P3_Super_Bee Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 It is going to happen, eventually there will just be the C-130X and the C-130J flying in the US inventory. And eventually you will see those 8 bladed props and upgraded valve housings on them too. I was told with the AMP + the Eight Bladed Props it will become the C-130Y and will be the last design of the C-130. Why would there be a designation change for AMP or 8 Blades. E-2C's stayed the same with 8 blade mod. P-3C's stayed the same with partial glass install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf70 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Well one of the reasons back in the day besides the GATM compliance deal was they wanted all USAF slick C-130's to be common. With the current fiasco, C-130E, C-130H1, C-130H2 (1979-1984), C-130H-2+ (1984-1990, C-130H2.5(1990-1991) and C-130H-3 (1992-1996)... A crew member from an H1 cannot fly a C-130H-3 unless he has training, and vise versa. The main deal for the AMP upgrade was that all C-130's would be common with parts, maintenance, and Air Crew qualification. At the start of the Upgrade back in the late 1990's the AMP was just suppose to bring all of the Herks up to the 1996 model C-130H-3 level. And I wish that would have happened... All they had to do is keep the H-3 line going at Lockgreed and everything would have been ok... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 C-130X has been dead for years. An awesome idea in concept, but dead. AMP doesn't change that and has always been separate from X...but AMP will "commonalize" a big chunk of things and fix most of the commonality issues...at least in the slick community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf70 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Well I know once the AMP is done the airframes will not be called C-130H or C-130H-3? I was told it was C-130X...??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Why would there be a designation change for AMP or 8 Blades. E-2C's stayed the same with 8 blade mod. P-3C's stayed the same with partial glass install. The Air Force can call it what it wants. If the Air Force decides to call it C-130XYZ, that's what it's going to be, no rhyme or reason to it. Can't remember who does Air Force C-130 designations, but I want to say it's Warner Robbins. The Navy has a lot of designations based off the Air Force C-130B/E/H, like C-130F/G/Q/R/T. Other countries have their own designations too, notably Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I was wondering about that myself. It would seem to me that there is a need to change the designation because of the amount of mods done to it. After all, the C-141 was upgraded to the C-model when they glassed up it's cockpit. The next in line designation would be C-130L. I did hear the C-130X designation being kicked around a while back, but I think the fad of using X with everything has since died. If the C-5 mod is any indication, it may be C-130M. However, I'd personally only do that if they modded the entire H and J fleet to a single configuration, but you know that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Original concept for C-130X was to fit all same engines, "zero time" the airframe (notably the wings/wingboxes) to a common config and baseline, and commonalize major systems - so all electrical systems would be the same, all fuel systems would be the same, etc. In '96 dollars, I think it was $8-9M/aircraft (but don't quote me on that) and the recently finished H3 were only running around $25-30M or so (again, don't quote me) - the sales pitch was essentially a new plane for 1/3 cost of a new plane. But when you look at the size of the E/H fleet back then, it suddenly became an enormous price tag and once they started saying "we'll exempt the older E-models, only 68-up" or something like that, it defeated the purpose of commonalization...and the program died a very quiet death. NOTE: Above is gross simplification of what occurred, but you get the idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3_Super_Bee Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I can see a designation change when you zero out the airframe, and like the C-5M 70 plus mods at once, plus your performance numbers have a pretty big change as well. The C-130 Fleet(trash haulers) is way to big, and don't think it ever will get down to just one or two designations, you'd have to be stupid to think you could get the fleet down to one or two designations. There are only 100 or so P-3's and I don't think there are two out there that are 100% the same when it comes to avionics out there. That can be a confusing mess when running maintenance control. We had config sheets in every ADB showing the different configs for the squadrons aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkpilot Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there only 2xE-Model Squadrons left in the AF? Has anyone else heard the rumor that the MC's are getting the 8-Bladed Prop and Electronic Valve housing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there only 2xE-Model Squadrons left in the AF? The 53rd (now primarily an H1 squadron, but we still have a few E-models), the 61st, 62nd & PRANG have E-models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there only 2xE-Model Squadrons left in the AF? The 53rd (now primarily an H1 squadron, but we still have a few E-models), the 61st, 62nd & PRANG have E-models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surf70 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I read in AF times that all E's would be retired by the end of FY11. Anyone heard what the PRANG is going to get as a replacement? Someone said C-27J's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkpilot Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I meant AMC units that actually deploy... the 62=school house and is partially H1's, and the PRANG...I've never seen their aircraft deploy except to Central/South America, so the 53 and 61(which I was a Green Hornet for 4 years) are the 2 remaining E-Model units Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there only 2xE-Model Squadrons left in the AF? Has anyone else heard the rumor that the MC's are getting the 8-Bladed Prop and Electronic Valve housing? At the time of C-130X (mid-late '90s), there were hundreds of E-models still in the inventory and only a small handful of active duty units with H-models of any variety (Dyess, Elmendorf, & 50th) I have heard the rumor that the MCs might get the 8-bladed prop and EVH, but also hear the gunships would get them first. I've also heard that the expense for these things keeps getting in the way of MC-J, so who knows if it will ever happen. At one point, I heard only AC & MC-H would get them. But those sorts of rumors change from week to week - and I haven't heard anything on this front for at least a year...probably won't happen, which is ashame. A huge portion of the resistance comes from folks who think high Vmca speeds are bad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Well one of the reasons back in the day besides the GATM compliance deal was they wanted all USAF slick C-130's to be common. With the current fiasco, C-130E, C-130H1, C-130H2 (1979-1984), C-130H-2+ (1984-1990, C-130H2.5(1990-1991) and C-130H-3 (1992-1996)... A crew member from an H1 cannot fly a C-130H-3 unless he has training, and vise versa. The main deal for the AMP upgrade was that all C-130's would be common with parts, maintenance, and Air Crew qualification. At the start of the Upgrade back in the late 1990's the AMP was just suppose to bring all of the Herks up to the 1996 model C-130H-3 level. And I wish that would have happened... All they had to do is keep the H-3 line going at Lockgreed and everything would have been ok... The C-130X was supposed to make the airframes common...not the AMP. The main goal of AMP is to allow worldwide navigation and communication capability, as well as enhancing maintainability. I too loved the H3; for an FE, it was the peak of the C-130 design. Adding the 8-bladed props will have to be started by the ANG. AMC simply does not have the money to throw at a system like that. While it will pay forr itself in less than a decade in fuel & maintenance savings, the up front price it too large. You gotta remember, it's not just replacing the props on each plane. Think about all your prop shops, supply system, spares, tech pubs, training.....etc. If we can get a few more ANG units to upgrade, then others might follow suit...eventually AMC will have no other choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 At the time of C-130X (mid-late '90s), there were hundreds of E-models still in the inventory and only a small handful of active duty units with H-models of any variety (Dyess, Elmendorf, & 50th) I have heard the rumor that the MCs might get the 8-bladed prop and EVH, but also hear the gunships would get them first. I've also heard that the expense for these things keeps getting in the way of MC-J, so who knows if it will ever happen. At one point, I heard only AC & MC-H would get them. But those sorts of rumors change from week to week - and I haven't heard anything on this front for at least a year...probably won't happen, which is ashame. A huge portion of the resistance comes from folks who think high Vmca speeds are bad.... I know that at least the MC-Ws are getting the EVH. Was told by someone who knows about THAT program....were'nt getting the 8 blades because of supply issues. You can't really pull up to the FBO in Kenya & find a nice new bent composite prop....they got lots of straight metal ones though. 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.