AC-130/Predator tandems can not replace helicopters. AC-130s can't be based at or near the front-lines. They need sizable runways and facilities to support them (although less than some large planes). They can not operate in high threat environments. And, however the Predator evolves, it won't carry a large weapons' load and it isn't fast or stealthy. The sort of operation you're referring to is a good idea for certain situations, but not really feasible for many others. In anything resembling a major war, there will still be a need for systems based right near the forward edge of battle (for fast response and quick turn-around), which have more than one or two shots of whatever weapons they carry, and which can dodge hostile fire. Predators don't fill any of these requirements, and AC-130s, as fire-platforms, are dead meat against enemies who can shoot back with something heavier than a rifle. There certainly will be developments in remotely operated observation and attack vehicles, but they aren't going to supercede the role of the manned attack helicopter in the near future.

The Comanche was not developed to be an attack helocopter but a recon/scout aircraft like the OH-58D it would be replacing. The time on station of a UAV is many fold times a great as the manned Commanche. No AC-130 has ever been lost to combat fire and that goes all the way back to the Vietnam War. Your major war concept presupposes that the US will not have tactical air superiority in the AO where this Predator/AC 130 operation is takeing place. UAVs present and future hold more potential and efficacy than the decade old design Comanche recon aircraft.

Your comment of never losing a AC-130 in combat is incorrect. One was lost during the Persian Gulf War by hanging around too long after sunrise, after beating up the ragheads all nite. Have to blame the A/C commander for that loss. Not mention the gun ships lost in Vietnam. Guns

I would have to partially disagree teh use of predator and posibbly a hovering or tilt rotor based ucav could replace the scout helicopter role. first helicopter are anything but fast and due to thier size use a great deal of resources. a small ucav plane, helicopter, tilt rotor could handle the most important roles of the comanche the scout role. by using a ucav which is worth alot less than a commanche and can be put inot more dangerous situations. it would be much quiter and due to smaller size and less heat out put would be less detectable. by reducing the expense of having to field a full size vehicle with its large ground crews that could be funelled into more aircraft providing a better job as scout vehicles. also every thing necessary could be loaded into a tow behind set up on a hummer or mounted onto the back of a 5 ton truck. The real advantage of using the c-130 based gunships is that their munitions are a cheap way to take out cheap targets. a hellfire shot at a pick up truck is excessive over kill. a gunship can stay in loyter for long periods of time and be directed to multiple fire mission in one sortie. this is much more effecient in area like afganistan or irag where the major force will not be around after the initial attack. but air support is still necessary.

130s are fine...when you have air domination and the ground forces are poorly equipped. If there are any fighters around or even any helicopter gunships, or the ground forces have decent SAMs, they're toast. This is another example of a good idea and a good weapon with specialized uses being offered for roles it is totally unsuited to handle. Whether you use helicopter gunships, standoff weapons or, perhaps, in the future, armed UAVs, you can't use the big, fixed wing gunships in a high threat environment. Period.

The big point is that the Comanche scout helicopter program is not likely to be any more effective than the much more affordable ucav's and will not have the sustained flight time of the much small air craft. That bring the next question which is why would we produce a aircraft that will not be any more effective that the apache system we already have in place. the ability to hide from radar is not as important as in a air craft since helicopter spen most of thier time near the ground, the commanche system doesn't deal with the heat from the engines or survivability from ground fire, and it can't carry as many weapons or field as large a gun as the apache. so why would we spend the money to construct as use the commanche for a role that is better served by unmanned vehicles. The C-130 has proven it self to be a very effective ground attack weapon that can support ground troops very effectivly. it is not any more vulnerable to fire than any other slow aircraft like helicopters. and could be easily outfitted with a great deal of anti missle systems. possibly even a active anti missile weapon and anti air weapons. it wouldn't be any more difficult to attach a couple sidewinders of stinger missle on to the wings just like they did with the apache, line the under side of teh hull and engines with kevlar sheeting, and toss on some elctronic counter measure and large chaff and flare pods and teh c-130 shouldn't have a problem existing in a ground support role. the fighters in ww2 fared well with much less protection and faced a great deal more ground fired anti air weapons. now i am not saying that we should fly teh c-130's in to a area that we don't have some level of protecton for it but its is an effective weapon especially in places where we are fighting people who are poorly funded and are not likely to be fielding anti air missles in great quanity. in afganistan most of the hinds that teh afganies shot down were done with rpg's not anti air missles.

