "beat out" the other weapons, but simply supplemented them (as does the Warthog's cannon for its wide variety of wing-mounted bombs and missiles).
Right tool for the job.