Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

First flight

A correction is needed in the "first flight" list. The first flight of the AC-130A was in 1966, flown by a Systems Command crew. They did at least two deployments to Vietnam, returning to the CONUS after each. I reported to the 16th SOS in APril 1968, as one of the first two operational aircrews. I left Ubon, Thailand in April 1969, when there were only a few E-models present. I don't know when the first AC-130H first flew. Cal Taylor, AC-130A/A navigator. 25 June 2006.

Inaccuracies

There are a number of inaccuracies on this page. 'Puff the Magic Dragon' was not the AC-130, but rather the AC-47. Some other stuff here attributed to the AC-130 was actually the work of prior gunships. I'll research and fix. —Morven 20:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the reason because I deleted that reference --Poliorcetes 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

Can we document the various types and nicknames for the gunship? Mark Richards 20:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Source

The original material for this page seems to have come from http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71 which is referenced, but it seems to me it should be credited (if confirmed). Also some of the wording "provide surgical firepower" is non encyclopedic..

Everything except for the seventh paragraph (which I added just a few days ago) seems to be a direct ripoff from the AF's website. I suppose it's technically okay to do this since the federal government doesn't hold copyrights, but I'm going to start rewording the article anyway. Cut and Pasting is not exactly the sort of behavior we want for an encyclopedia. Maclyn611 22:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gunships

The picture accompanying the text is of an MC-130H Talon II. Gunships have guns.

And I removed that picture for that very reason. :-) pyrocrickett 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifications

The Specifications section appeared to have a misspelling:

  • AC-130A Surpise (sic) Package and Pave Pronto and AC-130E Pave Spectre

This seems pretty obvious, but I mention it here just in case "Surpise" is the correct spelling. A Google search suggests it should be "Surprise":

I changed the spelling to "Surprise." Teratornis 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda names and redirects

Please note wikipedia policies: Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).. There is no need to keep them here unless propaganda is the topic. Thank you. Añoranza 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to discuss your case on the page you are selectively quoting is going to lead to another revert war, sadly I hope this is not what you want. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The policy is clear cut, if you want to change it, try. Unless you get a consensus, stop warring. Añoranza 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You have two people telling you to stop now, myself and MMX1. Once again I ask you to participate in the discussion on WP:MILHIST, what you are quoting is in reference to article titles. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It says it in the first 6 letters of the quote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
“operat”? ericg ✈ 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
my deepest apologies, 6 words. Sorry for the massive confusion that may have caused. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Noting NPOV Statement as your edit summary is so wrong to the point where I'm tempted to refuse AGF. An operation title is not a statement, it's a proper noun. And since I probably have to explain the next logical step; proper nouns aren't POV, they are what they are. Haizum 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to be very rude. And your lack of wiki-knowledge is showing. {{NPOV-statement}} is just the wiki code for adding "neutrality disputed" to a term, in this case consisting of several nouns. Añoranza 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about your edit summaries, not code (the italicized notes on diff lists). Oh, and citing my inexperience with Wikipedia for a rebuttal is a personal attack. Do I need to mention it on your RFA? Haizum 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary was the code. Añoranza 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The Military History Wikiproject (as proud as we might be of it) does not make policy. The above quoted item is not even a full Wikipedia guideline. It is a project guideline. Guidelines are not policy and guidelines from a Wikiproject generally have not yet been subjected to the same scrutiny as those accepted for all of Wikipedia. Also, the place to argue over the titles of those articles in those articles, not here. I am going to check the links to figure out which ones are re-directs and which ones are not, so I don't look like a bull in a china shop. --Habap 03:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I did change the few that used operation names when the article name did not. I left the operation name in quotes for reference. --Habap 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing neutrality dispute tags is vandalism

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Don't do it. [1] [2] Añoranza 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the next sentence? Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. --Habap 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, note that I only reverted your tag once, not the twice that would violate the general rule. --Habap 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza, you probably ought to try harder to assume good faith. Just reviewing your activities recently, any time someone disagrees with you or reverts an edit, you immediately assume bad faith, attack them, and re-revert. As an uninvolved third party, I'd like to point out that it's getting absolutely ridiculous. Calm down, turn off your personal agenda,and please work with the other editors of this encyclopedia. ericg ✈ 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Show me one case where I personally attacked someone the way you just did. Añoranza 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how my request for you to calm down and cooperate with editors was a "personal attack". Also, thank you for proving my point about assuming bad faith. ericg ✈ 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[3][4][5][6][7] You asked. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As the reader can easily see, none of the comments is a personal attack as the one I stroke out above. I give you that the third and the last one are rude, however, given the enormous amount of prceding innuendo by the two editors they were directed to, there is just a point where nothing else seems to work. Añoranza 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but telling someone to cease a personal agenda is less of a personal attack then calling someone ignorant or telling them they are being "bitchy" as you put it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ignorant can be a baseless offense, in the case you quoted it was a factual description of a user who ignored something on purpose. Bitchy is a rude but accurate description of the behaviour of a user who posts endless innuendo everywhere, refuses to accept consensus, deletes POV tags under pretexts etc. etc. etc. Añoranza 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please cease your personal attacks. WP:AGF in regards to your "pretexts" comment --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack, and I call it barefaced again if you pretend you had honest reasons to remove all move tags after you had been explained why they needed to stay. Añoranza 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I will no longer respond to you on this thread, it seems to be you are becoming hostile. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Note