i thought the Afghanis were able to take down so many Hinds because the US gave them shoulder launched Stinger missiles that tracked the Hind's huge heat singature. and we gave them so many we are concerned they may use them to take down commercial airliners.

With the LCPK - laser guided hydra 70 -, it will be possible to attack large numbers of soft targets and light tanks with minimum weight. A UAV carrying 2 7-tubes launchers can take out 14 targets.. The Predator B has an external payload of 3000 lbs, which is well enough to carry 2 pods of LCPKs. It is even enough to carry 2 19-tubes pods. The pods can be painted with RAM to reduce radar signature. http://www.ga.com/news/contract_signed.html

Sorry Fred but coming from an ex-AH-1 Cobra pilot you are wrong about helicopters not having to worry about radar avoidance because they fly so low. SA-6 can pick you up the second your rotors clear the trees. There will always be a need for manned flight positioned close to the FLOT/FEBA (Forward Line Of Troops/Forward Edge Battle Area)and I for one would want to be in as stealthy an aircraft as possible. Chopper rotors create a doppler effect that can be picked up on radar. That's why they developed mast-mounted sights for the OH-58D and Apache Longbow. Because the blades are radar detectable. Blades on an unmanned vehicle will be detectable so one must do everything possible to reduce that signature (along with heat, alas Blackhole exhaust and AN/ALQ-144's). Hanging jammers and putting on Sidewinders isn't going to save a big slow gunship from the likes of a fighter. AC-130 is for a Low Intensity Conflict (poor underfunded guerilla actions where we have total air superiority and zero to very little enemy SAM) scenario like Afghanistan. The pucker factor would get REAL high having to fly it in anything more intense. Personally I think stealth is great but we have overpriced ourselves to the point that all these gee-wiz machines will never see the light of day. How many extremely expensive Comanches will the Army want to fund or F-22's at $200 million a pop by the Air Force. So many questions, so few answers.

[AC-130s can't be based at or near the front-lines. ] AC-130's don't need to be based near the front lines. They have enough range to fly form far away and stay on station for 18-20 hours at a time, with in-air refueling. [ They need sizable runways and facilities to support them (although less than some large planes). ] 3,00 foot runways, but short runways are not needed if the aircraft can flu in from hundreds of miles away. [They can not operate in high threat environments.] Why not, at 20,00 feet or above? [ And, however the Predator evolves, it won't carry a large weapons' load ] The weapons laod is getting larger. [ and it isn't fast] Predator is not supposed to be fast. Slow- to get a good look with video cam. [... or stealthy.] Unmanned, so stealth less important. [ In anything resembling a major war, there will still be a need for systems based right near the forward edge of battle (for fast response and quick turn-around), which have more than one or two shots of whatever weapons they carry, and which can dodge hostile fire.] Yes, there is a role for attack helos and V/STOL CAS aircraft, whether manned or unmanned. [ Predators don't fill any of these requirements,] Wrong [ and AC-130s, as fire-platforms, are dead meat against enemies who can shoot back with something heavier than a rifle. ] not at 20,000 feet or above, which is where the AC-130's will be. [There certainly will be developments in remotely operated observation and attack vehicles, but they aren't going to supercede the role of the manned attack helicopter in the near future ] The AC-130 - predator team is not necessarily a competitor with attack helos. You have dreamed up that flase either/or.