以30mm小口径火炮统一口径真能带来方便吗？

能否翻翻老帖子看看俄毛的所谓通用30毫米究竟是怎么回事？俄毛虽然口径统一，真正做到弹药三军通用的，也不过是通古斯塔/卡什坦/铠甲上的那两门。

能否翻翻老帖子看看俄毛的所谓通用30毫米究竟是怎么回事？俄毛虽然口径统一，真正做到弹药三军通用的，也不过是通古斯塔/卡什坦/铠甲上的那两门。

现在的主流就爱搞统一，连美军的重型营都统一了。情况万千，统一应付不了万千。

其实统一为30还不如各弄各的，反正弹药不能通用，玩意把此30弹运给彼30炮了怎么办
据说二战时，卡秋莎本来是130，为了和另外一款130区分，改称为132了

直升机载炮、战车炮、防空炮、舰载多用炮、航炮。。。
各种平台的作战需求不同，有的强调射速，有的强调侵彻性，有的要求可编程引信，有的要求能够2维稳定，
一种武器、一种口径很难满足所有需求。

航炮、舰载近防炮、陆军的高射炮统一用30MM就可以了，因为作战对象差不多。没人说连战车炮要统一，那是对付步战用的

harryjohnson 发表于 2010-5-20 13:23

那不如做到军种内部弹药统一方便。按你所说的做法（实际上俄国人就是这么干的）反而不方便。因为这样一来陆军就要为步兵战车和自行高炮准备两种从外观、尺寸和重量基本相同，但是完全不能通用的弹药，这样一来更容易误事。

两种最好，30和35

35和37没必要都保留吧？
留哪一个？

绿林好汉 发表于 2010-5-20 21:29


35标准炮 为主

30轻型炮 为辅

小口径火炮序列其实有三种基本就差不多了，能够覆盖各种需求，又不特别繁杂。
分别是：
1、25mm：转膛（航炮用）、多路供弹链条传动型（车载、机载多用途）
2、30mm：普通弹转膛（航炮用）、埋头弹链式驱动型（车载）
3、40mm：埋头弹（车载、舰载防空、平射）

35mm编程防空弹比较鸡肋，作用单一，射程、威力不如40，体积、重量不如30。

Fan1 发表于 2010-5-20 19:30


那为何不保留30MM高炮，废了30MM步战炮？未来30MM步战炮对付步战不够用

alex182 发表于 2010-5-21 00:20

保留3种小口径毫无必要

谁说步兵战车上的30炮就不能当高炮用了？陆军30高完全可以和30步兵战车炮通用弹药。

那为何不保留30MM高炮，废了30MM步战炮？未来30MM步战炮对付步战不够用
harryjohnson 发表于 2010-5-22 12:52

谁说步兵战车上的30炮就不能当高炮用了？陆军30高完全可以和30步兵战车炮通用弹药。

你觉得步战的火炮的仰角很大么？还反直升机？而且未来高炮不仅要拦截飞机，还要拦截导弹，明显用730的弹药好

谁说步兵战车上的30炮就不能当高炮用了？陆军30高完全可以和30步兵战车炮通用弹药。
Fan1 发表于 2010-5-22 15:22

你觉得步战的火炮的仰角很大么？还反直升机？而且未来高炮不仅要拦截飞机，还要拦截导弹，明显用730的弹药好

BMP-2的主炮最大仰角74度，车长1PZ-3瞄准系统就是为防空设计的。共军地面高炮未来主要还会以俄式30X165为主。

你觉得步战的火炮的仰角很大么？还反直升机？而且未来高炮不仅要拦截飞机，还要拦截导弹，明显用730的弹药好
harryjohnson 发表于 2010-5-22 19:04

BMP-2的主炮最大仰角74度，车长1PZ-3瞄准系统就是为防空设计的。共军地面高炮未来主要还会以俄式30X165为主。

Fan1 发表于 2010-5-22 19:15
不现实，低空防空肯定是25/35的天下，弄30的防空又得用一套新的，海军用30倒是可以确认

长日 发表于 2010-5-23 15:48

共军目前好像有放弃25向30转进的意思。

我建议上天的用25，在地面的用35.

