New C-130 for the Marines

[rogwar]

The KC-130J Harvest Hawk...interesting.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/marine_kc130weapons_053009w/

[FYB]

Finally, a very nice SUPER arse kicking package! 

[crazierthanu]

If I wanted to join the forces, I would want to be in one of those.

[Serenity]

Everything is on the BACK of this thing? For some reason that just doesn't sound like optimal placement to me...

[Selino631]

Everything is on the BACK of this thing? For some reason that just doesn't sound like optimal placement to me...

it said that the 30mm will be in the doorway that you can see in the photo, simular to how a AC-130's layout. but not as awesome

[Denholm]

Everything is on the BACK of this thing? For some reason that just doesn't sound like optimal placement to me...

Why not? Allows you to fire underneath and behind the airplane (if the gun can be rotated by some form of a controlling device).

[gyrene81]

And with a couple of stingers...that thing goes poof. I swear, sometimes those officer types think with the wrong head.

It will be used to prep a battlefield, keep key pieces of terrain out of enemy hands and support ground-based Marines with suppressive-type fire.

It's a knee jerk fix for an issue the DoD never considered a priority...mountain warfare...much more effective air support could be made for the same cost.

[indy007]

And with a couple of stingers...that thing goes poof. I swear, sometimes those officer types think with the wrong head.

If that were the case, all of our AC-130s would already be shot down. It's just an AC-130 that can also give out gas. Not a big deal, or a bad idea when you have air dominance. Not only that, you can fly higher than a MANPAD can shoot, and always be able to shoot back.

[Stoney]

And with a couple of stingers...that thing goes poof. I swear, sometimes those officer types think with the wrong head.

It's a knee jerk fix for an issue the DoD never considered a priority...mountain warfare...much more effective air support could be made for the same cost.

But not with a 12 hour on-station time...

[RTHolmes]

bizarre idea

[gyrene81]

It is a "bad idea"...it's implementation and design is for Afghanistan...we already have air superiority...so did the Russians. Read the entire description of what the proposed combat role is...there is no "battlefield" to prep...9 times out of 10 our forces have to attack a village or they get jumped in the middle of nowhere...you don't think civilian casualties are going to be more of an issue with hellfire's raining down on a village? Aside from aerial surveillance, after the hellfires are gone...it's just a flying gas can. Rather than spend the money on redesign for battlefield support they would be better off with a low cost re-design/re-deployment of a long range close air support asset. Something like an A-1 Skyraider which was used very successfully in multiple support roles during Vietnam...with a little updating I'm sure they could get more than 900 miles range out of the things for less money, especially with a flying gas can on site.

[Saurdaukar]

It is Rather than spend the money on redesign for battlefield support they would be better off with a low cost re-design/re-deployment of a long range close air support asset. Something like an A-1 Skyraider which was used very successfully in multiple support roles during Vietnam...with a little updating I'm sure they could get more than 900 miles range out of the things for less money, especially with a flying gas can on site.

I have often wondered if we will ultimately return to more numerous, cheaper aircraft for conflicts such as these.  A P-51 would provide suitable CAS in Afghanistan for Pete's sake...

There are two issues with this, I think, though... and Im just thinking out loud...

The first is the cost of re-fitment, I think.  We have plenty of "reserve" aircraft in quasi-bone yards but what would it cost to get a Skyhawk/Skyraider/Tiger/Sabre back to flying condition?  Would manufacturing plants have to be retooled for parts, etc, etc?  Are the engines even made anymore?  The dated avionics?  Do you swap them out?  How would you integrate the dated systems with the combined arms command and control structure in place today?  

The second issue is the argument which has won for decades.  When you have the best aircraft and can use it to its full capabilities (example of opposite: Vietnam), no one comes up to fight you.

If we started putting A-4's, F-5's and F-4's back into service for CAS, we'll still need G4 and G5 ATA capable A/C to deter threats.  An Iraqi Fulcrum would have a field day with a flight of A4's.

Circular argument... but an interesting thought.

[Reschke]

“We’re trying to stress that the Marine Corps is not building a gunship. We’re building a mission kit that can be used on our KC-130J aircraft that takes advantage of its extended on-station time and its endurance. We want to maintain the primary mission of the KC-130,” Pellagrino said.

The Corps wants to procure nine kits, with three going to each of the three active-duty KC-130J squadrons, spokesman Maj. Eric Dent said. The two Reserve squadrons, which have yet to upgrade to the J models, will not receive kits but will have the opportunity to train and use the equipment if future missions require it.

A $22.8 million contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin on May 8 for testing and integration of the first kit. The other two initial kits, all from Lockheed, are expected to cost roughly $29 million, Pellagrino said.

I personally don't care if the Marine Aviation wants a gunship. That would mean more chances to have crews rotated and rested. More independence by the forces on the ground without having to get approval from A to talk to D to get support from Z all because they were a different camo pattern. If they are going to put guns on it then put guns on it and use the suckers.

[indy007]

It is a "bad idea"...it's implementation and design is for Afghanistan...we already have air superiority...so did the Russians. Read the entire description of what the proposed combat role is...there is no "battlefield" to prep...9 times out of 10 our forces have to attack a village or they get jumped in the middle of nowhere...you don't think civilian casualties are going to be more of an issue with hellfire's raining down on a village? Aside from aerial surveillance, after the hellfires are gone...it's just a flying gas can. Rather than spend the money on redesign for battlefield support they would be better off with a low cost re-design/re-deployment of a long range close air support asset. Something like an A-1 Skyraider which was used very successfully in multiple support roles during Vietnam...with a little updating I'm sure they could get more than 900 miles range out of the things for less money, especially with a flying gas can on site.

  Yeah, it's gonna be cheaper to resurrect old designs with no assembly lines or tooling, then modernize them with new materials, new engines, and go through months or years of all of the testing required just to get it off the ground, then systems testing, then modern weapon release testing, then force integration testing, etc, etc... that may or may not have the range to even get to the target, let alone loiter for hours.

Sounds much cheaper than sticking a few weapons, including a cannon (you know, in case they run out missiles), on a currently produced airframe that already serves as a gunship in 1 model, has millions of spare parts and engines available, and serves in every environment, on every continent in the world, in dozens of air forces.

 

[gyrene81]

You are sooo right Indy...so why not spend the money to increase the capabilities of existing close air support al la A-10? The KC-130J is not designed for that roll...never was...and that cannon you're talking about is an unspecified 30mm...as of right now all they're hoping to do is have maybe a few in the air during offensive ops, "just in case" they're needed.

The Marine Corps has enough aerial support assets to implement something much more cost and battle effective than a quasi gunship. As it stands, according to that news release, it's nothing more than an aerial surveillance/coms system with some missles, just in case something needs shooting at that the ground units can't get to.

Try looking at the whole picture...