I see no reason why we should write that operation names are "valid" in the US. They are official US military terminology. Their use in neutral encyclopedias is disputed, calling them "valid" is misleading. The fact that medals are given out under the propaganda names has nothing to do with this article. Añoranza 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote against. I think the paragraph is valid in explaining the debate in which you seem to continue on about. It also removes the need for your constant revert warring. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Who feels the POV tag should be removed? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that medals are given out under a propaganda name in no way changes anything about the fact that propaganda names need to be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia. It is completely unencyclopedic, and pov-tags cannot be removed by a straw poll, just in case you try again. Añoranza 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please adhere to a concensus if one builds, much like I will. Thank you --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Unlike you, I never tried not to. Añoranza 12:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks on your fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack, as you know very well where you tried to ignore consensus. Añoranza 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please try to remain calm when dealing with your fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? It's the official U.S. name of the operation. Please keep the debate on the name to its relevant page. Joffeloff 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you were actually "up" on the debate you would know that there is a very vociferous group of people who are wanting to remove all operation names on the basis of propaganda, the Note you removed was the beginning of a compromise, thanx for taking the time to understand what you were removing before hand. ← ΣcoPhreek Is UselessNostalgia→ 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So facts should be removed because they are regarded as propaganda by one side? That's violation of the NPOV rule at its finest. The operation names exist, it's what the U.S. calls its operations. It's information which should be here on the Wikipedia, and a compromise should be dealt with in its own articles. It shouldn't have its own section in every article where an operation name is mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to understand Wikipedia policy beforehand. Joffeloff 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
We understand that and agree, however that is not what the parties interested in removing the Names are doing, we are having to defend it on every single page, because the user in question has an agenda that is being pushed on every Operation page. I understand Wikipedia policy just fine, they apparently do not and are making things very difficult.

← ΣcoPhreek Is UselessNostalgia→

this is what happens when you let partisan liberals edit encyclopedias.--Capsela 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, because that's an unbiased statement heh -- Thatguy96 16:46, 6 July 2006

Cost

"The AC-130 gunship series is one of the most expensive aircraft ever made due to its unique nature. "

I don't think this is accurate.

B2 Bomber at 2.2 billion - http://www.cdi.org/issues/aviation/B296.html B1 at 200 million - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer F-22 at 361 million - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor C-17 at $400 million - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C17

Just my thoughts JohnRach 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are saying but the list I gave was only a quick search - also it does not deinfe between military and commercial, if commercial is included it starts dropping even further down the list.

747-400 - $216 million 747-400 Freighter $219 million 747-800 $272 million 777-200LR $219 million and various other 777 models all in excess of $200 million. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ A380 - $282 million - http://www.airguideonline.com/aircr_prices.htm

JohnRach 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Security

I've worked gunships for a long time and still make my living on them. I appreciate the restraint shown in withholding performance data from the page and offer a reminder to both editors and potential contributors: Don't weaken our defense posture by revealing performance data to anyone without a need to know. Thanks.

Your request is absurd. All the information in these articles is public information, unclassified, and easily acessable in many formats. Anyone who seriously wants to hurt an AC-130 can easily research the information he cares for. The C-130 itself is an old design and in service world wide. Its not a secret what performance the plane has, and its absurd that you think we should withold information for "safety". Alyeska 04:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That's assuming the AC-130 carries the same countermeasures as the C-130. Still, it's good you don't mention the secret hidden rocket booster or the special swing-wings. Jeremy Nimmo 08:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to echo my appreciation for the restraint of people who are "in the know" on the capabilities of the AC-130 Spooky and Spectre. While general flight characteristics are not classified, just because someone wants to know, does not mean they have a need to know. No one outside of the base needs to know when an AC-130 is taking off. The flight schedule isn't classified, but a lot of people don't have the "need" to know. Please don't mention the megawatt lasers they have installed and the rocket boosters they have for supersonic flight. (No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed scare quotes from the word "wedding" as they somehow implied that it was not what it was - a wedding--FarQPwnsJoo 06:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

General characteristics of a vehicle are public-domain information. I think it's absurd that you think everything you read online is meant for the public. The C-130's performance capabilities are obviously not a matter of national security. However, as an aircraft electrician on 4 different models of C-130 I can tell you, believe it or not, that there are some characteristics of certain models of C-130's that are not meant to be a matter of public record, but may be easily accessible from the internet. I understand the writer seemed to have made a bigger deal about the subject than they should have, they were just trying to make clear that you should be careful about publishing information on military aircraft no matter how old and out of date the aircraft is. Although, you are pretty safe with information on the C-130. Besides, I don't think we have to worry about terrorists building there own C-130's with the intent of taking over the world.(NucPhy7 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
"The C-130's performance capabilities are obviously not a matter of national security." I beg to disagree, especially when talking about a special, modified version of the airframe. General characteristics of a vehicle are not necessarily public-domain information. Until declassified, the F-117's characteristics were clearly classified. Not all of the B-2's information is declassified and some of its characteristics will remain classified for some time. This section is simply to serve as a friendly bit of advice to anyone who is "in the know" to be careful as to what they discuss on a public website. BQZip01 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the F-117 however, obviously the C-130 is not an F-117 and it does not have the same secrecy in regard to mission activity. When I said performance capabilities I was referring to the aircrafts performance not characteristics. There are characteristics of some C-130's that are classified but the aircrafts speed, ceiling, and range are not. Now you may have a different opinion on the difference between characterisics and performance, but in my opinion I would say characteristics would refer to the aircrafts components and equipment, and performance refers to the aircrafts....well, performance such as, like I mentioned above, the speed, ceiling, and range. If that was not clear in my previous comment then I appologize for the confusion. Also you are referring to aircraft that were built for secrecy. So if you are going to make a comment about the secrecy of the C-130 than talk about the C-130, not the F-117 or the B-2. I'm pretty sure the C-130 was not built with the intent of being a secret aircaft. The F-117 and B-2 however, were. (NucPhy7 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

