fltsload Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Aeronautical Systems Center is in the market for 115 medium-size transport aircraft to replace USAF’s current fleet of HC-130 and MC-130 combat rescue and special operations tankers. A “sources sought†notice says the Air Force expects to take delivery of the first six aircraft by the end of 2011, followed by eight per year thereafter. ASC plans to hold an industry day on Feb. 5 to discuss the program with potential contractors—large or small or teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 AFSOC spells replacement tanker as K-C-1-3-0-J with USMC config, but FRL MCARS pods, & Tac Airlift software. Any funding for this? Or more \"pie in the sky\" dreaming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I don\'t believe that FRL pods would be part of the equation if the answer is the KC-130J. With AFSOCs history with the FRL pods and the weight/drag issues, I don\'t see USSOCCOM ponying up to put FRL pods on an airplane that already has a refuel pod. However, you would need to get a solution for a variable speed drogue for the Sargent Fletchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 That\'s what common sense would say. Weight is never looked at until it\'s too late. First - I\'m not MCARS qualified. However, I\'ve heard (and I could very well be wrong) that the VSD is retrofittable to any NATO-std coupling. If true, you could hang it on a Sgt Fletcher pod (which FRL owns now). I would assume the hydraulic Sgt Fletcher could reel in the hose/drogue at high speed...but that\'s an assumption. Who knows - every bit of the above may be incorrect... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 This comes from the same group that for the last 20 years said \"hell no we don\'t have to have new equipment, we can fly this acft forever\" Right. Screw em Dam Lockgreed mongers. RZ Hill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CajunCrewChief Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Isn\'t that supposed to be what the W\'s are for? Why did we rape the guard of their H-Models if the AF was going to source a different aircraft? Just a question! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Pffft guess I wont even bother commenting on this abortion. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyChief Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 CajunCrewChief, The W\'s were never intended to replace Shadows or T-1\'s in SOF. The first 3 then 5 MCW\'s started out as Combat Loss Replacement(CLR), to replace the 4 T2\'s and 1 Shadow AFSOC pranged. They were to be non-operational training aircraft and then be modded and delivered as a post-AMP MCH\'s. There was a parallel initiative to provide 10 post AMP MCH\'s (+10 Program). OSD set aside 3 C-130H2\'s for CLR and 10 C-130H2\'s for MCH +10 program. The AMP program continued to slow-leak and added to the CWB issue, resulted in a conglomerated program to provide 12 MC-130W\'s to the war fighter as an interim solution. The program of record has these 12 aircraft turning into MCH\'s whenever AMP is figured out. Will we ever see that? Who knows? How does 10 +3 = 12? You need to talk to the math geniuses at USSOCCOM. Break Break US Herk, The MCARS coupling is NATO standard however, the Variable speed drogue (VSD) will not fit into the tunnel of a Sargent Fletcher. (The VSD is rock steady and a monster, the 160th guys love \'em) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 HeyChief wrote: The first 3 then 5 MCW\'s started out as Combat Loss Replacement(CLR), to replace the 4 T2\'s and 1 Shadow AFSOC pranged. They were to be non-operational training aircraft and then be modded and delivered as a post-AMP MCH\'s. There was a parallel initiative to provide 10 post AMP MCH\'s (+10 Program). OSD set aside 3 C-130H2\'s for CLR and 10 C-130H2\'s for MCH +10 program. The AMP program continued to slow-leak and added to the CWB issue, resulted in a conglomerated program to provide 12 MC-130W\'s to the war fighter as an interim solution. The program of record has these 12 aircraft turning into MCH\'s whenever AMP is figured out. Will we ever see that? Who knows? How does 10 +3 = 12? You need to talk to the math geniuses at USSOCCOM. At one time, we were hearing a total of 15 aircraft - I know that\'s not in the program of record, but... And 10+3=12 to keep people at SOCOM out of jail. The MCARS coupling is NATO standard however, the Variable speed drogue (VSD) will not fit into the tunnel of a Sargent Fletcher. (The VSD is rock steady and a monster, the 160th guys love \'em) Have heard the positive feedback from 160th before - glad to hear it. Can the SF pod tunnel not be modified to accept it? It would seem that getting the ligher (not by a lot) SF pod & the VSD would be the obvious win/win best COA...or has nobody gone down that road? Still - there is no money for J. There is no money for Cannon. There is no money for GSP (which I\'ve heard is officially dead). As I\'ve said before (a quote I stole from someone else) - Leadership \"vision\" without funding is called hallucination. :silly: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdaley Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Heard from a very reliable retired 4 star source monday night, the funding is all in place, Cannon is a done deal. Glad it is not me. 2 nights at Cannon, both nights with really nice dates even, were enough to convince me I never wanted to see Clovis/Portales NM again. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.