I'm a blogger with a Marine Corps focus. That makes me part cheerleader, part critic but sometimes. Sometimes. I take a step back, look at what we've done and have to say What the Fuck?!?!
The Harvest Hawk is one of those programs that in hindsight falls into the WHAT THE FUCK camp.
When I first heard about it, I cheered. The Marine Corps is being innovative, forward thinking etc...
Now? All I can say is really? Seriously?
Consider this. The Marine Corps has the F/A-18 A/C/D, all designated to fly Close Air Support and Air Interdiction missions for the Marines. We have the AV-8B Harrier II for the same. Additionally we have the AH-1W/Z Super Cobra/Viper and the UH-1N/Y Venom to also put down fire for our forces.
I won't even list the artillery, mortars, vehicle mounted cannons, infantry carried missiles etc that also provide firepower for our forces.
Yet with all that, we decided to take C-130's and ignore the need to take convoys off the roads and instead turned them into shooters too.
Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is to say no. Turning the KC-130 into the Harvest Hawk was and is a bad idea. Why it was allowed to continue is beyond me. The fix is simple. Give the gear to SOCOM and make the C-130s pure transports again. We have firepower. We need to fix our logistics with the tools we already have on hand.
Looks like someone wanted "spectre light" and managed to sell that idea to the USMC.
ReplyDeleteOf course spectre is a great platform, when it flies at night, in a permissive environment. Those are not conditions that the USMC normally finds itself in when doing traditional Marine missions....
And in the whole as the world spins...
DeleteThe new AC-130J is actually based heavily off the design of the KC-130J HH program. The only major difference is the 30mm gun in the AC-130J will be bolt down instead of palletized. So the KC-130J HH isn't so much as a "specter light" but a "specter".
We needed cheap long endurance firepower. During the summer, the fighting season in Afghanistan, our AV-8B carried 1 500lb JDAM and a targetting pod. Frequently even the gun pod was removed and that was an hour of endurance. That lead to the phrase, "one man, one bomb, one hour."
ReplyDeleteF-18 C/D is little better and still only gives you about an hour and maybe 2 500lb JDAMs.
The Harvest Hawk could fly overhead for about 8-12 hours.
The Army is way ahead of us with the MQ-1C Grey Eagle, 20 hours of endurance equal or better optics, and the same 4 Hellfires.
My answer as an artilleryman is a Shadow UAV and HIMARS GMLRS. A cheap long endurance UAV coupled with a long range highly accurate rocket artillery. Much cheaper and dos not break the bank by flying supersonic jets in slow lazy circles over a battlefield and requiring a tanker overhead as well.
and that's the point. USAF has tons of UAVs ... the Army is putting online the gray eagle .... we have almost everyone in the platoon trained to call for fire and we even have ANGLICO quality JTAC's spread throughout all our battalions.
Deleteadditionally we have the USAF Spectre gunships available. the Commandant keeps barking about the joint fight and how the Marine Corps needs to become more joint but when it comes to firepower we're fighting alone, duplicating skillsets found elsewhere and instead we're becoming joint by adopting the worst practices found in other services and attempting to make them our own.
I am working on writing an article for myself on what I view as the biggest future challenges to the Marine Corps.
DeleteIn the 1990s the USMC did not shrink nearly as much as the Army because we could stand up and say that we were much cheaper.
Now when we have the most expensive rotary wing aircraft (MV-22), fixed wing aircraft (F-35B), and quite possibly infantry fighting vehicle (ACV might cost over 10 million each, EFV was 25 million). When does congress decide that we are not as good a use of tax payer dollars?
right now unless we change direction. Amos is so in love with the MV-22 that he doesn't see that we're at a point where we can't afford it anymore. same goes with the F-35B.
Deletewe're beyond the point of common sense. think about it like this. Marine Air was once a supporting arm and used second hand equipment because its role was clear. CAS for Marine ground forces. AMOS is so wrapped up in supporting either the Air Forces deep strike, the Navy's Fleet defense or supporting SOCOM that we're building an air wing that is waaaay beyond what is necessary to take care of Marine Corps needs.
a day of reckoning is coming and its gonna be nasty.
