C130J (Herc) info

[Champ Kind]

Gross.

This is starting to remind me of Rainman's "pegboy" reference, but for some reason, that was funnier. Probably the context in which it was used.

[ElLoco]

2...seriously ...why..?

[The Ginger]

Getting this thread back on topic - Who has dates on the Yokota transition? Are they going to finish Little Rock first? Herc skills are dying on the vine in the 19th. Still waiting on 5 tails on the factory, but deploying on par with Dyess. Got maybe 10 sorties last week for two squadrons. How do you do flight lead upgrade with that?? Meanwhile, Yokota launches a 10-ship and Dyess "deploys" to Greece and is proficient GPS-out.

[RASH]

^^leadership^^

[The Ginger]

eh?

[RASH]

Reference your second paragraph about skills...

[Herk Driver]

Getting this thread back on topic - Who has dates on the Yokota transition? Are they going to finish Little Rock first? Herc skills are dying on the vine in the 19th. Still waiting on 5 tails on the factory, but deploying on par with Dyess. Got maybe 10 sorties last week for two squadrons. How do you do flight lead upgrade with that?? Meanwhile, Yokota launches a 10-ship and Dyess "deploys" to Greece and is proficient GPS-out.

Get LR manning back down close to 100% and it would help. Get Mx to generate more sorties instead of what? Only about 30 a week? Of those 30 you guys only get about 10 that are productive, right? Sounds like someone needs to figure out the Mx generation piece and stop with the 130-150% manning.

How many Dyess tails are loaned out to the schoolhouse? How about the WIC when they ask? Nothing sinister here. Just a different set up for an organization that tried to learn lessons along the way and not repeat "mistakes" of the past.

[Kilgore Trout]

Getting this thread back on topic - Who has dates on the Yokota transition? Are they going to finish Little Rock first? Herc skills are dying on the vine in the 19th. Still waiting on 5 tails on the factory, but deploying on par with Dyess. Got maybe 10 sorties last week for two squadrons. How do you do flight lead upgrade with that?? Meanwhile, Yokota launches a 10-ship and Dyess "deploys" to Greece and is proficient GPS-out.

You'll see the first Yokota slots doled out to UPT and FAIPs in the next few months. Expect these PIQ pilots to enter JMATS in the December-February timeframe to get to Yokota in Fall of '16 with the first tail.

You're leaving out that Dyess has more tails assigned than Little Rock, Little Rock has 3 deployments to 3 different continents right now and the COCOMs are requesting this be increased, Little Rock has multiple tails in ISO due to all of the initial tails showing up at one time, they have several tails at the factory being modified to 6.6 and soon to be 8.1, and just last summer 5 turn 5 existed prior to the current deployment cycle.

If you feel you need more Herk skills, Little Rock has participated in JFE, JRTC, and has JOAX on the books. Sign up. If everything is out the door then you have plenty of time to study 3-1 and 3-3 and come up with new methods and means for when the tails return home in the fall.

The initiatives at Dyess were generated by Captains and approved by leadership. The same could happen at Little Rock, and there's no better time than now because all leadership is on board. The SQ/CC's, OSS, incoming OG, and new Wing Commander are "push it up, get the planes dirty" tac airlifters. You've got more top cover than ever so if you have ideas and proposals then there's never a better time than now.

We like to blame "leadership" for our skills atrophying because few of us are brave enough to look in the mirror and decide we haven't made the most of our own training opportunities. Sign up for JOAX and JRTC this fall and lead a Red Flag Alaska like Little Rock did a few months ago. Don't just print a 280 and do what the guy's did last week, your training is your own.

You should never rely on someone else to make you a better pilot. That's intrinsic. Roll up your sleeves and lead the young punks in the mission planning room and set the example of what a true tac airlifter is. Maximize that 3 turn 3 schedule to prevent guys dying on the vine. Don't just waste your time on a canned SKE-VIS-PRO. Don't blame the mythical "leadership", especially now that the current Wing Commander is a Herk guy through and through.

[RASH]

To clarify my comment about leadership--not blaming current leadership by any stretch of the imagination. And KT is spot on!

[Herkasaurus]

Getting this thread back on topic - Herc skills are dying on the vine in the 19th. Still waiting on 5 tails on the factory, but deploying on par with Dyess. Got maybe 10 sorties last week for two squadrons. How do you do flight lead upgrade with that?? Meanwhile, Yokota launches a 10-ship and Dyess "deploys" to Greece and is proficient GPS-out.