在我印象中共军空军从来就没用过25炮，现在天上飞的不是23就是30。

我建议上天的用25，在地面的用35.
AirFOX 发表于 2010-5-23 23:06

在我印象中共军空军从来就没用过25炮，现在天上飞的不是23就是30。

一种口径肯定是不够的，但是象中国这么多种，也太多了，35，37，23，30，而且30还几种，还有25炮
感觉比较靠近的可以精简下

为什么要统一？有需要统一吗？相关技术要求是否相同？

美军现役至少有20X102、25x137、30X113和30X173四种主要小口径炮弹，外加少量40X311弹，近期内可能还会增加35X228和57X438两种口径。

一种口径肯定是不够的，但是象中国这么多种，也太多了，35，37，23，30，而且30还几种，还有25炮
感觉比较靠近的可以精简下
中隐 发表于 2010-5-24 11:32

美军现役至少有20X102、25x137、30X113和30X173四种主要小口径炮弹，外加少量40X311弹，近期内可能还会增加35X228和57X438两种口径。

TG的30mm就有30X155，30X165，30X173，30X220四种太多了，而且30X165陆海空三军都不通用啊

Fan1 发表于 2010-5-24 14:34


    再加一个20x110，米国海空军老死不相往来

共军中用30X210B的炮好像就只有230，而230实际装备数量也不算大。（注意是30X210B不是30X210，30X210B和30X210是两种不同的弹药，共军好像没有用30X210的炮）30X155B是配歼-6的，歼-6好像已经全部退出现役了。



20X110USN虽然还在生产，但是美国海军现在用20X110USN的飞机（A-4、A-7和F-8）早已退役。

TG的30mm就有30X155，30X165，30X173，30X220四种太多了，而且30X165陆海空三军都不通用啊
ottovsak 发表于 2010-5-24 22:38

共军中用30X210B的炮好像就只有230，而230实际装备数量也不算大。（注意是30X210B不是30X210，30X210B和30X210是两种不同的弹药，共军好像没有用30X210的炮）30X155B是配歼-6的，歼-6好像已经全部退出现役了。

再加一个20x110，米国海空军老死不相往来
baldo 发表于 2010-5-24 22:51

20X110USN虽然还在生产，但是美国海军现在用20X110USN的飞机（A-4、A-7和F-8）早已退役。

Fan1 发表于 2010-5-22 19:15
那就是说如果步战用其他口径，比如40MM，一样可以防空，同时对地的效果又好的多，岂不是更好。在现在步战加强防护的背景下，30MM很可能不够用了

我支持通用30x165~~

40炮和炮弹体积都不小。共军以后防空主打是35+30，而30高炮所用的炮弹应该是步兵战车通用的30X165。即便是30单独作为防空炮足够了，俄国人一直用的就是30炮。俄国人30炮+短程防空导弹，效果也不算太差。俄国通古斯卡在战斗全重比猎豹小，炮塔和车体大小与猎豹相近的情况下配有2门双管30炮，8枚短程防空导弹，外加1904枚30X165炮弹，而猎豹只有2门35炮外加680枚35X228炮弹。俄国BMP-3的在炮塔比瑞典CV-9040和韩国K-21大小差不多或者小的情况下能塞进一门100炮、一门30炮，一挺7.62机枪，外加40发100高爆，8枚9M117/AT-10，500发30炮弹和2000发7.62子弹。K-21携弹200发。

那就是说如果步战用其他口径，比如40MM，一样可以防空，同时对地的效果又好的多，岂不是更好。在现在步战加强防护的背景下，30MM很可能不够用了
harryjohnson 发表于 2010-5-25 12:24

40炮和炮弹体积都不小。共军以后防空主打是35+30，而30高炮所用的炮弹应该是步兵战车通用的30X165。即便是30单独作为防空炮足够了，俄国人一直用的就是30炮。俄国人30炮+短程防空导弹，效果也不算太差。俄国通古斯卡在战斗全重比猎豹小，炮塔和车体大小与猎豹相近的情况下配有2门双管30炮，8枚短程防空导弹，外加1904枚30X165炮弹，而猎豹只有2门35炮外加680枚35X228炮弹。俄国BMP-3的在炮塔比瑞典CV-9040和韩国K-21大小差不多或者小的情况下能塞进一门100炮、一门30炮，一挺7.62机枪，外加40发100高爆，8枚9M117/AT-10，500发30炮弹和2000发7.62子弹。K-21携弹200发。

有个问题想问一下fan1 美国佬的新口径序列里40是什么用途的?　是福博斯系的再临么?

不是福博斯系再次被美军采用，而是老美一直就没有放弃40炮，所以对老美来讲40炮不应该算是新东西了。现在美国的40炮主要是AC-130在用，最近美军在考虑AC-27J的问题，而AC-27J的备选武器中就有40炮。

有个问题想问一下fan1 美国佬的新口径序列里40是什么用途的?　是福博斯系的再临么?
rayghost 发表于 2010-5-25 22:21

不是福博斯系再次被美军采用，而是老美一直就没有放弃40炮，所以对老美来讲40炮不应该算是新东西了。现在美国的40炮主要是AC-130在用，最近美军在考虑AC-27J的问题，而AC-27J的备选武器中就有40炮。

谢谢 只考虑舰炮和地炮了

不是福博斯系再次被美军采用，而是老美一直就没有放弃40炮，所以对老美来讲40炮不应该算是新东西了。现在美国的40炮主要是AC-130在用
新的AC130已经用30炮代替了以前的20和40

你是指AC-130U Plus 4 / AC-130U+4？这个项目被砍了。2007年美国空军改了4架AC-130U用于测试。

AIR FORCE CANCELS 30 MM CANNON PROGRAM FOR AC-130U GUNSHIPS
Posted 7/12/2008 9:38 AM CDT

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.

