Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
H/MC-130J?  
User currently offlineCFD208 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8258 times:

Has anyone heard anyting about converting the C-130J for Spec Ops and CSAR? The HC-130J or MC-130J? I heard a rumor of adding a radio operator and a nav so that it would be mission capable. But that's just a rumor. I've seen the Marine's KC-130J with the air refueling pods.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can't speak for USAF but...

Lockheed would sure like to sell a HC-130P/MC-130P replacement. The 30 somethings piloting FY 63 & FY 64 HC-130Ps would sure like to fly something other than their grandfathers C-130. Heck they'd be happy to get a AMPd airplane...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph Duenas - Jetwash Images




Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8197 times:

There is a W model comming out. A friend of mine just got picked up for them.

User currently offlineCFD208 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8183 times:

If by W, you mean the weather birds, or Hurricane Hunters, they are already in service and have been for some time now at Keesler AFB.

User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8161 times:



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 2):
If by W, you mean the weather birds, or Hurricane Hunters, they are already in service and have been for some time now at Keesler AFB.

Negative. Not WC-130 but rather MC-130W. I'm well aware of the boys at the 53rd.  Wink


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8120 times:



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 4):
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 2):
If by W, you mean the weather birds, or Hurricane Hunters, they are already in service and have been for some time now at Keesler AFB.


Negative. Not WC-130 but rather MC-130W.

I believe they are now all WC-130Js.

Quoting CFD208 (Thread starter):
Has anyone heard anyting about converting the C-130J for Spec Ops and CSAR? The HC-130J or MC-130J?



Quoting CFD208 (Thread starter):
I've seen the Marine's KC-130J with the air refueling pods.

There is the new AC-130J for SPECOPS, I'm sure there will be new build HC/MC-130Js in the near future.


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8085 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
There is the new AC-130J for SPECOPS, I'm sure there will be new build HC/MC-130Js in the near future.

There are no AC-130J acft, but there is an effort underway to explore the options to acquire some new smaller Gunships for AFSOC...Gunship Lite.


User currently offlineCFD208 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8082 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I'm sure there will be new build HC/MC-130Js in the near future.

The J doesn't have a Nav or Radio Op like the HC and MC does, so does anyone think they'll add them? I know the J has all that fancy GPS navigation, but when they are flying through the mountains at or below 500ft, a Nav is pretty nessessary. And the Radio Oper's are very handy handling their radios and aiding the Nav.


User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8051 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I believe they are now all WC-130Js.

Yes there are WC-130J. The aircraft I am referring to is a completely different airplane that has nothing to do with weather.. It is a new version of the MC-130, the MC-10W. The W has nothing to do with with weather. It is called the Combat Spear. From the photo it is not based off of the model Js.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4887


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7999 times:



Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8):
It is a new version of the MC-130, the MC-10W. The W has nothing to do with with weather. It is called the Combat Spear

Or...the "Combat Wombat"!


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7977 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 6):
There are no AC-130J acft, but there is an effort underway to explore the options to acquire some new smaller Gunships for AFSOC...Gunship Lite.

He may have read this like some of the rest of us have:

"The outlook for Lockheed Martin's C-130J, at least initially, looks somewhat bleak despite the proposed production shutdown in 2006. Air Force officials believe several factors will soften that blow. Congress is expected to continue its support of the airlifter's purchase for its Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units, particularly since the active Air Force will try to replace its oldest C-130s (at Pope AFB, N.C., and Ramstein AB, Germany) with the new J-models borrowed from reserve components as the active and reserve/ANG units are melded in coming years. KC-130J tanker and AC-130J gunship production is expected to replace regular C-130J production as the need for special forces operations grows and as a result of the analysis of alternatives for USAF tanker aircraft. The Pentagon also has signed a multiyear contract with Lockheed Martin to buy C-130Js through 2009. Breaking that will incur financial penalties."


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7959 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
KC-130J tanker and AC-130J gunship production is expected to replace regular C-130J production as the need for special forces operations grows and as a result of the analysis of alternatives for USAF tanker aircraft.

The SOF/Rescue Tanker Re-Cap AoA in no way addresses a "need" for more Gunships.