NucPhy7, the AC-130 does not have the exact same flight characteristics as a "slick" C-130 (think of the amount of drag on the left side of the airframe from the guns and sensors while at cruising speeds) and uses only a few of the basic tactics of a Herc. This is not a slight variation in the airframe. If the stats are published by the Air Force, hey, it's public info. If it isn't, it is ILLEGAL for people in USAF to publish information that is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." This includes any information that is not specifically released to the public. Perfect example: I have the T-37 "Dash 1," the flight manual for all pilots flying the T-37. This information has been published for official use since the 50s. Nothing in the systems of the aircraft is classified in any way. We have exported this aircraft to many other countries and it is currently in use by NATO pilots for flight training. However, I cannot reveal specific information or show any info from that book because of Air Force regulations (which are tantamount to legal orders) and export laws of the United States.
All we are asking for is for people to be careful in what they put out here. I do not know of anyone who has done it, but I think you can use your imagination to see how some foreign intel person could put something very specific on Wikipedia like, "The F-15E has a look-down radar with a range of 500 miles" (I have no idea of the range of the F-15E's radar; this is just an example). A few days later, Some crewmember, mechanic, former designer, etc. changes it to read "...a range of 200 miles." An edit war ensues until the guy states, "Listen buddy! I flew those jets for 13 years and I never got a range above 200 miles!" and its security is compromised. Little stuff adds up over time and I am requesting that we be careful in such matters. BQZip01 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that I am disagreeing with you on the aircrafts security and I'm not. I maintain 4 models of C-130 and I know the level of security involved with them, I just think you are taking this too seriously. C-130's are not top secret aircraft, most of their characteristics are unclassified. However, I agree with you on being carefull when publishing information on military aircraft, but C-130's are the least of your worries when compared to all the aircraft in the Air Force inventory.(NucPhy7 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

I think we can presume that everything on the AF's fact sheet[8] is non-sensitive. It includes speed, range, ceiling, MTW, etc. Details beyond that are a different matter. -Will Beback · † · 12:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Will, I couldn't agree more. Exactly the point I was trying to make.
"4 models of C-130" - Were any of those special operations aircraft? I truly doubt that. The flying characteristics of the MC-130E/H/W are significantly different than that of the AC-130U/H, and both are different from any other "slick" -130s. Please do not press this issue further. I will not get into specifics, but some characteristics are not even close.
"C-130's are not top secret aircraft, most of their characteristics are unclassified." - If you have a source, then by all means give us the info and tell us the source. No problems there. That goes for anyone about anything.
"C-130's (sic) are the least of your worries when compared to all the aircraft in the Air Force inventory." How many other airframes have 13 (or more) crewmen orbiting around a battlefield at night for a significant amount of time? I would say that next to paratrooper transport aircraft or covert insertions, that is the one aircraft to worry most about.
BQZip01 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


The absurdity continues...now if you make a change to the page or post in talk, you get a note on your talk page that begins "You haven't done it yet, but...." I got one of those and was quite offended. I don't know who died and made BQZip01 chief of security, but what he is doing borders on harrassment. Spectregunner 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about that. But the point that people need to be careful on what they add has been covered and then some. The horse is dead.. -Fnlayson 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BQZip01, actually three of the models of C-130 I work are special ops aircraft. As a matter of fact the first base I was at I was part of Air Force Special Operations Command and the current base I am at is a training base for AFSOC.NucPhy7 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, NucPhy7, I stand corrected. Bad assumption on my part. As for spectre, as we discussed, all I asked is for people to be careful. That is all. — BQZip01 — talk 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Crew size?

In the specs section the article notes that the crew number is 13, although in the service history the article states that an aircraft was shot down and all 14 crew members were killed. Which is the true number? One should be changed.

Not sure why this is in the edit war, but to answer your question, there are many reasons that 14 people could have been aboard. There could have been an extra observor or maybe a different model gunship which had an extra crewmember. Do not change this number, because, from what I remember from my history paper and the interviews I condudcted at Special Operations Command HQ, I am pretty sure it is accurate. (No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The baseline crew size was 13; however, it was not uncommon to have as many as 17 persons on board. More often than not it could be attributed to trainging or certification, some times it was a matter of having a visiting crew member from a different type of aircaft on board, sometimes it might simply be the fact that there was an extra gunner on board. Spectregunner 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilian casualties and controversy

I object to the section titled, "Civilian casualties and controversy." Reading that section and its associated articles in support of the authors assertion you'll find that none of what is said is based on fact. What is said against the gunship is true in that it gets said about the use of any other war machine, however this is far too much of a generalisation and should not be included in the article. NONE of the supporting articles meantion any sort controversy surrounding the use and employment of the AC-130 which to me says the entire piece is baseless. I feel the individual who wrote it had a rather obvious agenda, especially since the precision strike capability combined with its low yield minimizes the risk of collateral damage which would infact INCREASE its desireablity as a weapons platform. I can be more specific and break the article down sentence by sentence if need be, but I thought I'd spare those who don't care to hear it. If you're still unsure, this article should shed some light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words --St Aidan 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't read this comment at the time but I noticed that whole segment sounded a little biased in favour of the AC-130 and its users. raptor 11:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to start adding this section to all military aircraft? Alyeska 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section entirely. Why? Because it serves no purpose in this article. I don't see such sections for other military aircraft which we know killed civilians. It is not relevant to the aircraft itself and is so utterly generic in writing that it could apply to any military aircraft. Alyeska 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Plagiarism

This article seems to be mostly copied directly from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130.htm which is copyrighted text. Iridium77 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any text that's directly copied, but some that is only slightly re-worded. If this were a college term paper I'd say there's plagiarism, but I don't see copyright violations. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of examples:

In Vietnam, gunships destroyed more than 10,000 trucks and were credited with many crucial close air support missions. During the Invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) in 1983, AC-130s suppressed enemy air defense systems and attacked ground forces enabling the successful assault of the Point Salines Airfield via airdrop and air land of friendly forces. The AC-130 aircrew earned the Lt. Gen. William H. Tunner Award for the mission.

During Vietnam, gunships destroyed more than 10,000 trucks and were credited with many life-saving close air support missions. AC-130s suppressed enemy air defense systems and attacked ground forces during Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada. This enabled the successful assault of Point Salines airfield via airdrop and airland of friendly forces.


These heavily-armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensors, navigation and fire control systems to provide targeted firepower or area saturation fire with the 40 mm cannons. The AC-130 can spend long periods flying over their target area at night and in adverse weather.

