So the Marine Corps’ KC-130J Harvest Hawk has been around for a little while now. As you know, Harvest Hawks are KC-130J tankers equipped with plug and play air to ground missile and sensor systems allowing them to pinch hit as gunships for Marines on the ground, and they’ve been doing plenty of shooting in Afghanistan considering the amount of rockets painted on the fuselage of the Harvest Hawk shown in the video below. It provides a great view of the inside of the Marines’ latest gunships, showing the Hellfire rockets on the wings and the Griffin rocket launchers on the aft cargo ramp and all the leathernecks inside who fly the beast and operate the weapons and sensors.
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
And the ghosts of Spirit 03 cried out "watch out in daylight operations against opponents with air defenses!"
Yeah, these things are real tip of the spear.
Probably not, but someone will attempt it in a pinch, especially when it comes to loiter time.
how cost fly-hour? 130M$ for carrie 4 hellfire & 8 griffin?. i hope she hold tanker role in the same sortie, doesn´t her?
I'm sure that's cheaper then designing a brand new platform to do the same thing…And the 130 is something, along with the b-52 is a proven workhorse and has been a great return on investment. It was made to last unlike anything that this country produces now!
The C-130J is not made here! It is assembled here, but it ceased to be made here many years ago. Walk the floor in their Marietta facility and see if you can find a single machine producing parts. It is nothing but a glorified warehouse, a shell of what it used to be. They import major subassemblies from all over the world. They're so proud of it, they hang flags for each of the countries that supply the various pieces (http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Flags-flown-under.jpg). It's a regular walk of shame. Your tax dollars hard at work — subsidizing other countries.
It may be cheaper, but it takes longer to put an aircraft together. If we had to import parts from all over the world for WW2, the Soviets would've taken all of Europe by the time we were ready.
That is just how you do business today. Everybody gets to put on a screw. Don't like it? Then you don't sell any.
The [nation X]'s want to "create jobs" back home, as the conditions for procuring.
Absolutely true ! International trade is just that…TRADE !
And by the way, it doesn't take a day longer to do it this way than if everything were actually manufactured in house
Seems like a waste or at least not cost effective.
The reason they are so expensive is that the Plug in Mission Module was originally designed for the Littoral Combat Ships!
You should see the C-130 with the LCS anti-sub torpedos.
Awsome I like it. A sort of a AC-130 w/o cannon but with missiles cool.
I agree, it does look pretty cool without the 120mm, but i think they should at least add a 100mm or somthing, just for that " Shock and Awe" effect on the targets below
Weren't they going to fit these with a 30mm Mk.44 cannon?
The latest plan is to have another contractor mount the 30mm chain gun on a pallet. That way all LM has to do is bolt the pallet to the floor. Even they can't screw-up that job, or that's what the Marines are hoping.
It would too cheap to simply design the kits and have them assembled by units in the field…who could then improvise better fittings as needed.
What they are trying to do is probably a good approach. It leaves LM on the hook if the floor of their planes can't take the loads as advertised.
The 30MM is goin gto be instled as well.
I think that's why the USMC was begging for an AC-130 gunship of their own.
should add Gun package for offensive role aside rockets & missiles.
Nice touch with fwd Vulcan cannon in nose.
Or 40mm cannon on side, just 1 set can Help.
Well done Marines. I am envious of your ability to do end runs around the Air Force's effort to monopolize CAS. Now if only the Army could get it's own organic CAS platform!
Its called the AH-64 Apache.
No, the Apache was designed and fielded to be an anti-armor maneuver element of its own, and NOT to be a close air support platform. Use it for close air support at your own peril. Their procedures for working close to friendly troops leavce much to be desired.
There's plenty of Gun Cam footage that shows how effective they are in the Close Air Support role.
Close air support isn't about platforms, it's how you train and integrate it into your forces. It's not like the Cobra is any worse as a close support platform or the Hueys of Vietnam.