Reading this story I can see where there could be some confusion...the statement above "AC-130J gunship production is expected to replace regular C-130J production" can only come from one source...those seeking to SELL more C-130J acft.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7949 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 11):
The SOF/Rescue Tanker Re-Cap AoA in no way addresses a "need" for more Gunships.

Reading this story I can see where there could be some confusion...the statement above "AC-130J gunship production is expected to replace regular C-130J production" can only come from one source...those seeking to SELL more C-130J acft.

Nope...no confusion. The need is 100% there. Looks like the priority will be switching to some new AC-130's...not surprising for anyone who actually knows what is going on with Air Force Special Operations aircraft currently...but it could be surprising I guess for someone who doesn't know anything about that. Either way...of course they want to sell more 130's...who wouldn't if they were running that business?


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7879 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
like the priority will be switching to some new AC-130's...not surprising for anyone who actually knows what is going on with Air Force Special Operations aircraft currently...but it could be surprising I guess for someone who doesn't know anything about that

Wow...someone who's profile lists Langley AFB as their location questions my situational awareness of AFSOC (SOCOM) requirements...I'm crushed...OK I'm over it...

I can only say we shall see which path AFSOC/SOCOM chooses to meet the requirement of increasing CAS fire support platforms.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 7844 times:

The MC130W's are headed out to Cannon soon and there are several of my buddies down here at RND who are gonna be part of the initial crews. They're all eagerly looking forward to it (especially Cannon AFB). Tee hee hee.

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7826 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 11):
the statement above "AC-130J gunship production is expected to replace regular C-130J production" can only come from one source...those seeking to SELL more C-130J acft.

Do you mean this?.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...o-aircraft-we-have-a-winner-03372/

A Great Big Bunch Of You: Contracts and Key Events

Quote:
"Feb 14/08: Perhaps the forced conversion of the C-27J to a joint program was a serious mistake. Aviation Week reports that studies contend the USAF will have little use for the C-27J, though the US Army needs it. Key excerpts:

'...the reports – including a study by Rand Corp. and the separate Joint Intra-theater Airlift Fleet Analysis Mix – are complete…. all the reports contend that the U.S. Air Force should not acquire the two-engine Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).... 'We operated C-27s in Panama for years and the [benefit] doesn't justify the cost,' says a long-time airlift commander and acquisition official. 'And we know that the Rand report pooh-poohs JCA for the Air Force. The Army needs it, but the Air Force has no business with a two-engine aircraft'…."


Quoting Curt22 (Reply 13):
I can only say we shall see which path AFSOC/SOCOM chooses to meet the requirement of increasing CAS fire support platforms.

Maybe re-posting this would help indicate which direction is that?.....From the same link above.....

Quote:
"Meanwhile, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) wants to turn the C-27J into a light gunship that can get in and out of small landing strips, and has placed $74.8 million for 2 C-27Bs in its FY 2008 unfunded requirements list. Gunships can be huge difference-makers in counterinsurgency firefights, and the request would see AFSOC gain new light transports 2 years ahead of schedule. Aviation Week: 'Pentagon Withholding Airlift Info'."


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-27J_lg.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7794 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 15):
Quote:
"Meanwhile, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) wants to turn the C-27J into a light gunship that can get in and out of small landing strips, and has placed $74.8 million for 2 C-27Bs in its FY 2008 unfunded requirements list. Gunships can be huge difference-makers in counterinsurgency firefights, and the request would see AFSOC gain new light transports 2 years ahead of schedule. Aviation Week: 'Pentagon Withholding Airlift Info'."

Wow, look at that...an actual public released story that does not mention C-130J as Gunships!

How can this story be right...when there are people like Checksixx "who actually knows what is going on with Air Force Special Operations..."???

So as not to stray too far from the thread...I didn't say AFSOC was not seeking more CAS platforms...only that the HC/MC Re-Cap AoA did NOT address future Gunships in any way.

I guess the unwashed and uninformed should just sit here at 86.42W - 30.25N and wait for the next words of wisdom from those "who actually know what is going" as it relates to AFSOC's future efforts. LOL


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7785 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 13):
Wow...someone who's profile lists Langley AFB as their location questions my situational awareness of AFSOC (SOCOM) requirements...I'm crushed...OK I'm over it...

I can only say we shall see which path AFSOC/SOCOM chooses to meet the requirement of increasing CAS fire support platforms.

