3 ms·

They do mention there are only 30 of them. Doesn’t sound plentiful?

exabrial 3y ago
30 may not seem much until you compare it to the alternatives. You have two constraints on an aircraft: weight and volume. A 105mm shell is around $8k/piece, and weighs 15kg, travels at 494m/s. Current configuration can fit 30 of these in an aircraft on a rack, inside the aircraft. A air-to-ground missile with similar range and speed is the AGM-114. They cost $115k/piece, weigh 45kg, and travel at 445m/s. These must be externally mounted at this time and you could probably carry 8-16 on pylons. Some variants of the AC-130 carry the AGM-176 which is similar range. These similar price around $115k, weigh 20kg, but I couldn't find their max speed. Given is size and weight, you're also looking at 8-16 between internal and external. A "slow" "cheap" standoff weapon like the GBU-39/B SDB weight 129kg, costs $40k, travels at a whopping 22m/s. Right now these are externally mounted but the idea is these could be launched off the ramp of an AC-130 variant. You would realistically be able to carry 8 on pylons, not many in cargo space. AFAIK, USA doesn't really have a fast and cheap standoff a2g weapon. So yes, 30 is quite a lot of bangs, especially for the bucks. I don't think what is driving this conversation IS bangs however. I actually think what is driving the conversation about the 105mm is CEP. I couldn't find exact numbers for 105mm, but I'd guess probably it's in the area of 10m-30m which is good enough to hit a building or an enemy position by a road, but really isn't good to support or disrupt an ambush. Both the AGM-114 and AGM-176 have CEPs under 2m (variant depending, but sticking to AC-130 weapons) and the GBU-39/b has a CEP of 1m. The CEP for a 105mm widens at distance, whereas the CEP for rocket powered weapons is fixed no matter the range to target.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  I think GP was referring to their only being 30 AC-130s, not 30 rounds of ammunition for the 105mm howitzer.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Correct. But now I’m left wondering what a CEP is? Military stuff is by far the worst at broad assumption of obscure acronym knowledge, which is shocking considering how wide spread obscure terminology and acronyms are in technology. There seems to be a weird cult around acronyms with the implication that only really serious people who know their stuff know all the acronyms and the knowledge creates some sort of weird authority hierarchy where one doesn’t exist. Regardless, I don’t know whether the decisions made are rational or not, and I tend to believe that when a major war breaks out decision making will very quickly align to outcomes, but in the present slow burn it’s more about money making. But at the moment it’s hard to take seriously a platform that hasn’t been manufactured in decades, has only a few flying, and is being retooled because the equipment onboard is “unmaintainable” now (article doesn’t specify why, but presumably parts are not made any more and expertise is rare). It may be the best thing since sliced bread in some capacity, but it doesn’t seem like it shifts many needles in the present. All this said, I was raised Quaker and am a Buddhist, so I’m not impressed with the bangs happening either way. There are better things for us to do than kill each other and we (all humans) invest too much energy in romanticizing these acronyms that belie our worst natures and when fully known spell our collective doom.
    - exabrial 3y ago
      ope, sorry, forgot that too CEP = how close does impact happen to where you were aiming, on average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
  - exabrial 3y ago
    ope. :) I didn't recheck that number actually... I can't find the exact number listed anywhere... Watching a video of an AC-130, I see the ammunition rack has 7 shells across, and in another camera angle, there are at least 6 vertical rows, so the lower bound is 42 bangs. The rack isn't fully visible, so imagine there are a few more than that. Still though, 42 bangs is a lot more than 8 bangs.

30 may not seem much until you compare it to the alternatives. You have two constraints on an aircraft: weight and volume. A 105mm shell is around $8k/piece, and weighs 15kg, travels at 494m/s. Current configuration can fit 30 of these in an aircraft on a rack, inside the aircraft. A air-to-ground missile with similar range and speed is the AGM-114. They cost $115k/piece, weigh 45kg, and travel at 445m/s. These must be externally mounted at this time and you could probably carry 8-16 on pylons. Some variants of the AC-130 carry the AGM-176 which is similar range. These similar price around $115k, weigh 20kg, but I couldn't find their max speed. Given is size and weight, you're also looking at 8-16 between internal and external. A "slow" "cheap" standoff weapon like the GBU-39/B SDB weight 129kg, costs $40k, travels at a whopping 22m/s. Right now these are externally mounted but the idea is these could be launched off the ramp of an AC-130 variant. You would realistically be able to carry 8 on pylons, not many in cargo space. AFAIK, USA doesn't really have a fast and cheap standoff a2g weapon. So yes, 30 is quite a lot of bangs, especially for the bucks. I don't think what is driving this conversation IS bangs however. I actually think what is driving the conversation about the 105mm is CEP. I couldn't find exact numbers for 105mm, but I'd guess probably it's in the area of 10m-30m which is good enough to hit a building or an enemy position by a road, but really isn't good to support or disrupt an ambush. Both the AGM-114 and AGM-176 have CEPs under 2m (variant depending, but sticking to AC-130 weapons) and the GBU-39/b has a CEP of 1m. The CEP for a 105mm widens at distance, whereas the CEP for rocket powered weapons is fixed no matter the range to target.

dragonwriter 3y ago
I think GP was referring to their only being 30 AC-130s, not 30 rounds of ammunition for the 105mm howitzer.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Correct. But now I’m left wondering what a CEP is? Military stuff is by far the worst at broad assumption of obscure acronym knowledge, which is shocking considering how wide spread obscure terminology and acronyms are in technology. There seems to be a weird cult around acronyms with the implication that only really serious people who know their stuff know all the acronyms and the knowledge creates some sort of weird authority hierarchy where one doesn’t exist. Regardless, I don’t know whether the decisions made are rational or not, and I tend to believe that when a major war breaks out decision making will very quickly align to outcomes, but in the present slow burn it’s more about money making. But at the moment it’s hard to take seriously a platform that hasn’t been manufactured in decades, has only a few flying, and is being retooled because the equipment onboard is “unmaintainable” now (article doesn’t specify why, but presumably parts are not made any more and expertise is rare). It may be the best thing since sliced bread in some capacity, but it doesn’t seem like it shifts many needles in the present. All this said, I was raised Quaker and am a Buddhist, so I’m not impressed with the bangs happening either way. There are better things for us to do than kill each other and we (all humans) invest too much energy in romanticizing these acronyms that belie our worst natures and when fully known spell our collective doom.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    ope, sorry, forgot that too CEP = how close does impact happen to where you were aiming, on average https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_error_probable
- exabrial 3y ago
  ope. :) I didn't recheck that number actually... I can't find the exact number listed anywhere... Watching a video of an AC-130, I see the ammunition rack has 7 shells across, and in another camera angle, there are at least 6 vertical rows, so the lower bound is 42 bangs. The rack isn't fully visible, so imagine there are a few more than that. Still though, 42 bangs is a lot more than 8 bangs.