These heavily armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor, navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or area saturation during extended periods, at night and in adverse weather.

I simply do not believe that the text differs sufficiently to be considered a separate work. It needs to be rewritten, not tweaked a little here and there. Iridium77 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the factsheet from the US Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71) you'll notice much of the globalsecurity.org is taken verbatim from the factsheet. I see nothing wrong with the quote. b24um 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

J-based gunships

Are they talking about building new AC-130 models based on the new C-130J? Those are supposed to have more range, room, glass cockpits, and better engines. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. The standard C-130 airframe accomplishes the needs of the Air Force and continues to be a usable platform.(No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

biased discriptions

the article makes reference to "opperatives" responsible for bombings of US embassys. It seems to presume a lot to state this given the men involved have neither made public statements to this affect or received a fair trial. perhaps "alleged" opperatives and "allegedly responsible" would be more appropriate?

Osama Bin Laden in a videotape released following the attacks, claimed responsibility, and numerous people involved who are linked to Al-Quaeda and related groups have been arrested in connection with the bombings. It is the official US government line, and has been so mentioned in US government documentation. It may seem biased, but there seems to be some actual evidence on this one. -- Thatguy96 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to missunderstand me. I am not in any way talking about whether al-quaeda is guilty of attacks or not, rather that we simply can not make such statements given the men involved here have been denied the right to a fair trial or to make a statement regarding their guilt. do you see the problem? osama bin laden may have admitted the attacks and others may have been arrested, but we have no way of tieing that to these men?
At some point we should condense this section further - it gets more words per action than any other engagements. -Will Beback · † · 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Current deployment

... uh, I dont think this sentance is really what is meant to be here? "The heat signature reduction components alone are a cause of consternation to aircraft mechanics and have become almost legendary among maintenance personnel for their inability to properly diffuse engine exhaust temperatures without warping or cracking." Nfitz 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little tortuous, but why do you think it's not what's meant? What in particular is wrong with "inability"? (A more straightforward version would probably just be something like "The heat signature reduction components are very prone to warping and cracking", assuming I'm understanding the intent correctly. Alai 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Program development

There's absolutely nothing on the development of the AC-130 series, and tons on its service and deployment. I'm not well versed on the aircraft, and I don't have any books on the subject - could someone step up to the plate and write a section on the design, testing, and development of the various models? ericg ✈ 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing details about typical operation / constraints

AFAIR, the AC-130's guns have a very limited tilt range, requiring the aircraft to point it's left wing-tip towards the target. If my memory serves my right, this sort of "unusual behavior" should be noted in the article.

I also missed some "data" about typical altitues during attack runs. AFAIR, the AC-130 isn't quite as maneuverable as a cow (although slightly faster... :-)), so it flies at altitues out of reach of the excpect SAM fire. --217.91.92.94 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as we can find this information in reliable, open sources then it'd be interesting. However there may be information that isn't published in public sources that we don't need to include here. -Will Beback · † · 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
not sure how to link this info in, but there is an AP picture that shows the basics of AC-130 use: http://chronicle.augusta.com/iraq/graphics/weapons_ac130_gunship.gif I also implore people to NOT discuss the operational capabilities/limitations of the AC-130. Several of my friends fly these aircraft and their safety is NOT worth the risk of showing how much you know on the subject. see Security above (No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a nice pic, but its copyrighted, so we can not use it here. You could add an external link to it as a reference (or I could do it for you). I agree that all info here needs to be open source and verifiable, not personal 'knowledge'. Thats kind of the point of citing refs I guess! Patrick Berry 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add the link for me; no idea how to do it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.17.129.22 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
In the AC-130A/E/H the gun mounts are fixed, and the gun tilt angle is never changed. the exception to this is the 105mm gun, as with the blast deflector mounted, it's tube would extend below the bottom of the landing gear, which necessitates cranking down the gun after take-off and cranking it back up prior to landing. Once the correct angle is set, the gun is not reset during flight. Remember, these aircraft were required to fly an "orbit" or "pylon turn" in order to engage a target.
The U-boat is a different matter as the gun mounts are not fixed. The key advantage of this is that the aircraft does not have to fly a fixed, predictable orbit when engating a target. It is also, for the first time, capable of engaging more than one target at a time.
I must also take issue with the sentence in this discussion: so it flies at altitudes out of reach of the excpect SAM fire. The AC-130 certainly does NOT operate at altitudes above SAM range, and RARELY operates at altitudes above most modern AAA range. Spectregunner 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a person who currently flies on the guship I can say operating altitudes vary depending on threat assesments. Since altitudes are based on the threat of being shot at/shot down I won't be discussing what they are. Second, the gunship flies in a lefthand orbit, refered to as a pilon turn, however both H and U model guns (40 AND 105) are situated on trainable mounts, your info is out of date spectregunner. Lastly, the original idea of mounting larger and larger guns on the gunship was to allow it to climb higher to avoid an increasing threat from AAA and SAM systems. However current tactics are intended more for mobile AAA and man portable air defense systems. High caliber AAA and integrated air defense sytems would present far too great a risk for the gunship to enter with out an escort or prior assault. User:b24um 22:48, 3 January 2008

I really think this should be removed... not only is it not notable, but it's not even an AC-130 in the game, despite being called a "Spectre" Zaku Two 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - I disagree. I am favor of AC-130s getting the credit they deserve, and inclusion in a major film production certainly qualifies.

Mark Sublette 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be noted that an Ac130 was under the control of the player in Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat, although here the big guns are 110 mm.