The hopeful plan to install Bushmaster cannons that would use new ammunition and not WW II rounds, such as those used with current 40mm Bofors on the AC-130U gunships, became to much of a hinder on AFSOC's mission to keep the project going.

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.

According to AFSOC's chief for acquisitions, Brig. Gen. Bradley Heithold, the service recently removed the prototype 30 mm weapons from three of the planes and re-installed their original 40mm cannons, returning these urgently needed planes back to combat. The 30 mms are being removed from the fourth plane right now.

The project has been going on for a year-and-a-half now, and the frustrations with the accuracy of the new Bushmasters has just caused AFSOC to abandon the plan, at least for now on the Spooky's. Officials and gunship crews are not sure why the weapon will not shoot straight. Some possible reasons are that the 30 mm rounds are too small to fly straight and accurate over long distances, after all, the cannon was never intended to shoot thousands of feet up in the air. Another possibility accounting for the weapons inaccuracy is the weapons mountings are not stiff enough for the rapid-fire chain guns, according to Heithold.

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.  

But since the program cancellation, funding has been transferred from the that program to funding for ammo and re-supply of gun parts for the two smaller weapons on the AC-130U.

The rest of the Spooky fleet continues to fly with all three of its guns, the 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm howitzer.

So while the test program has been cancelled for the AC-130, it has turned over the gun system for exploration into whether it would be pursued on the AC-XX next-generation gunship, which is planned for 2018.

On a more time-sensitive note, the command is still looking at a range of guns between the 20 and 40 mms to install on the AC-XX "gunship light" which is likely to be a twin-engine aircraft not unlike the C-27B Joint Cargo Aircraft, of which AFSOC has purchased two in next year's budget for experimentation.

No matter what happens with the AC-130 gunships and their evolution as priceless tools of force in today's world, I am confident that the gunship program will continue to grow as the need for these weapons is recognized in the fights we are in. There really are no other systems like the AC-130, and time and time again, they prove invaluable in Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else where accurate, lethal, and unrelenting force is needed to protect those who need it most.

Below, I have posted two videos relating to the AC-130. The first wo videos explain the weapon systems aboard the AC-130U Spooky (including the 30 mm Bushmaster). The third video explains the use of gunships in today's world and how their constant need above the battlefield is putting pressure on the aging airframes.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/shar ... fe.nwfdailynews.com

同时2009年7月号空军杂志（Vol. 92,  No. 7）也提到AC-130U Plus 4 / AC-130U+4换炮项目被砍。
http://www.airforce-magazine.com ... 09/0709gunship.aspx

Gunship Worries
By Otto Kreisher

They are indispensable. Everyone loves them. There are no plans for new ones.

America’s long-running military struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan have reaffirmed a long-standing truth about airpower in irregular war: When you go into combat, never go without USAF’s deadly side-firing gunships somewhere nearby.

Today’s AC-130s are upholding a stellar combat tradition extending from the early days of Vietnam in the 1960s through the operations in Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, and the Balkans. And US ground commanders of the future, no less than those of today, will surely ask, “Where are the gunships?”

In the future, however, those gunships might not be there. Air Force Special Operations Command’s 25 AC-130s are, on average, almost 30 years old. Searches for a successor have stalled. All of them will have to be retired or rebuilt within 10 years. As a result, these highly effective weapons might be fading out.

Although several studies on a “next generation gunship” were conducted—and a test program for a smaller platform proposed—there is no gunship program now on the books.

“There’s really nothing to report on that,” noted Lt. Col. Michael Nardo, gunship requirements officer and AC-130 instructor pilot at the 1st Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt Field, Fla. “There’s been no decision made to proceed with any other airframe.”

The gunship is a relatively new airpower innovation. It first appeared in the 1960s, in the Vietnam War. AC-47s were World War II-era C-47 transports fitted with an array of heavy armament and targeting gear. They tended to operate at night, and the troops called them “Spooky.” Whether they were known as “Spooky” or “Shadow” or “Stinger”—or more popularly, “Puff the Magic Dragon”—Vietnam-era AC-47s, AC-119s, and AC-130As wreaked havoc on enemy supply lines and kept the enemy from overrunning many isolated US military outposts.

Today, they are heavily involved in the greater Middle East. AFSOC’s modern-day AC-130s are prized for their ability to loiter over targets until the time comes to unleash a deadly and accurate fusillade. Ground forces love them.

In November 2001, Gen. James L. Jones, then the Marine Corps Commandant (and now President Barack Obama’s national security advisor) said he was so impressed with their work over Afghanistan that he wanted to get some for the Corps. “Frankly, I’m kicking myself that I waited so long,” Jones said.

