bobdaley

Has anyone heard if 130342 was repaired? Anyone know if the E's 130307 (seen flying Sept 2014), 130319 (last seen Apr 2013) and 130327 (maybe at Abbotsford) are still flying?

That would be great. You can post or send any Herk pictures you get a chance to take. If you are at the airport, if you could verify the tail numbers of the 6 we think are still there, that would be great. Thanks Bob

Oh I got you now. That is or was a firefighting museum, maybe closed. The airplanes you asked about are PB-4Y2 old Navy Patrol bombers used to fight forest fires. They were based on USAAC B-24's Bob between your question and Google Earth I spent the afternoon on GE and in the books, I actually found out that H&P had 9 C/KC-97's. One went to the Minn ANG Museum, One to the Berlin Airlift Museum and the last 7 are still there rotting away. Good way to spend the afternoon.

Here is a pic of the whole yard. Only 4 engine planes I can see are all C-97's. Anyone see something else? Bob

What squadron were you in? Bob The reason I ask is that with a squadron number we can go to AFHRA and see the major TDY's in that period.

Speaking of spending half your career there, and killing brain cells, the local we used to hang out in was the Volunteer Arms on the road from the gate into Mildenhall. I spent half my time at Mildenhall there. Last time I was there, about 15 years ago, I could not wait to go back. Great bar, great people and great publicans. I drove right by it and missed it. Turned around and went back and found it. It is now a funeral home. What a bummer! Bob

Pretty sure that is a C-97. Bob

Hawkins and Powers had their aircraft painted red and white. Hence red cowlings. Bob

darn the pic for 3537 did not load, I'll try again

Has anyone been to Greybull WY in awhile? This is a google earth image from last year. None of them are registered any more. The 6 visible herks are from the left The grey one is 3220 ex 57-0513 ex N8230H The next 2 wingless are 3218 ex 57-0511 ex N134HP and 3166 ex 57-0459 ex N135HP Then the green one almost in one piece is 3115 ex 56-0507 ex N132HP The one looking like it is held down by tires is 3143 ex 56-0535 ex N133FF And the one with just the forward fuselage is 3537 ex 58-0740. Anyone able to update this and has anyone heard what they plan to do with them? Looks like beer cans to me. Thanks Bob It appears that 57-0459 is to the left of 57-0511!

Anyone got a recent update on the Canadian Herks at Abbotsford? Thanks Bob

Dutch I'll try to get it to you today by e mail. Bob

There are 67 B's and 71 E's flying world wide. That said USAF has no B's and only 2 sort of E's flying. By sort of I mean 62-1863 which started life as a C-130E is now an HC-130P at Moody and 64-14859 which started life as an HC-130H is now called an E and it is flying at Waco TX. I think the E's went to the Bone Yard so the USAF would have an excuse to buy J's, just like the 141's went to the Bone Yard so they could buy C-17's. Now they want to send A-10's to the Bone Yard so they can buy F-35's. Bob

160628 (4776)is one and the other, unconfirmed, is 160014 (4626). I know that the aircraft are going through complete overhauls at Hill AFB and 160628 is almost complete. Maybe someone at Hill can confirm this. Bob

Tom Thanks Bob

Could anyone clear up my confusion about USCG Herks. I just read a good article in AFM about the USCG. They are getting 13 or 14 C-27's. An Admiral said that was enough aircraft for three CG Air Stations. The article said the first HC-27's would go to Sacramento. Right now they have 4 CGAS's with HC-144's Mobile, Corpus, Miami and Otis. They have 5 CGAS's with Herks. Elizabeth City with J's and Kodiak getting J's and three with H's Clearwater, Barbers Point, and Sacramento. I know 7 Herks are going to the USFS. What about all the other H's? Are the HC-27's replacing the Herks or are they opening up new bases? Would HC-27's have the range required to operate out of Barbers Point? Thanks in Advance, Bob

Chris Hope you had a great birthday and have many more. Bob

Hi Jason Thanks, I had a note that it might go to Israel as 663? Bob

5740,5745, 5748, 5752, 5756 also went to Little Rock. Don't know where 5754 went? Bob