General Zhadow, 13:15, 22. January 2008 (GMT)

I agree, they also provided NPC air support on one mission. 69.137.159.158 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reese Jan. 08

Yeah, and to be honest the AC-130 was a lot more prominent in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare than it was in Transformers. It blew up a ton of stuff for the player and you could later control it for an entire mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.111.229 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. There are YouTube Videos showing how the player controls the AC-130 aircraft and it's totally realistic and addictive. There should be an reference in CoD4 AC-130 missions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.202.11 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you don't control the AC-130 at all, just the sensor operator position. The plane flies on a pre-programmed route. Speaking as a guy who knows gunship folks, helped a spotter on the ground during gunship practice, and hopes to be one someday be on board, this is not as realistic as people think. It's addictiveness is immaterial. — BQZip01 — talk 06:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Current events and service history

I pared down the longish paragraphs on service history because each operation seemed to have its own sentence stating that the AC-130 did ground attack or support, which is kind of redundant. There are links to each op, so people can go read in depth what happened if they want. With regards to the current events, it didn't make sense to have a whole paragraph for the Somalia attacks when all of the iraq and afghanistan war got one sentence. There is a link to an outside source if people want to know what happened. As it stands, the somalia operation gets lumped in with the other WOT ops.Patrick Berry 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Boeing

Why is Boeing listed as a manufacturer of the AC-130? This is explained nowhere in the text at all. - BillCJ 03:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FABULOUS question and it should be explained somewhere or removedBQZip01 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Boeing is one of the contracted agencies that modifies the C-130 to an AC-130U. See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm It is listed as one of the exteral links. How do we link this to the webpage to cite it? This information should be added once a production history segment is added. I have neither the time nor patience nor direct knowledge to write it in a time efficient manner.BQZip01 05:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the answer, but it wasn't in any of my printed sources. I'll try to check out the link you gave this week, and write something up on it, though if someone beats me to it, I won't mind! - BillCJ 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I'm following this thought a bit late, but if it is the consensus of us editor-types that a production history is desired, I will be happy to provide same... Mark Sublette 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On the AC-130U, North American Rockwell (later acquired by Boeing) did the modifications.[9] The Air Force did the modifications on the first AC-130A (added that to article). I'm not sure about the later A and H models. I should add a little on the U model. -Fnlayson 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

To whomever made the most recent edits, please do us all a favor and get a screen name so we can converse and discuss the changes made. Figuring that most of the text was copied and pasted from another website, we need a source. Please provide it at your earliest convenience. BQZip01 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sole Operator

The AC-130 is not the only actively operated fixed wing gunship.


The Columbian Air Force still operates some of the AC-47 aircraft it was provided in 1988. Reference http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_169.shtml and http://www.hilltoptimes.com/archive/20000803/Commentary/.

Spectregunner 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Night Firing Image

I would like to discuss the image and the caption.

First, the caption is misleading because it suggests that the photo is taken during a mission when in fact was taken during training (Note the presence of fuel tanks on the wing pylons and all of the aircraft lighting. AC-130 gunsuhips do not fly with external fuel tanks during combat missions, and they do not fly with their light on, with the exception of the "canned beacon" on the topmost part of the fuselage.

Second, the image has clearly been photoshopped/edited. Note perfect symmetry of the muzzle blast and the uniform underwing flashes in red.

If a better image is needed, feel free to take some from my photo gallery at www.gunships.org. There are better sourced USAF photos there, and better photos that are sourced to other owners.

Spectregunner 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

External links -- a minor issue

I would like to take minor issue with the link: AC-130A aircraft names, tail numbers and current locations (if applicable), also from the Spectre Association website.

Yes, that is the link, and that is where it came from, however, that material is actually taken (an earlier version, used with permission) from content on my website, specifically: http://www.gunships.org/birds.html

Spectregunner 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    • That is not what I am saying. I am pointing out that the page links to an out of date copy of that information on the Spectre Association page, and that the original content (which is also more current) can be found on my website. I have absolutely no issues with the Spectre Association -- if I did I would not have told them that they could use any content they wished from my website.

Proposed addition

Proposed insertion in Service History as a new second paragraph:

One of the first seven AC-130A aircraft deployed was aircraft 53-3129, named First Lady. This aircraft had the distinction of also being the first production C-130 built. It had its nose shot off in Vietnam when a 37mm shell destroyed everything below the crew deck. In 1975, after the conclusion of US involvement in the hostilities in Indochina, it was transferred to the Air Force Reserve, where it served with the 711th Special Operations Squadron of the 19th Special Operations Wing. In 1980 the aircraft was upgraded from the original three-bladed propellers to the quieter four-bladed propellers and was eventually retired in late 1995. The retirement also marked an end to the Air Force Reserve flying the AC-130A. The aircraft now sits on display in the final Air Force Reserve configuration with grey paint, black markings, the four-bladed Hamilton Standard props at the USAF Armament Museum at Eglin AFB, Florida USA.

The source for this content is twofold. Some comes from http://www.gunships.org/birds.html (my website) and some from a USAF press release on the retirement of the aircraft (which is also reproduced on my website at http://www.gunships.org/1stlady.html)

I can also provide two public domain USAF photos of the First Lady. They are posted at: http://www.gunships.org/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=0 is a photo taken over the water firing range off the coast of Florida and http://www.gunships.org/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=3 is an early photo taken either in Vietnam or Thailand in the original configuration in the original camouflage paint job. I can upload better resolution images.

(Forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly, I am relatively new to this project and I am opting to be a bit conservative in seeking comment before making significant changes. I haven't found a comfortable spot yet between being bold in editing and seeking consensus on other than straightforward edits. I'm also trying to to use this page to promote my website. Please be gentle.) :)

Spectregunner 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Pop culture, This statement does not need a reference