More recently, Gen. James T. Conway, today’s Commandant, allowed that the marines “have lusted for years” for AC-130s of their own, but could not afford them.

The current force consists of eight AC-130H Spectre aircraft, the first of which entered service in 1969, and 17 AC-130U Spooky gunships, which have an average age of about 20 years. Both versions are armed with a 40 mm rapid-fire gun and a 105 mm cannon. The U models also carry a 25 mm Gatling gun.

What makes the gunship so effective in current-day engagements, however, is its suite of electro-optical and infrared sensors and computerized fire-control systems. These systems allow deadly accuracy in the darkness and low-light conditions in which the AC-130s typically operate.

The newer Spookys also are equipped with AN/APQ-180 synthetic aperture strike radar of the kind used by the F-15E fighter. This radar allows long-range target detection and identification. It lets targeting airmen see the impact point of their rounds and adjust fire without requiring a ground observer.

Gunship Lite

The radar also gives the U model the ability to engage targets in poor weather conditions, Nardo said.

Because of their ability to provide high-quality surveillance, to deliver heavy and precise fire, and to remain on station for hours, the gunships, their crews, and support personnel are constantly being deployed from their home at Hurlburt. The details of their deployments are kept secret.

“They definitely are in high demand,” said Nardo.

The handful of current gunships are heavily utilized low-density, high-demand assets, however, which is creating growing concern about airframe fatigue and rising maintenance costs.

In 2001, the Pentagon funded a technology demonstration project aimed at producing a new gunship. This project, called AC-X, was to examine the relative merits of making further upgrades to the existing AC-130s or pursuing a new platform. No procurement program emerged from that study.

The desire for an advanced capability remains. AFSOC officials have long desired a new design that could overcome the AC-130’s limitations. Today’s gunships are slow, fly primarily at night and at set altitudes, and attack while making a series of left turns around a target. It is preferable to keep them in low-threat environments.

In 2007, Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley, then AFSOC commander, said the command was interested in developing a system of manned and unmanned platforms that would provide a “technological leap” to replace the current gunships.

Wooley emphasized the value of stealthy platforms to reduce the threat to the gunships. He discounted use of the new and more powerful C-130Js, which AFSOC was already buying to replace the aged MC-130E/H Combat Talon special operations transports.

The general suggested that the new gunship might in turn be a derivative of the proposed next generation bomber, a heavy, long-range aircraft intended to have the best of the current low observable technology and which was supposed to be fielded by 2018. That concept did not gain much support, and, in any event, the Pentagon in April scrapped that bomber program.

For the near-term, AFSOC had studied the feasibility of a much smaller aircraft under an initiative called AC-XX or “Gunship Lite.” Command officials saw value in a platform that would present a smaller target and could operate with fewer crew members than the 13 currently required on the AC-130.

Keeping Them Visible

An analysis of alternatives conducted last year determined that the best candidate for AC-XX was the C-27J, a twin-engine turboprop that the Air Force and Army were to buy under the Joint Cargo Aircraft program.

Then-Brig. Gen. Bradley A. Heithold, AFSOC’s top requirements officer at the time, previously told reporters the AC-27J would be named Stinger, in honor of the Vietnam-era AC-119s. Heithold said the new AC-27J would be a multimission aircraft capable of covertly transporting special operations fighters into and out of hostile areas, as well as providing airborne fire support.

Heithold added that obtaining a replacement aircraft was becoming urgent for AFSOC because of the wing box fatigue problem and obsolescent avionics in the AC-130s.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, then Air Force Chief of Staff, told a Congressional hearing during last year’s budget deliberations that an AC-27J could be based at Cannon AFB, N.M., where AFSOC is rapidly building up its aviation capabilities. Moseley said basing gunships at Cannon would allow them to use the extensive Melrose Range and the even larger spaces of the White Sands Missile Range and the Army’s Ft. Bliss, Tex., artillery ranges.

The AC-XX study “was done to determine if we could utilize, in some way, a light gunship capability,” Nardo said, “but we haven’t continued with fielding.”

In the absence of a funded acquisition program, the Air Force is pursuing a policy that should be familiar to observers of USAF’s heavy bomber fleet over the past decade: The plan is for gunship upgrades, enhancements, and structural reinforcements to keep the AC-130s viable.

“The gunships are obviously old, and we’re always looking to upgrade and modernize our fleet,” said Nardo.

Learning from the Air Force’s experience with the older transport versions of the Hercules that have experienced wing fatigue problems, the venerable AC-130Hs have already had their center wing box structure reinforced. “So they’re doing quite nicely in the current situation,” he said.

Because of their heavy usage during more than seven years of war, Nardo said, even the comparatively young U models are beginning to experience the same wing problems. “So we have the first ones going in to get modified,” he said, “and we’ll finish up the rest of the fleet in the next five years or so.”

