New C-130 for the Marines

[indy007]

You are sooo right Indy...so why not spend the money to increase the capabilities of existing close air support al la A-10?

A-10s can't hang out on station like a flying gas can. You can't even add enough gas cans to accomplish that goal. You don't have additional crew members to effectively operate multiple sensors. An A-10 can't reload until it's landed. A 30mm in the back of a -130 can be.

Plus, they already spent money upgrading the A-10. That's what the -10C model is. It's going on right now. It still doesn't do the job they're asking of this -130.

Try looking at the whole picture...

I am, you're not. You brought up MANPADs to begin with as some great threat to it (they're not @ combat altitude), and are saying the whole idea is too expensive, and we should do something that's "cheaper" to solve it... but is actually far, far more expensive, like resurrecting & renovating out of production airframes.

The cannon they're talking about is the 30mm Bushmaster II, already in production and headed for EFVs and ships, and developed from the 25mm Bushmaster series. It's more than sufficient to plink infantry and hajii trucks from altitude.

Lets see... most popular military cargo plane on the planet, with massive additional gas tanks installed, readily available production lines, engines, and parts, proven close air support models, proven performance in extreme climates, large crew and more comfort during long duration missions, massive wing space to add more missile pylons than you can shake a stick at, more than enough room to add computer directed cannons internally.

vs...

building something completely new, or trying to resurrect out of production gear.

I need whatever you're on.

[gyrene81]

Indy...you're not seeing the picture...
[quote]“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.[/quote]
A contradiction to what you're trying to say ain't it?

Lets see... most popular military cargo plane on the planet, with massive additional gas tanks installed, readily available production lines, engines, and parts, proven close air support models, proven performance in extreme climates, large crew and more comfort during long duration missions, massive wing space to add more missile pylons than you can shake a stick at, more than enough room to add computer directed cannons internally.

$30 mil on 9 "kits" (it's going to be more expensive) not including the cost of weapons to fly around in circles hoping they are in a position to do something before it's too late...the primary task of this "upgraded gas can" is aerial surveillance, not close air support. It's going to be a manned Predator is all.

Do you seriously believe they are going to plan on reloading that 30mm in a hostile situation? Even though that cannon has an effective range of 17,000 feet and a stinger has an effective range of 11,000 feet...when it becomes necessary to fire that thing, they are going to go for maximum effectiveness and that means getting close...close enough for some goat herder to take a shot.

What they are hoping for is a stop gap measure to provide ground forces with some first hand on site intel for extended periods and if necessary, provide short term aerial support if called on...something they haven't been able to do effectively with helicopters or jets.


You need to get off whatever it is you're on now...

[Stoney]

What they are hoping for is a stop gap measure to provide ground forces with some first hand on site intel for extended periods and if necessary, provide short term aerial support if called on...something they haven't been able to do effectively with helicopters or jets.

That sounds like a fairly good assessment of its capability.  Given that, what's the problem with it?  As you know, the Corps has so few acquisition dollars to spend, I doubt they'd want to waste money on something like this...

[Grayeagle]

It sounds like a viable idea.. actual combat will validate the concept.
If they get wacked, end of story.
If they work, they'll get more better

I hope it works out for 'em.
Otherwise, just call a Spectre.

-GE (just sayin)

[Stoney]

Otherwise, just call a Spectre.

Well, the problem is that the AC-130's belong to SOCOM, so a regular Marine Infantry Battalion will have a hard time getting access to that type of asset.  That's why they're developing this thing.

[indy007]

$30 mil on 9 "kits" (it's going to be more expensive) not including the cost of weapons to fly around in circles hoping they are in a position to do something before it's too late...the primary task of this "upgraded gas can" is aerial surveillance, not close air support. It's going to be a manned Predator is all.

So $3.3mil per upgrade, vs the base cost of $10.9mil for a Predator-B, which doesn't have a re-loadable cannon, loiter time, or refueling capability.

Do you seriously believe they are going to plan on reloading that 30mm in a hostile situation? Even though that cannon has an effective range of 17,000 feet and a stinger has an effective range of 11,000 feet...when it becomes necessary to fire that thing, they are going to go for maximum effectiveness and that means getting close...close enough for some goat herder to take a shot.

Not quite. 17,000 feet is your effective range at best elevation on land. If you fire that gun from 17,001 feet, it's still going to hit the ground. Gravity is your friend. That's why the missile can not hit you, but you can hit it at will. AC-130s don't drop down low and strafe now, and there's no reason to assume this one would. Also, they have a guy that babysits the gun and reloads it. That's his job. He's a "loader". All gunships work that way. The 105mm on a -130U has a guy that does nothing but feed it shells all day long. What kind of combat situation would prevent this? By your own admission, they can't even be attacked by the forces they're being converted to engage.

What they are hoping for is a stop gap measure to provide ground forces with some first hand on site intel for extended periods and if necessary, provide short term aerial support if called on...something they haven't been able to do effectively with helicopters or jets.

Do you have a better solution? All of the ones you've put forward are more expensive than this one, with less capability.

[JunkyII]

Why spend money on a big fat bird when we could out fit all of the guys on the ground with grade A equipment...oh wait we already do have that. I think the military is running out of ideas for new weapons 

[Ruler2]

Why spend money on a big fat bird when we could out fit all of the guys on the ground with grade A equipment...oh wait we already do have that. I think the military is running out of ideas for new weapons 

So just use the old ones that ended war in a day! N00KTIME! 

[Halo]

Apparently just an accessory thing, nothing like the dedicated USAF AC-130 gunships.

[Stoney]

Apparently just an accessory thing, nothing like the dedicated USAF AC-130 gunships.

Exactly.  The KC-130 is THE utility, swing-role aircraft in the Marine Corps.  We use them for everything:  refueling, transport, paradrops (both personnel and supplies), radio relay, airborne command and control, and now it appears, some visual surveillance and light fire support.  I've even seen them used for flare missions while I was at 29 Palms.

[Grayeagle]

They are also very useful at tear-gassing a city.. altho it was an 'accident' .. no really . .wind wasn't supposed to blow
into Taegu .. they promised.

Really.

We laffed our butts off tho.. standin around in our chem suits while the stuff blew into town instead of hangin around where we were .. ROFL.

-GE aka Frank (oh yaa .. the Mayor was *HOT* I heard .. lotsa angry people ..Taegu ..population 2million+ back then

[JunkyII]

Army did the same thing with the Strykers, they can be modified for all types of missions, saves money in the long run

[Demetrious]

I love how there's all these loudmouth air force critics (many of them current or former air force officers,) who scream and cry about how the modern Air Force has a dearth of CAS aircraft, when things like this baby are prowling and growling.