There, I referenced the movie (really redundant). This is like saying "In 2003, Jack Smith wrote a book entitled My Life where opined on the cover, 'the best things in life are really ,really free.'" and then referencing the book. Why?!? This is a self-referencing statement. Referencing the book in this instance only adds unneeded bytes to the page. Per wikipedia policy, content must be verifiable. This statement passes that requirement. — BQZip01 — talk 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BillZ BQZ, no one is arguing if it's in the movie, but rather if the "appearance" is "especially notable" (see WP:AIR/PC and WP:MILHIST guidelines, as noted in the hidden disclaimer). The Transformers movie in particular is a subject of great debate in a number of aircraft articles. I can't look right now, but I will check the references to see if they establish notability. If not, the appearance should be removed. - BillCJ 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your sentence about the "turning point of the movie" is drawing conclusion and was not a slam dunk as you try to imply above. Considering it's a very rare appearance for an AC-130, I say keep it if it is close. -Fnlayson 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it to read as a turning point, not necessarily the turning point.
Interesting tidbit: they were taping this at Holloman AFB and wanted an AC-130 to do some live shots for the movie. I was working in the 16th Special Operations Wing as a Group Executive Officer at the time the request came from the production company. There was an AC-130 already heading to Nellis AFB from Hurlburt Field and Holloman was right along the way. I wrote the memo and fast-tracked it through the appropriate chain to get approval. Two days later, the AC-130 and its crew were in the movie, so I have a little self-interest in getting this in. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell that stroy to a USAF PR person or news outlet, and if they print it, we can add it as a source! (Seriously!) - BillCJ 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be of help. Their is an acid test of notability for popular culture. The acid test is if a person will associate the object or in this case aircraft with the movie. For example, most people when they hear "Walther PPK" will talk about James Bond, or the F-14 Tomcat and the movie Top Gun (film). One thing to remember though is that the object may be important to the movie, but the movie may not be important to the object.--LWF 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of movies with an AC-130 in it (this is the only one I can think of where it was actually featured in any way), I think it is pretty notable. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Same with me. This is the only fictional appearance for the AC-130 that I can come up with. I've seen it some documentary footage and an episode of Future Weapons but that's it. -Fnlayson 04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I was the sensor operator on both TDY's and I don't think it's really worth meantioning either. There really wasn't much about it. We orbited for a while around 2k ft while the chase plane flew around us. After we landed we checked into the hotel and went to the bar. I say "THE bar" because that's all the description you'd need to find it. There we met Michael Bay, told him Pearl Harbor sucked and my EWO almost got his ass kicked by Tyrese Gibson. All in all it was unimpressive as far as TDYs go for Spectre. B24UM 2327 CST, 13 Feb 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.26.122 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Great "war story", but I know that your TDYs are usually much more than a photo op, so the comparison isn't really apples to apples. I agree the usage of the AC-130 was nothing special tactically (if you guys can't maintain an orbit while some hollywood cameraman burns some rolls of film, who can?), but the presence is certainly noteworthy IMHO. As I said before, I'll go with consensus on this one. BTW, looking to get back to hurby pretty soon...I hope. — BQZip01 — talk 06:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I think you should include the fact that it features in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Many people will associate the AC-130 gunship with Call of Duty 4.

Losses

I have reverted the editing out of the seven Spectre losses, and applied Chris Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses" reference for all the SEA shoot-downs. I personally believe that the loss data is a valid part of this article. Mark Sublette 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gunship programs

The AC-47D "Spooky" was Gunship I.[10]. According to the museum pages, AC-130 was gunship II,[11] and AC-119 was Gunship III.[12] -Fnlayson 00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

- Your sources - my bad! -

Mark Sublette 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell - as a committed historian and journalist, I always bow to better intel. "Yours is the superior intellect." - Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan.

Mark Sublette 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wing area

With a wingspan of 132.6 feet a wing area of ~550 would imply the wing is only ~4 feet in depth...clearly THAT isn't right...even a Cessna 172 is deeper than that. It also lines up with the C-130 page. — BQZip01 — talk 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

These words are not notable and read below...

Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Video Game appearances, Transformers toyline appearances, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/cartoon/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.

An AC-130 was used in the 2007 movie "Transformers" in the first scene depicting the defeat of the Decepticon Scorponok. This scene featured the AC-130's 105 mm howitzer APFSDS shells and was a turning point in the movie when the humans started to successfully fight back.

That is fiction look a like appearance is fictional due to Transformers is a fictional movie.(TougHHead 06:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

An AC-130 was actually used for filming - that's not fiction, and that is waht is mentioned. Please take a deep breath, and understand what is actually meant by "fictional look-alikes", rather than running around half-cocked because editors believe your additions haven't been notable. It's not personal, so please stop trying to stir up trouble. Thanks. - BillCJ 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am doubtfull about the use of "APFSDS" with the 105 howitzer. Secondly the AC-130 plays a major roll in Call of duty 4 supporting SAS operatives behind enemy lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.43.94 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to mention that movie, you might as well mention how you get to use one of these aircraft in call of duty 4. Contralya 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Appearing in a video game does not mean it is culturally signficant. No need to mention everytime something shows up in a movie or video game. Apparently the transformers reference is notable because an actuall AC-130 was used in filming. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In Call of Duty 4, I would argue that the AC-130 plays a fairly prominant role, rather than just makes an appearance. An entire mission is devoted to the AC-130 in the game, where the player plays as the AC-130's gun crew to support ground troops with the 25mm vulcan and the bofors. The point of view is from a black and white IR screen within the AC-130, giving a fairly "authentic" experience to the player. I think that this is sufficiently notable to warrent inclusion. - Fearless Son 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the IR sensors are run by a sensor operator, not the gunners, so the realism is a little off. Beyond that, how is it culturally significant? — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In the game, you ARE the sensor operator - the gunners talk to you over the comms. This will make for one hell of a highlight reel, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.64.11 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And where are your Reliable, Verifiable sources to attest to its cultural significance? - BillCJ 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, it's Call of Duty? Like it or not, it's a major series of video games. Yeah, it's not necessarily completely realistic, nor is it what old-salt avionics types might consider noteworthy, but it's a very decent simulation of how the US Air Force uses them in real life. If you're suggesting that Infinity Ward managed to replicate the experience of gunning from an AC-130 with absolutely no input from the USAF then I'd suggest you read up on how modern video games are produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.249.149 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a CoD4 forum somewhere that's linking to this page? We're getting a spate of anon edits.--Mmx1 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder that myself. Might be time to ask an admin for a one- or two-week semi-protect. - BillCJ 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This does not help WoW forum thread on COD4 -Fnlayson 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to cite Transformers as an example, then you HAVE to include CoD 4. If your criteria for judging whether something is worthwile to add is its part in the plot, then CoD 4 should be included. It plays an even bigger role than in Transformers. Nowhere on the page is there even a picture of what the screens even look like, yet CoD 4 allows you to actually BE in CONTROL of the gunner controls. If your criteria is realism, then I don't think any person would authorize the use of the 105mm when friendlies were so close. If your criteria is how much of an apperance the AC 130 makes, then I would say 90% of movie goers had no thought whatsoever about the military hardware involved during that scene, yet 99% of the people who have seen and controlled the AC130 in CoD4 would have thought about the plane and would want to know about it, which is why I searched for this on wikipedia. Vice versa, Im sure people would like information about something that lets you hear and simulate an AC130 ground attack, as opposed to simply knowing that the plane appeared in some movie. maybe it doesnt fit under popculture or should be under trivia. talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.205.43 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent; this isn't like Ace Combat where dozens of types of aircraft appear, the AC-130 plays a distinct, important role that has made it much more well-known. I think that the increased interest in this page (albeit problematic) just goes to show that. ZakuTalk 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the Transformers film (not the cartoons or comics, mind you) and CoD4 is that actual USAF C-130s were used in the filming. That's what makes the movie appearance notable, tho marginally so. Is the Transformers appearance culturally significant? I don't think that's been proven yet either. However, I have no problem deleting the entire section, as I don' like the Pop-culture section anyway, as they aren't really about the aircraft. It's just a way that some gamers delude themselves into thinking they are actually contributing to the article, when it's really just unimportant fluff. - BillCJ (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The constant attempts to add minor pop culture sh*t just cracks me up! Mark Sublette (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)

