Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Inaccuracies

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Source

message: 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)
thread_title: Gunships

message: 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":
* Results 1 - 6 of about 14 for AC-130A Surpise Package.
* Results 1 - 30 of about 197 for AC-130A Surprise Package.
I changed the spelling to "Surprise." Teratornis 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It says it in the first 6 letters of the quote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: “operat”? ericg ✈ 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my deepest apologies, 6 words. Sorry for the massive confusion that may have caused. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You continue to be very rude. And your lack of wiki-knowledge is showing.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The edit summary was the code. Añoranza 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Propaganda names and redirects  

message: 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.   Añoranza 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Show me one case where I personally attacked someone the way you just did. Añoranza 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  You asked. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please cease your personal attacks. WP:AGF in regards to your "pretexts" comment --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing neutrality dispute tags is vandalism 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crew size? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I completely agree. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian casualties and controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  J-based gunships 

message: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current deployment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Program development 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current events and service history 

message: 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)
replies: text: FABULOUS question and it should be explained somewhere or removedBQZip01 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Boeing

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sole Operator 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Night Firing Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links -- a minor issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: 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)
thread_title: Losses

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Wing area

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: And where are your Reliable, Verifiable sources to attest to its cultural significance? - BillCJ 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: This does not help WoW forum thread on COD4 -Fnlayson 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The constant attempts to add minor pop culture sh*t just cracks me up! Mark Sublette (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture (take 2) 

message: Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment