Jansen

130611 is in service and will be at the Abbotsford Air Show this weekend. Don't have a delivery date, but it was within the last couple of weeks.

168070 is in service, was spotted at RAF Leuchars 04 August 2011.

There's a thread here: http://www.herkybirds.com/showthread.php?3130-New-Military-Retirement-System&highlight=retirement

Yes, that is including the ones that don't fly for a certain agency, so LM may use 5680 MC-130J 08-6201 as the poster boy for Hercules #2400. My list doesn't include 5057, 5356, 5357, 5359, or 5436-5439.

Incidentally, 5677 #168072 is the 46th KC-130J and the last for the active duty USMC. It will be the 2400th Herk to be built (LM doesn't count the prototypes), and should be going into paint in the next couple of weeks. 5681 will be tail #08-6202, confirmed MC-130J. However, I have 5682 #08-6203 as the 36th delivery.

130613 is now in test flight, seen taking off from Marietta on 28 July. MSN: 5667 Call sign: LAC5667 Mode-S hex code: C2B5A3

I would agree that new engines would be too expensive, that's why I'm so excited about the 3.5 upgrade, along with NP2000/EPCS. It all depends on the optics and how you spin it. This administration is big on fuel economy and being environmentally friendly, and if you can achieve 10% fuel reduction doing an overhaul at minimal additional cost... I think that will be a big part of the NP2000/EPCS battle, and why they've been conducting all of these tests and for so long. It all depends on how you can justify it. Rolls-Royce and LM have signed an agreement to push the 3.5 upgrade, see the June 2011 edition of PROVEN for details: http://www.herkybirds.com/showthread.php?2422-PROVEN-News-from-the-World-of-the-C-130&p=22849&viewfull=1#post22849

Looks to me like it is CNA-OQ, 4892 C130H. [ATTACH=CONFIG]2201[/ATTACH]

In Trenton during the 1980's we had a bird that jumped chocks during engine run up and crashed into another herk. The investigation revealed that the brakes were not functioning because the auxiliary hydraulic system wasn't activated before the run up.

New, or newer? We have a couple of used ones in storage, but the best ones have been going into the H73s. Very surprised if these are brand new CWBs. And that brings up another point...aren't there a whole bunch of H-models already being worked on at Cascade getting new CWBs? If 307 was needed that badly they would use it now, rather than tie it up upgrading the CWB only to retire it in 4-5 months.

Now reported as 78 dead, with 3 wounded survivors. My source says it is CNA-OO (4877), a C-130H built in 1980, but I don't have confirmation on this part yet. Also reported now as 4892 C130H CNA-OQ

May 2011 and June 2011 issues of "PROVEN: News from the World of the C-130" May 2011: USAF increases quantity of Combat Shadow IIs From Hueys to Harvest Hawk:Ordnance Marine arms aircraft in Afghanistan MAFFS certification week gets crews, systems for fire season Hurlburt hosts Talon I dedication ceremony Super Herk helps crush airdrop record Army weapon system a perfect fit for C-130 wing 537th Airlift Squadron flies again after 40 years Thracian Spring 2011 preserves U.S., Bulgarian partnerships IAF C-130J full-mission simulator on schedule Last E-model Hercules leaves Afghanistan, comes home to Trenton June 2011: QATAR FLYING HIGH Rolls Royce, Lockheed Martin sign fuel efficiency agreement Héroux-Devtek announces multi-year C-130J contract GKN Aerospace secures follow-on order for C-130J nacelles Formation airdrop provides needed supplies, saves lives C-130s maintain steady ops in Afghanistan

With the C-5M project, they did a cost-benefit analysis that proved how much money would be saved. Unfortunately it's been ten years since then, so a lot of the benefits for the C-5As have evaporated (hence the decision to scrap all A-models rather than RERP). If some keen guys bucking for promotions were to do something similar I'm sure the case can be made, but a lot of people will make comparisons to the C-5M (unfairly). I would be interested to see what the costs are for NP2000/EPCS and the 3.5 engine upgrades, as well as the payback period. I remember reading somewhere that the USAF alone consumes 10% of America's aviation fuel, which coupled with the reliance on foreign oil is a pretty dangerous situation. Kinda wonder why the civvy operators aren't all over these upgrades. Lower duty cycles/longer payback periods? Waiting for the USAF to proceed to lower costs?

Brand-new member expecting a response within 16 hours on a weekend? That's okay budz, I'm not too impressed with you. :rolleyes:

Does that perception include NP2000 and EPCS? I think those are pretty cost effective over the next 20 years. Might as well do it all in one shot with the AMP and call it the C-130M. Would fit in well with the C-5M program (AMP plus RERP).