I've got this article on my watch list and I've lost track of how many times (seemingly different) editors have sought to add a reference to the game. While the movie is popular so is the game. I just don't see a good reason to include one but not the other. I've seen the move and the plane is only on-screen for moments. I haven't seen the game but I hear it has a major "part". I suggest that we either delete them both or include them both. My preference is for deleting them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually would like ALL pop culture removed from aircraft articles, so I'm with you on deleting both from here. However, the general consensus in Wikipedia is to allow some items, within certain limits such as notability. Notability is proven/attested to by reliable sources, which the Transformers item has, but the CD4 (yes,I know the gamers write it as "CoD 4", but I'm not a gamer!) does not, and I sincerely doubt it can. The USAF and others have made a big deal of the Transformers film using real aircraft, and the "big deal" is exactly what "notability" involves. So as long as pop culture items are allowed on the page, the Transformers mention qualifies. But if someone were to hold a poll to remove all the pop culture mentions, I'd definitely support it! - BillCJ (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The AC-130 IS a major theme in call of duty 4. I wouldn't have known there was such a plane if I had never played the game Foreeye (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no it isn't, it is included in one level and in the call of duty article im fairly certain i added the only mention of a AC-130 today in the Call of duty 4 article. The Ac-130 isnt a major theme infantry combat, ICBMs, and coups are major themes of the game the Ac-130 is not. BonesBrigade 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to be too condescending Foreeye, but your limited knowledge on the subject does not make this a significant occurrence. I personally own the game and have played it. As someone who has some experience in the AFSOC community, I must admit that it is pretty realistic in some respects (delay from trigger pull to impact, black & white thermal screen, etc.). That said, I don't think it is culturally significant, which is the standard here. The Transformers movie, IMHO, does impact the popular view of the gunships and was seen by millions worldwide. In the video game, you play a small role (actually you play small ROLES) in the gunship. Either way, the consensus at this time is to leave it out in this article. It certainly is appropriate as a link in the Call of Duty 4 article. — BQZip01 — talk 23:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over pop culture references

