US Herk

tiny clark wrote:

I just don\'t see how you can do TF with an antenna that only sweeps side to side, and not that fast either, unless they changed some hardware along with the software on the 241.

The real trick is multi-tasking - getting both TF/TA sweeps & generating a ground map as well without having the data \"age\" significantly - if understand it correctly, the 241 cannot do that &, in fact, the 241 TF solution is leaning heavily on DTED.

There are/were two programs running - the AMP was one and the other is/was a funded program with a wider application than just T2. The non-AMP one had some unique capabilities the 241 could not have due to design. I haven\'t received any updates on this one in quite some time (not having SIPR & STU here at the schoolhouse sucks sometimes), but I\'m sure it would require similar icing tests at some point, although I know some applications of it wouldn\'t have an anti-icing capability due to application...

Or vice versa

Usually not a problem with our \"lets just put enough power through the radar to light up a city\" energy levels! The brute force technique worked well for Emerson - who had never built a radar, much less a TF radar, before (or since).

In fact, I\'m surprised our energy doesn\'t just melt the ice off itself! :lol:

We\'ve still got it on the T2. Don\'t want the TF radar to think it sees something that isn\'t there...

Zaherk wrote:

Only the fairies will know what happened to my copy.

Coincidentally, the RAF calls their electricians \'fairies\'...

Other than that, I\'m no help! B)

True Story.

Back in the early \'90s, we were flying back from McChord to Little Rock after an O-dark-thirty takeoff. Somewhere about a half hour into our flight, after we\'d gotten out of SEA-TAC airspace, the controller asked us if we\'d like \'direct to Little Rock\'?

Much to my surprise, my AC replied that we\'d perfer to fly our flight-planned route.

The controller responded with, \'It says you\'re RNAV equipped on your flight plan.\'

The AC, without missing a beat, said, \"Yes, sir, we are. But our nav\'s asleep.\'

T2 got it...

I get it, believe me, I understand how tires are made.

But if the choice is between almost certainly stuck or maybe blown tire, I\'ll go with almost certainly stuck & run lower pressures to mitigate...

Guess we\'ll agree to disagree. I\'ve been stuck before - not fun & kinda helpless feeling - fortunately, training vs combat. It\'s still a lot easier to change a tire - even in the dirt - than to recover a plane stuck in soft dirt.

Our experiences color our opinions - your experience seems to have been changing tires - mine has been being stuck in the mud! ;)

Steve1300 wrote:

Perhaps some pilots don\'t pay any attention to where they land. In the civilian world, the pilots are responsible for all those decisions, and the discussion frequently takes place among the crew about those \"unimproved airfields\" before any decision to land.

Well, we\'re not in the civilian world - it\'s not a question of \"paying attention\" to where we land, it\'s a question of being tasked into someplace and accomplishing the mission.

When tasked with this, a crew will do everything they can to mitigate risk going into an unimproved field.

Steve1300 wrote:Really none of that has anything to do with tire pressures. The requirements for pressures are given in the maintenance manuals. If you get stuck because a field was too soft, then you really should not have landed there.

No green Talons...

Well, if it was dark green, it was one of the Klassics (as they call them) and likely in the area for EW testing by OEU or AWC...I know they used to have one nearly permanently at China Lake for EW testing...

The pilots don\'t choose where they land. They are tasked to land at certain strips. The mission comes first - if you blow a tire at a hard-surfaced field, odds are you can repair it a helluva lot easier than recovering a stuck plane...

If I were king, it\'d be for the substandard field. I\'d rather have decreased performance, increased tire wear on concrete than get stuck in the dirt!

I\'ve been stuck in the mud carrying an APC into Rattlesnake LZ precisely because they set tire pressure for the max T/O weight on a concrete runway...we got out, but it wasn\'t pretty!

cobra935o wrote:

We also had a pefectly good sqd full of communications relay airplanes, 7 of them infact, with full manning etc. etc. It was called the 42nd ACCS, now all of a sudden its an issue again to get an airborne comm platform, just seems like one big circle of waste. It probably cost more to shut that sqd down, and re-program those planes for other uses, then it would have been to keep it open, the personnel trained, and there in place for when it was needed. The Army was screaming to keep it, and was willing to help with funding at one point!

