Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "Why Don't We Have More AC-130 Gunships?!" video.

  1. That is 50 years ago in a war full of Sam, AA, and Mig threats.
    3
  2. By that dumb theory, you should never fly in a Chinnok. The 130 has countermeasures for Sam's. They fly at night and can call fighter back up with a call. They have some of the lower lost rates of planes in service. The question is why other nations don't the same conversion ?
    1
  3.  @ashesofempires04  So where are all the lost aircraft from these threats?
    1
  4.  @ashesofempires04  Now since those first generation losses, the USAF as learned the lessons of staying above 10,000 ft. They have flare and chaff dispensers for SAM defense now. Now with missiles, they can do standoff range attacks too. If I were in the French or British Army, I would demand the services convert their C-130's to gunships.
    1
  5.  @ashesofempires04  Most operations are like Libya or Somalia. Even Syria, high end air defense is not exactly the threat. Strike planes can clear them before sending a gunship. This is a asset that is more useful than buying more Eurofighters in a attack role.
    1
  6.  @ashesofempires04  Well that is the thrust the video.... use of gunships by other forces.
    1
  7. Not a issue. They and most planes carry decoy flare systems. Also, they fly at night. Most terrorists lack radar or Night vision gear.
    1
  8. Turbo props are just fine.
    1
  9. Not even close....
    1
  10. That is garbage. Misses 90 percent.... your talking crap.
    1
  11. That really is not true. The plane has countermeasures for those weapons. The question at hand is why other air forces don't make the same conversion?
    1