Recent article said they had 2 prototype AC-130J's flying. I'll try to attach it. The Air Force’s New Gunships Shake, Rattle, and Roll Vibration problems threaten to delay the AC-130J by JOSEPH TREVITHICK War is Boring (blog) February 2, 2015 The U.S. Air Force’s newest AC-130J Ghostrider gunships will enter service later than expected because of plans to load extra weapons on the four-engine planes, but the Pentagon’s top weapons tester is even more worried that other nagging problems could hold up the aircraft. In 2014, crews had trouble picking out targets because the two prototypes were shaking so much in the air, according to the latest annual report from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. On top of that, one of the aircraft had a mid-air accident that completely shut down test flights. “Several problems require resolution and will affect the subsequent development test schedule,” the report explains. For one, the AC-130J apparently vibrates much more than the previous AC-130W Stinger II aircraft. Crews had serious trouble focusing powerful sensors and pointing laser designators at targets. In a fight, this could mean the difference between shooting an enemy or hitting friendly troops nearby. The AC-130 is a modified C-130 transport plane armed with huge side-mounted gun turrets. The report doesn’t explain why the new aircraft shake so much. However, the Ghostriders have more powerful engines than any of the previous AC-130s. The four Rolls-Royce turboprops with their six-bladed propellers could easily jerk sensitive equipment around quite a bit. In addition, the video cameras and weapons on the J-models are designed to be easily removed and replaced. The mounts for these systems might not stay in place as well as the more permanent hardware on older variants. If that wasn’t bad enough, electrical interference — like putting your wireless router too close to the microwave — caused problems for new hand-held controls. When the crew uses the remotes, the Ghostrider’s various turrets often start and stop moving without warning, the report notes. “The program has reported some progress in the laboratory environment on both issues, but definitive solutions have not yet been demonstrated on the aircraft,” the Pentagon evaluators say in their overview. Far more worrisome, one of the AC-130Js experienced a “temporary departure from controlled flight” on a test mission, according to the report. While the report added few details, the pilots apparently had to fly the gunship faster than recommended — putting equally ill-advised strain on the airframe — to escape a more serious accident. After the February 2014 incident, the Air Force promptly stopped flying the prototypes for an undisclosed amount of time. The service launched an investigation and issued new rules to the test crews on how to handle the gunships. As a result of all these issues, the Ghostriders have completed less than a third of the planned test flights. As of January, both prototypes had been in the air for fewer than 100 hours in total. In the end, the Ghostriders will be four months late for their first assessment of how they might fare on real-life missions. The Pentagon doesn’t expect a more comprehensive initial operations test and evaluation — needed before full production can begin — until October. Have gun, won’t travel Unfortunately, that timeline could drag out even more if the Air Force can’t get its third prototype AC-130J ready for the experiments. The flying branch plans to install a 105-millimeter howitzer on this prototype. Until recently, this massive cannon was a standard weapon on all of the AC-130 models, but the flying branch expected the next generation of gunships to rely on precision-guided munitions such as Hellfire and Griffin missiles and GBU-39 Small-Diameter Bombs. In November 2012, AC-130Ws dropped the GPS-guided SDBs on targets in Afghanistan for the first time ever, according an official briefing. Marine Corps KC-130J Harvest Hawk gunships have already fired Hellfires and Griffins in combat, too, but the huge gun is significantly cheaper than any of these guided weapons and the shells contain far less explosives, making them better suited to densely-populated areas full of civilians. “An AC-130...precisely delivers very low yield munitions with a 30 and a 105 [millimeter cannons]...and they’re very inexpensive to deliver,” Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold, the commander of the Air Force Special Operations Command, told Breaking Defense. So three years ago, the Air Force started looking at ways to mount the devastating weapon onto the Stinger IIs and Ghostriders. With the new armament fitted, the Ghostrider’s crew would expand from seven to nine. The weight of the gun, ammunition, and other gear could also change how the planes handle in flight, but the program — nicknamed Dragon Fire — has not produced a suitable arrangement yet, according to the report. If the flying branch can’t provide the third prototype for tests, Pentagon weapon testers recommend adding an extra crew member to the cannon-less AC-130Js. This addition would help make the evaluation more “operationally relevant,” according to the annual review. The aerial commandos also expect a “directed energy weapon” — like a deadly laser or millimeter-wave beam — to replace the howitzer in the future, Heithold said. The Air Force has toyed around with this idea for a decade. In 2007, Boeing announced it installed a turret-mounted laser in the belly of an old DC-130H — originally used to launch Ryan Firebee target drones — for further study. Two years later, Air Force crews successfully fired the weapon and reportedly destroyed a target on the ground, but there’s been little to no news about this so-called “Advanced Tactical Laser” and it’s unclear if the project was really a success. Four years ago, the Pentagon canceled development of a similar, larger system fitted to a heavily-modified Boeing 747 airliner. Regardless, the Pentagon report doesn’t mention beam weapons of any sort as part of the current test plan. The Air Force is also still looking at whether the new Ghostriders can actually survive in a real fight. In their 2014 assessment, the evaluators voiced serious concerns about the aircraft’s apparent lack of armor [see below]. At the same time, commanders in the field are still demanding the gunships. Most recently, AC-130s have been among the many planes attacking Islamic State militants in Iraq. The flying branch already plans to “buy back” two of the older AC-130U Spooky IIs in the next budget request — which have the valuable howitzer — to help avoid any shortfalls, Heithold said. The Air Force originally planned to get rid of the older gunships in the next few years, but the General insisted that the problems with the Ghostriders shouldn’t be seen as “delays”. “I wouldn’t call it a delay,” Heithold explained. The plan is to “field the J-model correctly.” With all of these hurdles, American commandos and other troops on the ground can only hope the Air Force will have the Ghostriders ready for action sooner rather than later — without the excessive shaking.

Have a good one! Bob

Does anyone know how many AC-130J's there are, and the tail numbers or serial numbers? Thanks Bob

Tiny, Heading so where warm? Bob

Here is the most recent US Aircrew Lost list Casey can put it on the site where he wants. Bob C130 Aircrew Losses+USMC+USN+USCG.xls

From AF Magazine C-130Es Eyed for Bangladesh: The Pentagon notified Congress of a possible $180 million foreign military sale of four regenerated C-130E transports and associated parts, equipment, and training to Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government has requested the sale of the four US Air Force baseline C-130Es, according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's May 22 release. The United States would provide 20 Rolls-Royce T56AA engines for the aircraft as excess defense articles, states the release. The proposed sale would help the Bangladesh air force to modernize its aging transport fleet, it states. The BAF would use the C-130Es "to respond more capably to humanitarian-assistance and disaster-relief needs in the region and support Bangladesh's significant contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations, and support operations to counter violent extremist organizations," states the release. The sale would also improve commonality and interoperability between the BAF and US Air Force, it states.