Curt, I wasn't questioning you...I was simply making a statement in reference to what I had originally posted. Surely, if you are involved in/with it, you'd know I'm talking about the recent chatter about having such high time, beat up, heavily used AFSOC aircraft...and the need for replacement. I know you had not mentioned anything about that...I wonder why?...but I wasn't trying to discredit you. Matter of fact, your the only one really attacking anyone.


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7764 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 17):
Matter of fact, your the only one really attacking anyone

Not attacking, but was having fun at your expense...

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 12):
Looks like the priority will be switching to some new AC-130's...not surprising for anyone who actually knows what is going on with Air Force Special Operations aircraft currently...but it could be surprising I guess for someone who doesn't know anything about that

Perhaps I misunderstood your quote above as an "attack"...when it was really just a comment from "someone who doesn't know anything" about the issue? If so, my apologies.

Yes, the Gunships have been ridden hard and put away wet for many years now...and yes, the acft will require significant structural repairs sooner than expected.

No, there is no plan underway to "replace" these acft, but there is a plan to increase the number of CAS platforms by adding a smaller, lighter (less costly) Gunship.

Yes, there is a long term plan to develop the next generation of Gunship that will replace the current fleet, but this effort is decades away from becoming a bonafide program and little chance that any C-130 variant will be the acft of choice for the "Star Trek" like Gunship of the future. (think of a Low Observable platform with "War of the Worlds" death rays and crap like that!)


User currently offlineTexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7736 times:

Cannon's not that bad, as long as you like the desert, and hate civilization.

The Spectre's can be kept airworthy for well past another decade. Maybe not pretty, but airworthy. Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7690 times:



Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 19):
Cannon's not that bad, as long as you like the desert, and hate civilization.

Same can be said of Minot (substitute desert for tundra  Wink)


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7656 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 18):
Not attacking, but was having fun at your expense...

Ahh...I see...You're just trolling then...gotchya.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 18):
Perhaps I misunderstood your quote above as an "attack"...when it was really just a comment from "someone who doesn't know anything" about the issue? If so, my apologies.

Trolling again here...got it.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 18):
No, there is no plan underway to "replace" these acft, but there is a plan to increase the number of CAS platforms by adding a smaller, lighter (less costly) Gunship.

Who said anything about a plan to replace them?? But I assure you, there have been talks about that very issue for quite some time now. I'm still amazed that you havn't mentioned that. But then again, what do I know right? You're the resident expert now apparently...Troll away Curt!


User currently offlineCFD208 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

Well, I appriciate all the feedback, but I think the topic strayed from my original question about Navs and Radio Operators. I'm guessing no one has heard anything about what I was talking about.

User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7602 times:



Quoting CFD208 (Reply 22):
I think the topic strayed from my original question about Navs and Radio Operators. I'm guessing no one has heard anything about what I was talking about

Sorry, your right...I've strayed from the question...Yes, the HC/MC "ReCap" effort is moving along and the first increment of acft will be C-130J's. Apparently the jury is still out if follow on acft (outside the FYDP) will be sole source to LM, or if the USAF will compete the contract giving the A-400 time to catch up and get in the game.

I haven't heard of any changes to force structure for the tanker crews, and suspect the same crew compliment will be used as seen today, but that's just my guess.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic H/MC-130J?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
RAF C-130J Paint posted Sun Aug 12 2007 01:00:07 by ZANL188
CF C-130J And C-17 posted Mon May 28 2007 06:55:00 by ZBBYLW
C-130J - A Short Tribute posted Mon Dec 18 2006 21:35:39 by RichardPrice
C-130J Or A400M - What's The Better Aircraft? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 07:19:12 by AirRyan
MC-130 Question posted Mon Aug 29 2005 04:23:36 by Jetjack74
C-130J Problems? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 23:07:47 by CannibalZ3
Hercules C-130J posted Sat Mar 12 2005 13:31:39 by MauriceB
First Look At The HC-130J posted Mon Jun 28 2004 07:01:58 by L-188
RAF C-130J In Midair posted Wed May 26 2004 17:59:29 by Spacepope
C-130J-30 Delivery posted Mon Mar 1 2004 23:26:32 by SKYMASTER

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format