Hi all - I've locked this page until some kind of consensus can be built about what pop culture references (if any) should be included in this article. Anonymous editors (those without accounts here) are still free to contribute to the discussion (but it would be better if you create an account (Why?)) This constant to-and-fro'ing is not very constructive and we need to see some firm agreement between the contributors to this article about what it should or should not contain. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear given it's anon's who've been adding and a litany of registered and regular aviation editors who've reverted these edits. Ixnay on the CoD4. --Mmx1 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps; but like it or not, anons have a right to edit here too. This process is intended to get both sides talking and see if there might be some position that's acceptable to most people, "anons" and registered editors alike. Of course, if they're not willing to participate in constructive discussion and consensus-building, that tells us something too. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What does it tell you? Because personally, my unwillingness to participate in constructive discussion is really apathy. Is it worth a discussion to me? No. I tried adding a little contribution, but honestly it was a crazy fluke I came back and saw the discussion page. Most anonymous editors won't discuss, because they see something small, change it, and move on. No need to review the discussion every single time for them/me. And to me, that tells me something about this issue - that alot of people see this inclusion, and think that it's an oversight. If their friend asked them to name appearances of the plane in pop culture, they'd cite CoD4. That tells me something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.3.106 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It tells me you want something included, but aren't willing to discuss it with anyone else and reach a consensus. This really isn't any better than edit warring.
As for the CoD 4 inclusion, it is the first time I've seen a game of any kind include an opportunity to fire from a gunship. If this is true, then it could merit some mention. Any subsequent inclusions should be mentioned in the format, "CoD 4 was the first game to prominently feature an AC-130 gunship, and other games, including X, Y , and Z, followed suit [anything more than three is unnecessary and the citation then should be changed to "other games followed suit."]. That said, I don't think it needs to be included and am willing to go with consensus here, whatever that may be. — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is how I see it. CoD 4 is very popular right now and a lot of people are playing it and coming here afterwards to learn about the interesting aircraft featured. One of the easiest contributions to make is a in pop culture section and Wikipedia used to be full of them so some people see the lack there of on this page as a problem and add the reference. This is why the ref keeps getting put back in. I don't see this as an indication that the CoD reference is notable, when CoD 4 isn't the hotest game on the shelves I have a feeling that the problem will go away. CoD 4 is not focused on AC-130s it is just a part of the game. Link to AC-130 from the CoD 4 page but not visa versa. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I too don't think it's a noteable appearance as the AC-130 does not play a major role in this game. We can't list every game that has this or that aircraft available for a mission or just flying around. Please also read the WP:Air pop culture general policy. --Denniss (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with the last couple of editors, Also, pop-culture guidelines are pre-existing in both MILIHIST and WP:AIR. My attempts and those of others here have been to conform the article TO the guidelines. THat's the pre-existing consensus. I really can't see how this is a "content dispute" in that sense. Some IP users have discussed the situation here, but none have been able to sway the already-established consensus on the issue, and few have really tried. As to the comment If their friend asked them to name appearances of the plane in pop culture, they'd cite CoD4.I'd put it another way: If their friends mentioned the AC-130, they would reply, "Oh, I played that on CD4!" I honestly doubt many people would come to the AC-130 page looking for what game it was played it, but I can definitely see the reverse being true. ANd that's how it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with BQzip it's worth a mention. The level "Death from above" in the CoD4MW was very effective in terms of setting the atmosphere of what looked like a reel coming straight from military archives. Thats what makes people keep Editing it. maybe other games will feature more of this since so many people thought it is "ground breaking". As for the Transformers, well I wasn't interested in looking it up as much as when I played it in the Game. Advisor (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood. BTW I remembered another game that feature what seams to be a futuristic version of the spectre, Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. Not that I'm suggesting it should be included. I don't think it should actually. But this would go in favor of the people who don't want to include COD4:MW Ref as this will open a whole new door, and someone will demand another reference and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advisor (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides the AC130 gunship being playable in Command and Conquer Generals and COD4, both of these games are pre-dated by MANY combat flight simulators which feature them as non-playable friendlies/enemies, as well as Desert Combat, which allowed 5 people to fly in a single AC130, one piloting, and 4 firing the various weapons. But really, none of that crap belongs in an encyclopedia. When a game solely about the ac130 gunship is made, then that is notable enough to add. Anons, stop adding crap, and admins unlock the damn page.64.230.4.137 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while since anyone has added anything to the discussion, and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to leave the CoD material out, so I'm unprotecting the page as requested. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that a consensus can be assumed when editors keep adding it. The popular sentiment seems to be to include a mention. It's only a few editors on this talk page who are opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How insulting! Comparing drive-by IPs crufters to long-term editors who are working to abide by policy is utterly ridiculous. Let me be clear: IP users do have the right to participate in discussion, but only one or two have. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and as an admin you should know better than that. Vandalism is popular on many pages; are you supporting vandalism now too? Both are against policy, but are popular. - BillCJ (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding content in good faith is not vandalism. We've made an arbitrary decision that movie cruft is allowed but game cruft is forbidden. Half the edits to this article seem to be about that game. More than half of the comments to this talk page are over whether to add it or delete it. I just see any good reason to go to such lengths to avoid mentioning the game. Include a sentence or two about the game would not harm the article at all, would result in a more stable article, and would quiet the endless debates here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding unsourced non-notable content ALWAYS harms an article, otherwise it wouldn't be against policy. Try spinning this info off to a sub-page, and see how long it lasts before it's AFDed! And I wasn't comparing cruft to vandalism, but popularity of things against policy. If you don't like the policy on notability, get it changed. Until then, cruft doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can understand your what's the harm point. That's the way I see things a lot. Letting this game can open up the door for more and more stuff though. I'll abide by what the consensus is though. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the rub: this isn't a major cultural refernce. ANd I promise you this: It won't solve the problem, because other editors will remove it, regardless of the concensus. We've seen this on the F-15 page when 3 Transformers were allowed. I abided by the consensus to keep it there too, but eventually we got the consensus changed to remove it. The best course is to follow existing policy, and enforce it. That isn't always fun or popular, but it is what an admin is supposed to do. - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Transformers isn't a major cultural reference either - it's a few seconds of screen time. If that reference weren't included there wouldn't be a "popular culture" section and editors would make the logical assumption that references in popular culture are part of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear, Will: I know the policices governing content such as this are subject to interpretation. We both have every right to our interpretations. However, guidelines have been developed by WPAIR and MILHIST to help avoid situations like this, based on content policy. Notices are posted in the article, very lenghty ones, asking for those wishing to add contnet to duscuss it first. Almost none of the IPs adding COD4 do that. How is that constructive? Should we allow those who don't even have the courtesy to follow requests to add content anyway, and treat them as constructive users? I don't believe so. Of course, part of the reason they don't follow instructions is that gamers are functionally illiterate! (J/k, but it sure seems that way!) Anyway, again, I'll follow the consensus, whatever it is. - BillCJ (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the guidelines you've listed that calls for including a few seconds of screen time but excluding a segment of a video game. Which text in particular are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not in the guidelines; it's in WP:N: The Transformers film appearances has souces regarding it's notability as a rare film appearance, and the use of real aircraft supplied by the USAF. But, I don't have a problem with that being taken out either. I'm not for any pop-culture appearances whatsoever, because they aren't actually about the aircraft. But we had to compromise and let it in, because they supplied sources proving notability. No you want us to let one in without any sources proving notability, but because it's popular, and on the assumption there aren't anymore games with the AC-130. I hope your right. Experience tells me you're not, and that your solution will cause more problems than you're attempting to solve. Anyway, I think we're both aware of the other's position, and we're not going to get any further arguing this out. I'm done here. - BillCJ (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Strong service history, very weak project development. No mention whatsoever of A and E models outside of the specs. No details on service entry and exit dates. No information on the design and testing of the gunship concept as applied to the C-130. ericg ✈ 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_AC-130/Archive_1&oldid=1136258479"