Jump to content

Replacement Tankers for the HC-130 and MC-130


fltsload
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... ;) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...