I just assume you're a troll, cause most of your info is pretty much dead ass wrong in terms of deployments, tails, and general SA. Yokota does a "Launch the Fleet" every year, you must have been on the portal the right day and it spun you up. Dyess didn't deploy the Greece, they asked dad and he said yes.

If you want to do lead upgrade, you coordinate with the other squadron and inter fly unless MX falls on their face and can't even generate 3 fücking tails. In that case, you deal with it and wait for another day to get a 3 ship.

As far as Dyess being the proponent of this shit, yea they're definitely doing it cause they're all former KLRF guys who couldn't get shit done with the Rat and now has leadership to support them. But if you open your eyes, you'll notice that fücker is gone like a fart in the wind. Like KT said, we have strong leadership here at the Rock now and it's time for the IP's/MC's to stand up and stop doing the standard shit. You don't have to wear a patch to get out there and learn something by trying.

"Skills dying on the vine" is a lazy cop out, because anyone can get out there and get the j-o-b done despite of who sits atop the 19th with their scepter. How did we manage to deploy these last 2 years with that destructive strat airlifter? Cause we're Herk guys and we don't fück around despite the fact we're still the "leopards" of AMC. New airplane? Don't give a fück, it's still tac airlift and AMC could care less about it.

Now's the time to see what this airplane is capable of. We have the talent and support. When Dyess deploys and they have no iron on the ramp, then they'll have to sit back and watch as the tables are turned. But to sit there and throw spears without a solution as you look at the problem through your straw is the standard J baby copilot mentality.

And no, I will not say FP...that's gayer than a bag of dicks.

[i.o.w.a]

Hell, I'll help defend the J-baby copilot troll. Kilgore and Herkasaurus, if the new SQ/CC's and Wing/CC's are awesome "let's get dirty" tac airlifters, why is it too much to ask to be led to JOAX, and led to JRTC, why are they always kicking and screaming when we send our tails there to get good training? (Whether JRTC is good training can be debated another day.) I'd love it if the next time I flew with someone in leadership they would pull GPS cb's on Ship Solution 2 and make me do an OAP update, show me how to juice up a sortie so the skills don't die on the vine. I agree we blame leadership too much, but is it too much to ask to be led?

So while I will self identify as a part of the problem when I circle the flag pole on my SKE-VIS-PRO fat dumb and happy, I won't stand by and be told I have good leadership above me which will defend decisions to push up the profiles. How about leadership step down into the dirt and show me how to be a tac airlifter? Why is it that this inspiring speech for IP's/MC's to stop doing standard shit is coming from the reputable "Herkasaurus" and not from the OG/CC or my Squadron Commander when he is in the seat next to me?

Ginger wants some leadership, not just top cover. I don't think that is too much to ask. In the meantime, while leadership grows a pair like you are telling us to, I'm sure she or he will do what it takes to advance their own proficiency. But let's not pretend that that is the way it is suppose to be.

DISCLAIMER: Absent from the Rock for two months, maybe the leadership is inspiring now...but I've been reading my email, and it doesn't sound like it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We like to blame "leadership" for our skills atrophying because few of us are brave enough to look in the mirror and decide we haven't made the most of our own training opportunities. Sign up for JOAX and JRTC this fall and lead a Red Flag Alaska like Little Rock did a few months ago. Don't just print a 280 and do what the guy's did last week, your training is your own. "

[Champ Kind]

What about bases where "leadership" are co-pilots, basic ACs (that generally only fly with IPs), or senior office course guys. I hear that's a thing.

[ElLoco]

But to sit there and throw spears without a solution as you look at the problem through your straw is the standard J baby copilot mentality.

And no, I will not say FP...that's gayer than a bag of dicks.

Please...like the legacy copilot "mentality" is any different.

[Hueypilot]

Are we seriously comparing copilot mentalities?

[Herkasaurus]

why is it too much to ask to be led to JOAX, and led to JRTC, why are they always kicking and screaming when we send our tails there to get good training? (Whether JRTC is good training can be debated another day.)

Right now they are kicking and screaming when the tails go there because we simply don't have the tails. If we were full up on planes, no one would care. And JRTC is awesome training, but LR treats it like a burden and doesn't take advantage of it. The guard sends crews that are stacked with an average of like 2500hrs...the last one I did was full of indoc because it would get a lot of beans. JRTC is no place for indoc and logging beans, it's for experienced crews to go and refine their skills. We don't send indoc to AATTC (way different level), but we take it seriously. It's a shitty mentality that needs to go away.

I'd love it if the next time I flew with someone in leadership they would pull GPS cb's on Ship Solution 2 and make me do an OAP update, show me how to juice up a sortie so the skills don't die on the vine. I agree we blame leadership too much, but is it too much to ask to be led?

