Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on January 10, 2010, 11:14:08 AM
-
The KC-130J Harvest Hawk...interesting.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/05/marine_kc130weapons_053009w/
-
Finally, a very nice SUPER arse kicking package! :aok
-
If I wanted to join the forces, I would want to be in one of those.
-
Everything is on the BACK of this thing? For some reason that just doesn't sound like optimal placement to me...
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
bizarre idea :headscratch:
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
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.
:lol 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.
:noid
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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)
-
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.
-
$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.
-
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 :aok
-
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 :aok
So just use the old ones that ended war in a day! N00KTIME! :devil
-
Apparently just an accessory thing, nothing like the dedicated USAF AC-130 gunships.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
Army did the same thing with the Strykers, they can be modified for all types of missions, saves money in the long run :salute
-
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.