The Air Force doesn’t have any gunships to spare, so to minimize the effect on the already stretched force, the wing box work is conducted during the airplanes’ normally scheduled modification and maintenance periods. “We’ll do a few a year,” Nardo said. “If one becomes critical, we’ll move it up a bit, but there is not much of an impact on the overall fleet as far as availability.”

The gunships’ cabin floor structures also have been enhanced under the “4105 substructure improvement program,” so the airframe can continue to take the stress of firing their weapons, he added.

AFSOC officials also have their eye on the same avionics modernization program (AMP) developed for the older C-130 fleet. The gunships were removed from the AMP in 2007 because of a lack of funding, but officials are hopeful they can return the AC-130s to the AMP process beginning in 2010.

Other improvements in their electronics have already paid dividends, Nardo said. U models have been receiving new radios and Link 16 systems to improve their communications and data transfer capabilities, he said.

“We’re continually upgrading computers,” and the U models are getting a new sensor, called GMS2, Gunship Multispectral Sensor System, to replace outdated systems and to improve their capabilities, he continued.

The Hs are getting the new 241 weather radar systems to replace an old system that had “a high rate of failure” due to its age, Nardo said. That is part of a concerted effort to reduce the command’s rising logistics and cost burden and improve availability.

“A lot of our replacement programs are based on aiding our maintenance folks, who generally have to shoulder a large share of the burden of keeping these airplanes flying. We try to get systems that not only increase the readiness rates but reduce the logistics cost and man-hour costs.”

The modernization programs are combined into different blocks “so we can get a whole bunch of things done at the same time, so we’re not constantly taking airplanes down,” the colonel said. “It’s a continuous process. As soon as we finish one set of modifications, we start another set.”

Directed Energy Weapons  

None of the current modification programs directly affect the gunships’ weapons.

For years, AFSOC had planned to replace ancient 40 mm and 25 mm guns with two 30 mm cannons, but that endeavor was discontinued after flight tests concluded that the 30 mm cannon was “operationally unsuitable” for gunship use, “due to unsatisfactory gunfire accuracy.” There are now no plans to change the gunships’ weapons, Nardo said.

While the Air Force will not receive any new-build gunships, it will carry out a second-best solution: infusing the force with as many as a dozen additional old airframes, all of them remodeled C-130s.

Vice Adm. P. Stephen Stanley, the Joint Staff’s director of force structure, noted May 7 that USAF plans to convert a few existing MC-130W Combat Spears to gunships. The MC-130 already has an all-weather capability, and wing tanks and in-flight refueling capabilities. “[It] is the quickest way that we can provide this capability,” said Stanley.

The future for next generation gunships isn’t entirely bleak, however. Outside of AFSOC, there is a program under way that could provide a directed energy weapon for a future laser gunship.

A recent Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study advocated a laser-armed gunship as a means to reduce collateral damage in an urban environment, but the study recommended maintaining a kinetic weapon as well because of the greater explosive power that a cannon can provide. A laser would need at least 100 kilowatts of power and a seven kilometer slant range to be effective, the science board said.

The availability of such a weapon might not be that far off. The Air Force last October awarded Boeing a $30 million contract to continue developing and testing the Advanced Tactical Laser, following a ground test of the system in August 2008.

On June 13, Boeing successfully fired the weapon in flight for the first time. A modified C-130H carrying the Advanced Tactical Laser took off from Kirtland AFB, N.M., fired its laser, and hit a target on the ground at New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range.  

Boeing said in a statement that “ATL’s ultra-precision engagement capability will dramatically reduce collateral damage.”

More tests to demonstrate the system’s military utility are planned, with demonstrations to “support development of systems that will conduct missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.” No firm schedule for future tests was announced.



美国空军官方AC-130网页上的确是提到AC-130U换炮的事情，但是这个网页是2007年10月31日最后一次更新。

不是福博斯系再次被美军采用，而是老美一直就没有放弃40炮，所以对老美来讲40炮不应该算是新东西了。现在美国的40炮主要是AC-130在用
新的AC130已经用30炮代替了以前的20和40
bjskyhorse 发表于 2010-5-26 09:53

你是指AC-130U Plus 4 / AC-130U+4？这个项目被砍了。2007年美国空军改了4架AC-130U用于测试。

AIR FORCE CANCELS 30 MM CANNON PROGRAM FOR AC-130U GUNSHIPS
Posted 7/12/2008 9:38 AM CDT

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.

The hopeful plan to install Bushmaster cannons that would use new ammunition and not WW II rounds, such as those used with current 40mm Bofors on the AC-130U gunships, became to much of a hinder on AFSOC's mission to keep the project going.

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.

According to AFSOC's chief for acquisitions, Brig. Gen. Bradley Heithold, the service recently removed the prototype 30 mm weapons from three of the planes and re-installed their original 40mm cannons, returning these urgently needed planes back to combat. The 30 mms are being removed from the fourth plane right now.