Why does leadership have to do this? Look at what Champ just said, most senior leaders in the community are legacy guys and are just now learning the plane. Why can't you just ask your line IP to teach you about GPS? That's why we have table top briefings. Which I'll admit, it's pretty piss poor most of the time cause our timeline doesn't allow for much table top discussion. In the legacy we always had time, but we also had Navs to help with the mission planning. You need to take some ownership and ask for help. The way you wrote that question talking about pulling CBs, it's clear that you don't have a clue how to do it...ask someone for help, any IP will be more than happy to step away the desk they've been chained to and discuss that till you turn blue in the face.

Ginger wants some leadership, not just top cover. I don't think that is too much to ask. In the meantime, while leadership grows a pair like you are telling us to, I'm sure she or he will do what it takes to advance their own proficiency. But let's not pretend that that is the way it is suppose to be.

While the Rat was at the helm, we were specifically told not to drop off of an updated solution. Know why? Cause that fücker was ready to eat everyone alive for that shit. He tried to have a bad bomb board cause a d-bag got stuck in the door after a personnel drop. When you don't have top cover, you can't train properly. When you can't train properly, then skills begin to atrophy. Now there's leadership willing to provide top cover and asking to push it up. The tides are slowly turning, with a little patience we'll get back to where we need to be and how things were before the Rat came in an pissed away the last 2yrs of tac airlift progression.

I hope you had fun at SOS...now dump whatever little you learned and get in the books.

Edit: cause I needed to swear since the Rat truly was a royal shit stain on the community

Edited July 25, 2015 by Herkasaurus

[Clark Griswold]

Herc will probably make it to 100...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/01/14/new-pentagon-contract-signals-lockheed-martins-c-130-airlifter-is-headed-for-100-years-of-service/#2715e4857a0b41d77fdf71fc

On that idea, is there talk in the Herc community of an Next Gen Herc?  I've seen this concept and it looks like it was pulled from a Lockheed presentation:

   

The article referenced above just made me curious if there was talk of another major update.  Not that there is the money for that necessarily...

[HerkPerfMan]

20 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Herc will probably make it to 100...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/01/14/new-pentagon-contract-signals-lockheed-martins-c-130-airlifter-is-headed-for-100-years-of-service/#2715e4857a0b41d77fdf71fc

On that idea, is there talk in the Herc community of an Next Gen Herc?  I've seen this concept and it looks like it was pulled from a Lockheed presentation:

Yep, I've seen that slide in LM presentations. There are a million ideas floating around to mod existing Hercs and how to redesign it for the next iteration. Everything you can imagine modding or bolting on has been presented...and thoroughly evaluated.

The latest variant being pushed by LM is the SC-130J SeaHerc designed for Maritime Patrol/ASW/SAR missions. Think of a bigger, fatter P-3.

As for the Next Generation, assuming the basic configuration remains (straight high-aspect-ratio wing, 4 turboprops, aft ramp), here is my Top 4 in no particular order:

1. Double-slotted flaps and spoilers for improved STOL performance (add some blown lift for even more awesome).

2. Larger, more effective vertical tail with extended dorsal for improved low-speed and engine-out handling (necessary to enable 1).

3. Clean up nose and aft fuselage to reduce drag (compare to the upswept tail designs on the C-141, C-17, and C-5 to see what I mean).

4. High-energy carbon brakes with temperature monitoring to reduce TOLD limitations and cooling times in high/hot locations (I believe these are already being retrofit).

 

[spaceman]

4. High-energy carbon brakes with temperature monitoring to reduce TOLD limitations and cooling times in high/hot locations (I believe these are already being retrofit).

The carbon brakes are already out there... Temperature monitoring would be awesome though.

[Champ Kind]

22 minutes ago, spaceman said:

Temperature monitoring would be awesome though.

And thrust the Herk into the realm of....what, 1980s technology?  More than 10 tac plots, an NVIS mode that doesn't dim down the HUD, and the ability to shoot GPS approaches, and I'm a happy camper.  

Wait, let me guess...  "Block 8".

Edited January 19, 2016 by Champ Kind

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

Yep, I've seen that slide in LM presentations. There are a million ideas floating around to mod existing Hercs and how to redesign it for the next iteration. Everything you can imagine modding or bolting on has been presented...and thoroughly evaluated.

The latest variant being pushed by LM is the SC-130J SeaHerc designed for Maritime Patrol/ASW/SAR missions. Think of a bigger, fatter P-3.