Or how about this one.
DeleteIn both Iraq and Afghanistan we had complete air dominance and Helos were rarely shot from the sky.
The roads were full of IEDs and buring US vehicles became a common sight on network news across the world.
Our response was to cut the numer of available helo squadrons because we replaced a 12 million dollar aircraft with a 120 million dollar aircraft.
i can't argue it. i can't wait to read this article
DeleteUSMC 0802, HH has more than just the Hellfires. It is getting the griffins and the G-CLAW weapon package as well. G-CLAW is a pretty big game changer for wide area suppression. Its basically got the same effectiveness as a 1000 lb cluster bomb and weighs only 64 lbs. HH with the derringer door can carry almost 100 G-CLAWs.
DeleteSo while a KC-130J with HH doesn't quite have the flight endurance of an MQ-1C, it has a significantly higher capacity of lethal payload, not to mention a 30mm chain gun as well.
There are good reasons for duplicating capabilities (the USMC does operate on an expeditionary doctrine) however none of that is needed in Afghanistan where the USMC should be able to call on Apache gunships, F16s (and even some NATO birds from other countries) out of KAF, and get arty support from USMC and Army units. Joint fight should mean joint support to the warfighter. If the Marines are out there alone, to the point where they are arming C-130s, that means we have failed at conducting the joint fight.
ReplyDeletewell that amplifies my point. the Harvest Hawk was born in the Afghanistan fight and really has no application anywhere else I can think of. in what instance would we take C-130s out of the supply mission to have them fly support when operating in an expeditionary role? we wouldn't. it would be all hands on deck to get the gear to the beach and from the beach to the front. this was a good looking move that in hindsight turns out to be seriously wasted cash.
DeleteExcept it actually wasn't wasted cash as even the new AC-130J is basically a permanently installed HH kit. It so far has been one of the most cost effective programs done in any branch of the military in years. Its has spawned the path forward for both the MC-130J and the AC-130J and has significant commonality with both of them. In addition, it has spawned a whole new crop of weapons that will be used on various platforms by all the service branches with one of the more interesting being the GPS guided CLAW which is small enough (64 lbs!!!) that even small UAVs can carry it and as effective as a 1000 lb cluster bomb.
DeleteIn addition, it allows any KC-130J that is acting as an aerial tanker to also be able to provide fire support. As a KC-130J actually doesn't spend the majority of time shifting fuel, it is actually a very cost effective way of getting more fire support. And when there are other tankers in the area, it can convert rather quickly into full fire support, go out, do a fire support mission, come back and convert into a tanker in about an hour.
Also, HH is a fairly cheap program and its support going forward is largely going to be paid for by other branches of the military. USMC showed the way and the airforce has now decided to adopt it and pick up the tab. So as the AF develops and pays for new weapons/capabilities for its AC-130J/MC-130J programs, the USMC will be able to benefit and use them via the HH packages.
Marines need new A-10's, start building new ones
ReplyDeleteSol, i would say this. While harvest hawk gave up a little in its fuel capability i would have been hurting without it on several occasions as a 0802.
ReplyDeleteIll start weighing in on my opinion a little more now that i'm back.
-John
Does the fact that this kit is modular matter, Sol?
ReplyDeleteWhen you need transport this aircraft can do it. When you need refuelling and Harvest Hawk it can do it.
I thought you liked mission flexibility? Harvest Hawk kit sets you back about $6m a pop. The USMC has bought a massive 11 sets.
It doesn't seem like a show-stopper for the USMC to me.
Its even better than that. The transport plane can do the full transport workload with everything but the 30mm gun installed. It can basically be doing transport runs with Hellfires, Griffins, G-CLAWs, etc. On its way to from a base it can respond to fire support requests and give the support required.
DeleteHH is the essence of the USMC: deadly, flexible, adaptable, and cheap. if anything it is the poster boy for what USMC procurement should be!