The project has been going on for a year-and-a-half now, and the frustrations with the accuracy of the new Bushmasters has just caused AFSOC to abandon the plan, at least for now on the Spooky's. Officials and gunship crews are not sure why the weapon will not shoot straight. Some possible reasons are that the 30 mm rounds are too small to fly straight and accurate over long distances, after all, the cannon was never intended to shoot thousands of feet up in the air. Another possibility accounting for the weapons inaccuracy is the weapons mountings are not stiff enough for the rapid-fire chain guns, according to Heithold.

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.  

But since the program cancellation, funding has been transferred from the that program to funding for ammo and re-supply of gun parts for the two smaller weapons on the AC-130U.

The rest of the Spooky fleet continues to fly with all three of its guns, the 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm howitzer.

So while the test program has been cancelled for the AC-130, it has turned over the gun system for exploration into whether it would be pursued on the AC-XX next-generation gunship, which is planned for 2018.

On a more time-sensitive note, the command is still looking at a range of guns between the 20 and 40 mms to install on the AC-XX "gunship light" which is likely to be a twin-engine aircraft not unlike the C-27B Joint Cargo Aircraft, of which AFSOC has purchased two in next year's budget for experimentation.

No matter what happens with the AC-130 gunships and their evolution as priceless tools of force in today's world, I am confident that the gunship program will continue to grow as the need for these weapons is recognized in the fights we are in. There really are no other systems like the AC-130, and time and time again, they prove invaluable in Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else where accurate, lethal, and unrelenting force is needed to protect those who need it most.

Below, I have posted two videos relating to the AC-130. The first wo videos explain the weapon systems aboard the AC-130U Spooky (including the 30 mm Bushmaster). The third video explains the use of gunships in today's world and how their constant need above the battlefield is putting pressure on the aging airframes.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/shar ... fe.nwfdailynews.com

同时2009年7月号空军杂志（Vol. 92,  No. 7）也提到AC-130U Plus 4 / AC-130U+4换炮项目被砍。
http://www.airforce-magazine.com ... 09/0709gunship.aspx

Gunship Worries
By Otto Kreisher

They are indispensable. Everyone loves them. There are no plans for new ones.

America’s long-running military struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan have reaffirmed a long-standing truth about airpower in irregular war: When you go into combat, never go without USAF’s deadly side-firing gunships somewhere nearby.

Today’s AC-130s are upholding a stellar combat tradition extending from the early days of Vietnam in the 1960s through the operations in Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, and the Balkans. And US ground commanders of the future, no less than those of today, will surely ask, “Where are the gunships?”

In the future, however, those gunships might not be there. Air Force Special Operations Command’s 25 AC-130s are, on average, almost 30 years old. Searches for a successor have stalled. All of them will have to be retired or rebuilt within 10 years. As a result, these highly effective weapons might be fading out.

Although several studies on a “next generation gunship” were conducted—and a test program for a smaller platform proposed—there is no gunship program now on the books.

“There’s really nothing to report on that,” noted Lt. Col. Michael Nardo, gunship requirements officer and AC-130 instructor pilot at the 1st Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt Field, Fla. “There’s been no decision made to proceed with any other airframe.”

The gunship is a relatively new airpower innovation. It first appeared in the 1960s, in the Vietnam War. AC-47s were World War II-era C-47 transports fitted with an array of heavy armament and targeting gear. They tended to operate at night, and the troops called them “Spooky.” Whether they were known as “Spooky” or “Shadow” or “Stinger”—or more popularly, “Puff the Magic Dragon”—Vietnam-era AC-47s, AC-119s, and AC-130As wreaked havoc on enemy supply lines and kept the enemy from overrunning many isolated US military outposts.

Today, they are heavily involved in the greater Middle East. AFSOC’s modern-day AC-130s are prized for their ability to loiter over targets until the time comes to unleash a deadly and accurate fusillade. Ground forces love them.

In November 2001, Gen. James L. Jones, then the Marine Corps Commandant (and now President Barack Obama’s national security advisor) said he was so impressed with their work over Afghanistan that he wanted to get some for the Corps. “Frankly, I’m kicking myself that I waited so long,” Jones said.

More recently, Gen. James T. Conway, today’s Commandant, allowed that the marines “have lusted for years” for AC-130s of their own, but could not afford them.

The current force consists of eight AC-130H Spectre aircraft, the first of which entered service in 1969, and 17 AC-130U Spooky gunships, which have an average age of about 20 years. Both versions are armed with a 40 mm rapid-fire gun and a 105 mm cannon. The U models also carry a 25 mm Gatling gun.

What makes the gunship so effective in current-day engagements, however, is its suite of electro-optical and infrared sensors and computerized fire-control systems. These systems allow deadly accuracy in the darkness and low-light conditions in which the AC-130s typically operate.

