[Guest]

Dean,

Stumbled upon this over on Sniper's Hide and traced it back to Westcoasttactical.com. Not sure of the origin. Have to admit it would be kewl!!!

That ain't a gunship... THIS is a gunship!
[IMG=left]http://www.westcoasttactical.com/scotttu/747.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Mad Ogre]

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

 

[BigMike]

Port/Left view

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

From this target angle we're only seeing half. :idea:

Me, I don't want to see it from any side!

 

[Richard Jefferies]

Feh... that thing could be outfitted with more than twice as many guns. Then you would have something.
:twisted:

I dunno.....12 cruise missles is a LOT of firepower, especially if they are fitted with the anti-personel "bomblet" warheads. Just ONE of those could take out a whole platoon (or more) if they're set to airburst.

 

[Fernando Coelho]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but can a 747 slow down enough to effectively use that ordnance? I thought one of the reasons for using a C-130 was the fact that it is prop driven and can go much slower without stalling.

 

[Mad Ogre]

No... it would be virtually useless other than for the cruise missiles.

 

[harvey]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but can a 747 slow down enough to effectively use that ordnance? I thought one of the reasons for using a C-130 was the fact that it is prop driven and can go much slower without stalling.

Fernando:

That's an interesting issue. I recently read that the Navy is going to replace the turboprop P-3 Orions with modified Boeing 737s. Since slow speed would seem to be required for loiter time when hunting submarines, surface ships or patrolling large areas, can a 737 meet the requirement? Evidently the Navy believes.

Harvey