As for the Next Generation, assuming the basic configuration remains (straight high-aspect-ratio wing, 4 turboprops, aft ramp), here is my Top 4 in no particular order:

1. Double-slotted flaps and spoilers for improved STOL performance (add some blown lift for even more awesome).

2. Larger, more effective vertical tail with extended dorsal for improved low-speed and engine-out handling (necessary to enable 1).

3. Clean up nose and aft fuselage to reduce drag (compare to the upswept tail designs on the C-141, C-17, and C-5 to see what I mean).

4. High-energy carbon brakes with temperature monitoring to reduce TOLD limitations and cooling times in high/hot locations (I believe these are already being retrofit).

 

Good Christmas list.  Thanks, I did some google-fu but found just a the slide with the NG and the proposed C-130XL for Herc concepts, besides the past proposed amphibian Herc, which would be cool to the power of 10.

One thing to add to your list, a new JATO system.

Follow on to post:

C-130.net article on a research C-130B in the 50's with boundary layer control over flaps, controllable down to 60 knots but just some lateral control concerns...

 http://www.c-130.net/g3/c-130-photos/North-American-C-130-Photos/USAF-C-130/2013_Spotlight_Web_C130B_C_130B_BoundaryLayerControl_001_1267828237_8045

and from NASA

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/ch8.htm

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Clark Griswold
interesting tidbit of history added

[HerkPerfMan]

+1 on new JATO. Aren't there some extra Solid Rocket Boosters left over from the Space Shuttle Program?

On 1/20/2016 at 8:38 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Follow on to post:

C-130.net article on a research C-130B in the 50's with boundary layer control over flaps, controllable down to 60 knots but just some lateral control concerns...

 http://www.c-130.net/g3/c-130-photos/North-American-C-130-Photos/USAF-C-130/2013_Spotlight_Web_C130B_C_130B_BoundaryLayerControl_001_1267828237_8045

and from NASA

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-3300/ch8.htm

 

The NC-130B was the one and only 6-engine Herc (4 T56 turboprops, and 2 extra T56 turbojets to produce bleed air for the boundary layer control system). The BLC system dropped the stall speeds down to the Cessna 172 range, but it was tricky to control because the ailerons lost effectiveness.

Beyond the other variants Clark mentioned, there was the AWACS mod (not sure if the Navy or Coast Guard still flies these), the C-130WB (Wide Body), a three-holer jet version, a lighter 2-engine version, and the Super-STOL Credible Sport I/II. Most people focus on the massive rocket package, but Credible Sport had several other mods like the extended dorsal, double-slotted flaps, and extended-chord ailerons.

For the finest in 1980's technology, look no further than the Lockheed-built C-130 High Technology Test Bed (HTTB). But seriously, the HTTB was badass with a host of STOL, control, propulsion, and landing gear upgrades that should have made their way to the J model. You'll notice a lot of similarities in among HTTB and my list. Unfortunately, HTTB and its crew were lost during engine-out takeoff testing in 1993.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

 C-130 HTTB...

Fascinating...

I had not heard of that Herc variant before, very cool.  Found this brochure on it from back in the day on it, 140k GW airplane into a 1500' strip over a 50' obstacle... very STOL capable....

 

[HerkPerfMan]

Too bad we'll never again see Lockheed invest in this type of R&D/technology demonstration to improve their products and advance the state of the art.

[Clark Griswold]

Maybe but competition my spur them:

An-178, KC-390 and if you go up in capacity to An-70, might give LM reason to further improve the mighty Herc.  An-178 has already secured some orders, Saudis notably, 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[HerkPerfMan]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe but competition my spur them:

An-178, KC-390 and if you go up in capacity to An-70, might give LM reason to further improve the mighty Herc.  An-178 has already secured some orders, Saudis notably, 

LM doesn't seem too concerned about competition. It helps that they keep booking multi-year deals with USG. The A400M continues to be plagued with problems (even France has requested the purchase of new C-130Js!). The An-70 is all but dead. The An-178 and KC-390 are very similar, but no NATO countries will ever buy a Russian-built transport.

So that leaves the KC-390. Looking at the specs, it is sized exactly like a Herc, and Embraer brings a lot of commercial success to the table. Not much news since their first flight last year. It has better speed and altitude performance, but STOL performance and ruggedness may suffer due to the swept-wing, twin-jet design.

Don't forget about Japan: they have 2 new platforms in flight testing and they are now free to export arms. First is the 4-engine, low-wing Kawasaki P-1 designed as a P-3 replacement and P-8 competitor. Next is the 2-engine, high-wing Kawasaki C-2 which is in the A400M size range. They should be intriguing new entrants to the airlift market.