Not to mention JCSE & Jackpot as well as others...

Could it be something off the fulton modified birds? I know there were fending lines, but was the structure changed to support these?

Vision without funding is called hallucination.

That aside, I think AFSOC is violating virtually every SOF Truth with this rapid expansion. The blurb about losing the W sim in favor of a PC12 sim is telling - and typical.

\"Flavor of the day\" is the game at AFSOC lately.

They say, \'Flexibilty is the key to Airpower\' - what they don\'t tell you is that, \'Indecision is the key to flexibility\'

All in all, I believe we need this niche gunship, but the traditional acquisition process makes it virtually impossible. If AFSOC is truly to grow as large as it is, a case should be made to make SOCOM a seperate service instead of just a Unified Command. This would free up funding, should streamline acquisitions (somewhat), and provide the oversight necessary.

I\'ve also said we need MC-27J - have said that for 10+ years - something between Casa and Herk in terms of size & payload. AFSOC won\'t ask for MC-27J because it will jeopardize MC-130J...seriously, that\'s why they don\'t pursue it despite it making more sense.

Yes it is the same Connie Kalittle...

...they just lost their son, Scott, a couple weeks back in a drag racing accident in NJ.

Been a rough year for Kalitta...

There are a couple 115V/400Hz connectors on most (if not all) Herks. The connector is an odd 5-pin cannon plug with the two center plugs being 115V. Don\'t know that I\'d run a shaver off it (or anything with a motor designed for 60Hz), but many devices don\'t care too much about frequency...

Fewer moving parts means less failure due to wear, not necessarily a higher MTBF.

Not questioning that it doesn\'t have a higher MTBF, just logic used to assert as such.

Electronic means wires & connectors instead of linkages & pullies - electrics have their own unique challenges.

Don\'t misconstrue - not bashing the EPCS - I think it\'s a great idea whose time is overdue.

All export countries except UK got dash-1 (RAF made up their own books). This came with certain restrictions on use and distribution of technical info. All foreign export comes with restrictions on use & distribution.

Civilian operators got LTM-type info - unknown what type of distro restrictions, if any, were in place.

Both largely irrelevant. Info restricted by arms control export act shouldn\'t be independently verified by mil users simply because non-mil users have released it incorrectly...

There is zero/no classified info in any dash-1. It\'s an unclassified manual, however, it is technical info that is controlled by Arms Export Control Act of 1979. So anything older will not have the distribution statement on it like newer ones do.

However, just because there is no distribution statement does not mean the manual is not subject to the above law. It should not be made freely available on the internet.

It also falls under the common sense laws - just because something is unclassified does not mean it should be made readily available. There are a lot of capabilities & limitations that can be gleaned from flight manuals that may be useful to folks wishing to deny certain types of operations...or worse.

First funding is, I believe, for 14 aircraft to be split between AFSOC & ACC. First block will be same with MC-130J spiral to develop later...at least that was the last briefing I got.

1st unit - Cannon.

High Technology Test Bed. They took things they\'d learned during the Credible Sport program and applied them to this beast. Among other things, it was a super STOL type aircraft.

It was later modified with a fly-by-wire system.

It crashed in the early \'90s while trying to evaluate Vmcg (anyone remember adding 25kts to charted Vmcg? - this test was to find real Vmcg). From what I remember, there was a flaw in the fly-by-wire software that streamlined the rudder when you got to full rudder travel...you can imagine how that ended up. I believe the accident investigation is available somewhere...don\'t have it handy myself.

The video:

http://www2.hurlburt.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080606-066.wmv

Saw Gen Schwartz at the Talon Reunion a couple weeks ago - he spoke at the memorial on Sun - great man & glad he got the nod. Rumor was that he was going to retire later this year - guess that\'s on hold...

He comes from some pretty humble beginnings, but is a true warrior and remembers his roots.