Wrong, the AH-64 is fitted with a gun and can use 2.75mm rockets for CAS hopefully eventually turning the rockets into PGMs. Those rockets can shoot through windows at 5 km from low level, elimintating most older AAA threats. Of course the Army needs to move on this faster, but, ithas and always will be a great CAS asset.
This is a wonderful addition to the versatility of the C-130. Cost is less than a AC-130 and it can be switched back to do cargo or mid-air refueling. Now it just needs a gun, hopefully soon. Real CAS again !!!
Surely they can't be providing CAS from high altitude. No grunt would ever be satisfied with that! No sir, to do real CAS you have to get down in the weeds. Just check out any A-10 thread for confirmation.
Sarcasm aside, it's good to see this system working out. The Air Force might do well to take note- they've already deployed C-130s in the video surveillance role, this would be an almost-incremental step.
The folks in the weeds shoot back. Thus the loss of so many choppers. The A-10's days are fading. Those old horses have been rode hard & are headed to the bone yard.
I hear people say its a waste to do this. But what I see is the Marine Corps. adding another use to a platform. Sounds like it would be more cost effective to better utilize your aircraft.
I debate how many "free C-130s" the Marines would have on hand at any given moment.
The Marines probably have more KC-130s than the Air Force has available AC-130 Spectre Gunships on hand.
Exactly and I think that some are forgetting that this is basically just a bolt on package meaning that it doesn't permanently turn the KC-130 into an AC-130. It means that when needed Marine Corps KC-130J's can be pressed into service as make shift gunships adding an additional capability to the Corp's KC-130s.
One question remains. Why the HELL didn't they do this sooner???
Because before Iraq stretched our military thin, they had enough CAS platforms. When Iraq kicked off and kept escalating, the CAS was needed more there than in Afghanistan. When we finally got back to a larger focus on Afghanistan, airframes were stretched thin, especially with the higher Op-tempo. Not to mention that the Taliban has become much more resilient than we predicted. Unfortunately it takes time as well to integrate a weapons package onto any aircraft, not just cargo aircraft. Just be glad they have them now and are going to likely increase them.
Typical Marine behavior: pick a perfectly good weapon from another service, complain that it's the wrong color and build a copy, half as effective and 7 times the price then generate huge amounts of PR claiming to have a unique disability .
"….half as effective and 7 times the price then generate huge amounts of PR …."
Please provide factual evidence of these statements, as related to the Harvest Hawk.
"….claiming to have a unique disability".
Does that need proof-reading, or do you actually mean what it says?
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
neither funny nor correct.
Please do better next time.
They now have two capabilities from one platform. As a taxpayer, that is what I want; some ingenuity to stretch tax dollars. So you are advocating that they maintan seperate fleets of transports and gunships? That seems way to costly compared to this solution. I'm speculating you are from another service given your criticism and comments about their "PR." If so, please remember our people are in harm's way; there's no room for service rivalry.
But, uhhh, how much more does it cost to fire missiles than shoot the guns of the AC130? It sounds like a bad deal… but maybe I'm wrong. I assume the missiles are pretty darn expensive! And BOTH need support systems…
The point is you can roll on the Griffins, shoot 10 targets, land and then roll them off. You can't exactly pop a 105 and a 40 in and out of place the same way and call it a day.
Yes they'd probably prefer AC-130s (and the money to buy them) but in this case, it's working with what you have.
one SA-7,or one RPG, one dead KC130J…in the eyes of a insurgent….priceless
That guy would have to be the luckiest man on earth to hit and destroy one of these orbiting several thousand feet above with a RPG. You wouldn't want to deploy these around an enemy with MANPADS but the old SA-7 is easily fooled by flares and even if it hit there is a good chance it would only cause some non-critical damage.
Spirit 03 got nailed by a SA-7. Or at least, that is the generally accepted story.
I imagine it was not for want of countermeasures, either…
And yes, with an RPG it is pretty much luck, though I think the self-destruct fuze will destroy the rocket before it gets close to an overhead loitering target.