The newer Spookys also are equipped with AN/APQ-180 synthetic aperture strike radar of the kind used by the F-15E fighter. This radar allows long-range target detection and identification. It lets targeting airmen see the impact point of their rounds and adjust fire without requiring a ground observer.

Gunship Lite

The radar also gives the U model the ability to engage targets in poor weather conditions, Nardo said.

Because of their ability to provide high-quality surveillance, to deliver heavy and precise fire, and to remain on station for hours, the gunships, their crews, and support personnel are constantly being deployed from their home at Hurlburt. The details of their deployments are kept secret.

“They definitely are in high demand,” said Nardo.

The handful of current gunships are heavily utilized low-density, high-demand assets, however, which is creating growing concern about airframe fatigue and rising maintenance costs.

In 2001, the Pentagon funded a technology demonstration project aimed at producing a new gunship. This project, called AC-X, was to examine the relative merits of making further upgrades to the existing AC-130s or pursuing a new platform. No procurement program emerged from that study.

The desire for an advanced capability remains. AFSOC officials have long desired a new design that could overcome the AC-130’s limitations. Today’s gunships are slow, fly primarily at night and at set altitudes, and attack while making a series of left turns around a target. It is preferable to keep them in low-threat environments.

In 2007, Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley, then AFSOC commander, said the command was interested in developing a system of manned and unmanned platforms that would provide a “technological leap” to replace the current gunships.

Wooley emphasized the value of stealthy platforms to reduce the threat to the gunships. He discounted use of the new and more powerful C-130Js, which AFSOC was already buying to replace the aged MC-130E/H Combat Talon special operations transports.

The general suggested that the new gunship might in turn be a derivative of the proposed next generation bomber, a heavy, long-range aircraft intended to have the best of the current low observable technology and which was supposed to be fielded by 2018. That concept did not gain much support, and, in any event, the Pentagon in April scrapped that bomber program.

For the near-term, AFSOC had studied the feasibility of a much smaller aircraft under an initiative called AC-XX or “Gunship Lite.” Command officials saw value in a platform that would present a smaller target and could operate with fewer crew members than the 13 currently required on the AC-130.

Keeping Them Visible

An analysis of alternatives conducted last year determined that the best candidate for AC-XX was the C-27J, a twin-engine turboprop that the Air Force and Army were to buy under the Joint Cargo Aircraft program.

Then-Brig. Gen. Bradley A. Heithold, AFSOC’s top requirements officer at the time, previously told reporters the AC-27J would be named Stinger, in honor of the Vietnam-era AC-119s. Heithold said the new AC-27J would be a multimission aircraft capable of covertly transporting special operations fighters into and out of hostile areas, as well as providing airborne fire support.

Heithold added that obtaining a replacement aircraft was becoming urgent for AFSOC because of the wing box fatigue problem and obsolescent avionics in the AC-130s.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, then Air Force Chief of Staff, told a Congressional hearing during last year’s budget deliberations that an AC-27J could be based at Cannon AFB, N.M., where AFSOC is rapidly building up its aviation capabilities. Moseley said basing gunships at Cannon would allow them to use the extensive Melrose Range and the even larger spaces of the White Sands Missile Range and the Army’s Ft. Bliss, Tex., artillery ranges.

The AC-XX study “was done to determine if we could utilize, in some way, a light gunship capability,” Nardo said, “but we haven’t continued with fielding.”

In the absence of a funded acquisition program, the Air Force is pursuing a policy that should be familiar to observers of USAF’s heavy bomber fleet over the past decade: The plan is for gunship upgrades, enhancements, and structural reinforcements to keep the AC-130s viable.

“The gunships are obviously old, and we’re always looking to upgrade and modernize our fleet,” said Nardo.

Learning from the Air Force’s experience with the older transport versions of the Hercules that have experienced wing fatigue problems, the venerable AC-130Hs have already had their center wing box structure reinforced. “So they’re doing quite nicely in the current situation,” he said.

Because of their heavy usage during more than seven years of war, Nardo said, even the comparatively young U models are beginning to experience the same wing problems. “So we have the first ones going in to get modified,” he said, “and we’ll finish up the rest of the fleet in the next five years or so.”

The Air Force doesn’t have any gunships to spare, so to minimize the effect on the already stretched force, the wing box work is conducted during the airplanes’ normally scheduled modification and maintenance periods. “We’ll do a few a year,” Nardo said. “If one becomes critical, we’ll move it up a bit, but there is not much of an impact on the overall fleet as far as availability.”

The gunships’ cabin floor structures also have been enhanced under the “4105 substructure improvement program,” so the airframe can continue to take the stress of firing their weapons, he added.