Wow that made me laugh. These birds are more than likely going to be flying above 10k. An RPG would have no chance getting there, unless you fired at the bird when it was taking off or landing. The SA-7 would have a better chance, but at the altitude these fly, it makes it even less likely. And besides, they would rather use the SA-7 and RPGs on our helicopters than one of the multitude of C-130s flying around over there.
Trying to pass as someone who knows what they are talking about………dangerous
One of the key reasons the 30mm MK44 Bushmaster gun didn't replace the 40mm Bofors and 25mm GAU-12s in AC-130s was because of concerns of the gun's accuracy.
Multiple users of the same gun family mounted in armored ground vehicles will attest that the gun's accuracy isn't lacking in the least.
The accuracy issues were the fault of the engineers and integrators who rapidly designed an adhoc mount for the 30mm gun into the AC-130 for tests.
The mount wasn't optimized to fully compensate for all the gun's differences in various recoil impulses and other stresses, compared to the 25, 40, and 105mm guns already in service (none of which have ever been consistently condemned for any concerns of inaccurate fire on the target.
I haven't a clue why the sense of a common caliber (just 30, rather than both 25 and 40mm) didn't sink in, other than the fact that the F-35 can utilize the same 25mm ammunition types available. Those 40mm shells are very production-specific to AC-130s, and thus expensive.
Hang on, We have some really over educated ( Did someone say a Harrier pilot?)people running this “gun ship” shooting really expensive missiles…. Er, I can understand the need to hit what you are aiming at, but man, that’s a bit pricey at $65,000.00 or so a pop. As compaired to 100 rounds of 20mm at $300.00 or 40MM at roughly the same cost or maybe even a 105 HE round at a respectable $250 per round
Didn't the jarheads have a Bronco with a 20mm belly turret for a night gunship back in Gulf War 1?
a bit low and loud but dang that will keep haji's head down…
"The U.S. Marine Corps OV-10 Night Observation Gunship (NOGS) program modified four OV-10As to include a turreted forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and turreted 20 mm (.79 in) M197 gun slaved to the FLIR aimpoint. NOGS succeeded in Vietnam, but funds to convert more aircraft were not approved. NOGS evolved into the NOS OV-10D, which included a laser designator, but no gun."
1. TSS is a piece of crap in this installation. Boresight issues, jitter issues, problems with the control software/hardware. Part 1* type deficiencies (FLIR is awesome, EO not so much).
2. Not as RO-RO as you might think. Requires modification of the plane.
3. Have to de-pressurize to shoot Griffin/Viper Strike. Solution requires more #2 – A special door launcher that goes in place of a paratroop door. Pretty slick, but further compromises the plane for other missions.
5. No usable external fuel. They evidently have put the fuselage tanks back in the HH birds.
4. Probably a 60% solution that never would have deployed as is if we weren't in a war.
5. The grunts evidently like it well enough, which is the ultimate compliment to the system.
6. A Herk certainly has more airframe life than an F-XX, so takes some burden off of them.
7. Gun keeps getting put off. It's evidently harder than it looks and the missiles work well enough.
A gunship without guns. That would be pause for concern. I predict that this approach will not work. An AC-130 with 20mm/30mm rotary guns and 105mm/120mm cannon and the latest electronics not available on early model AC-130s would make sense.
Murphy's law in combat: What is not going to work, will not work.
The AC-130 gunships have provided great service for a long time with their current configuration, just upgrade the fire control systems……job done, you all here are blinded by how smart you all think you are…..you’re not….simple is better, always has been. Real world experience tells you that….smh…
This thing looks awsome! I've heard of the C-130 and the AC-130, but now the KC-130!? How much is it, cause i'm wanting one for my 15th birthday!
Just a quick comment – why develop something that is already developed? Is the Air Force again failing to live up to it's dedication to CAS? And what about collateral damage? And finally in tightening military budgets is this a wise thing to do?