AFSOC officials also have their eye on the same avionics modernization program (AMP) developed for the older C-130 fleet. The gunships were removed from the AMP in 2007 because of a lack of funding, but officials are hopeful they can return the AC-130s to the AMP process beginning in 2010.

Other improvements in their electronics have already paid dividends, Nardo said. U models have been receiving new radios and Link 16 systems to improve their communications and data transfer capabilities, he said.

“We’re continually upgrading computers,” and the U models are getting a new sensor, called GMS2, Gunship Multispectral Sensor System, to replace outdated systems and to improve their capabilities, he continued.

The Hs are getting the new 241 weather radar systems to replace an old system that had “a high rate of failure” due to its age, Nardo said. That is part of a concerted effort to reduce the command’s rising logistics and cost burden and improve availability.

“A lot of our replacement programs are based on aiding our maintenance folks, who generally have to shoulder a large share of the burden of keeping these airplanes flying. We try to get systems that not only increase the readiness rates but reduce the logistics cost and man-hour costs.”

The modernization programs are combined into different blocks “so we can get a whole bunch of things done at the same time, so we’re not constantly taking airplanes down,” the colonel said. “It’s a continuous process. As soon as we finish one set of modifications, we start another set.”

Directed Energy Weapons  

None of the current modification programs directly affect the gunships’ weapons.

For years, AFSOC had planned to replace ancient 40 mm and 25 mm guns with two 30 mm cannons, but that endeavor was discontinued after flight tests concluded that the 30 mm cannon was “operationally unsuitable” for gunship use, “due to unsatisfactory gunfire accuracy.” There are now no plans to change the gunships’ weapons, Nardo said.

While the Air Force will not receive any new-build gunships, it will carry out a second-best solution: infusing the force with as many as a dozen additional old airframes, all of them remodeled C-130s.

Vice Adm. P. Stephen Stanley, the Joint Staff’s director of force structure, noted May 7 that USAF plans to convert a few existing MC-130W Combat Spears to gunships. The MC-130 already has an all-weather capability, and wing tanks and in-flight refueling capabilities. “[It] is the quickest way that we can provide this capability,” said Stanley.

The future for next generation gunships isn’t entirely bleak, however. Outside of AFSOC, there is a program under way that could provide a directed energy weapon for a future laser gunship.

A recent Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study advocated a laser-armed gunship as a means to reduce collateral damage in an urban environment, but the study recommended maintaining a kinetic weapon as well because of the greater explosive power that a cannon can provide. A laser would need at least 100 kilowatts of power and a seven kilometer slant range to be effective, the science board said.

The availability of such a weapon might not be that far off. The Air Force last October awarded Boeing a $30 million contract to continue developing and testing the Advanced Tactical Laser, following a ground test of the system in August 2008.

On June 13, Boeing successfully fired the weapon in flight for the first time. A modified C-130H carrying the Advanced Tactical Laser took off from Kirtland AFB, N.M., fired its laser, and hit a target on the ground at New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range.  

Boeing said in a statement that “ATL’s ultra-precision engagement capability will dramatically reduce collateral damage.”

More tests to demonstrate the system’s military utility are planned, with demonstrations to “support development of systems that will conduct missions on the battlefield and in urban operations.” No firm schedule for future tests was announced.



美国空军官方AC-130网页上的确是提到AC-130U换炮的事情，但是这个网页是2007年10月31日最后一次更新。

harryjohnson 发表于 2010-5-22 12:53

三种已然不多了，哪种武器、弹药能兼顾从25到40的所有性能和用途？
统一口径、兼顾用途要适度，TG在这上面没少吃亏。

bjskyhorse 发表于 2010-5-26 09:53
40系统改供弹系，换埋头弹，出多种引信还有很大的潜力可挖。

谁说要统一口径了？原来是“如果”党出没。
    看上老毛子的30战车炮，不就是因为30炮轻、可靠，而TG原来的25战车炮又太不争气吗？
    口径相同，即便整弹不能通用，引信能不能通用？战斗部能不能通用？部分零部件能通用也能降低成本啊，毕竟这类炮弹的消耗量很大滴

alex182 发表于 2010-5-30 02:54

还要25干嘛？做什么用？航炮？已经有23、30了，战车主炮？打未来的步战不够用。防空？现在主流不是30么？

AC-130U保留博福斯L70以及GAU-12/U的事倒是首次听到
但Mk44已经在EFV和“圣安东尼奥”级上应用了
或许是海军陆战队特别青睐
并且该炮记得有40mm口径的选项

老美用的是老L-60博福斯，L-70博福斯用的40X364R弹。

AC-130U保留博福斯L70以及GAU-12/U的事倒是首次听到
但Mk44已经在EFV和“圣安东尼奥”级上应用了
或许是海军陆战队特别青睐
并且该炮记得有40mm口径的选项
万字军骑士 发表于 2010-5-31 19:20

老美用的是老L-60博福斯，L-70博福斯用的40X364R弹。