US Herk

Wouldn't it be one of the first H3 at the 50th back in '93 or so?

and there is no such thing as a multi-aircraft off-the-shelf TF system. All have to have some tailoring to accomodate unique performance capabilities/limitations of the host aircraft.

The system currently fitted to CV22 is pretty much an off-the-shelf system - designed specifically for TF, works at our speeds and performance, is light, reliable, and is already developed, so not uber-expensive when you compare it to the MX intensive, cobbled-together system of systems to make some other non-TF radar do TF.

Actually, during flight test, DTED seemed to be more...consistent. I'm sure, just like most anything, it'd take time to grow to trust something like that out in the weather & mountains at 250'.

MC-Ws have the same plain 241 too. I kinda figured they'd be the first to use the TF capability, but I guess I'm wrong...again.

DTED can be a limfac. The resolution of the test area was probably quite good - at least Level 1, but likely level 2. Most of the world is still at level 0 and you want it at level 3 or better...level 2 is still >10% of your clearance.

That's memory intensive and processor intensive.

It's an outstanding concept - use the DTED (even lower resolutions) to do the first rough cut on your TF profile and active sweeps to refine. But you're still trying to time-share the active sweeps with ground mapping...which results in latency issues with a moving antenna because it simply can't move quickly enough. Add different displays (TA & GM) and you've got real issues. Same issues T2 has with TF & TA simultaneously - it triples the TA refresh rate depending on exactly what the antenna is trying to do just then...and TA may be the best picture you've got right then...but old.

The MC-W has had a slight mission change... And at least the current AFSOC/CC sees it as a pseudo-test platform due to various reasons...most of them financial. But that's how all our decisions are made anymore...not mission, money.

The 241 will TF...very nicely I might add. We were ready to take 0572 into the mountains at night for testing when AFSOC pulled the plug. It merges DTED with the active scan very well, not sure what your source is. TalonOneTF may or may not be able to validate one of us.

First, it is not a "stock" APN241. It is a highly modified "system" - The APN241 cannot multi-task, that was my point. That's why the Combat Talon and Combat Talon II have TWO radars. Without going phased array, you cannot multi-task. Everyone I know who actually flew the AMP/241 TF eventually liked it, but there were lots of caveats - storage is an issue, DTED resolution is an issue, getting off planned route is an issue - too many limitations when you go blended. It's a great solution for what it is, a partial solution, or part of a package of systems. Phased array is where it's at if you only want one radar though. More expensive, but you have fewer moving parts, fewer overall components, higher reliability, and more capability.

The real beauty of the 241 is logistics. It shortens the logsitics tail significantly for the common components. It's an outstanding radar. But I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in one basket like that...and DTED.

What about the MC-Ps that have the 241 now? Are they incapapble of TF?

They have a plain old ordinary APN241, just like the H3s (and some H2s). They cannot TF. They do NVG low-level with radar ground mapping...just like the MC-P without the 241.

If I recall correctly, the radar on the J is capable of TF, but I haven't heard anything about an ECM suite.

No, it cannot. The APN241 cannot multi-task, it can only time share - the only way they can TF is either DTED or no updated picture. And contrary to the AFSOC/CC's multiple comments to the contrary, you can't just "fit a TF card" to an APN241 and make it a TF radar. The APN241, for as great as it is (and it is), is old technology based on the APG65 first fit to F16. There are far more capable off-the-shelf TF radars currently in the inventory....

Is there some capability the CT1 has that cannot be filled by the CS2? Previous articles and speeches by AFSOC have indicated that the ten CT1s in service will be replaced by the CS2.

CS2 cannot penetrate.

CS2 cannot TF limiting ops to VMC low-level.

I remember that one, Anissa had it.

Anissa and I were there at the same time...

I have found a friend with an extra - he has more TAS coins and also one of the TAS/ALS/AS coins I was looking for... ;)

A few years back, I donated my coin to a friend's (Keith Saunders) retirement shadow box thinking I had another coin squirreled away somewhere. Well, after searching through my stash of coins, various - I realize that I don't have a spare.

Specifically, I'm looking for the coin we used sometime in '93-94 when I was there (yep, a short time). It said, "50th TAS / ALS / AS or whatever you want to call us" on one side and had a list of aircraft around the edge of the other. Of course, it had the Red Devil emblazoned on one side as well.

Let me know if anyone has an extra they'd be willing to part with...it's time for my shadow box.

Yeah, but AFSOC wants to do more than just replace MC-130E/P...they want to grow the fleet. The smallest number I've seen in any briefing is 62...

...and now they're talking AC-130Js...

I thought AFSOC was going to buy 62 or 74 of these things (the numbers seem to change weekly)....where'd the 37 number come from?

Remember also that if you don't have max power on all remaining engines, your Vmca is much, much lower and safe turns into the inoperative engines are easily executed even at pattern speeds. We do it in training every day...

I was under the impression that the J's had the standard CWB (not the beefed up beastie but standard trash hauler stuff) for the first several years of production before the incorporated the SOF style/type CWB.

Dan - true until about a year or two ago. The SOF CWB is now the "standard" CWB for all Herks, AFAIK.

Another good indication would be a AFSOC tour at the Marietta plant this past week.

Naw...AFSOC has enough irons in the fire with Lockheed from CWB programs, to MC-130J, to other stuff that them being at LM may mean nothing at all....then again... ;)

I suspect that the long test period for the MC-130Js is to determine how the new CWBs hold up. If the MC-130Js do well, an AC-130J order should come quickly. I know that the Dragon Spear and Harvest HAWK programs are being watched very closely.

There's nothing to determine about the "new" CWB - they're not new. They've been around for a couple decades on the SOF fleet. They are a known quantity.

Whow!!!! it seems like only yesterday I was on the Crew Station Working Group for the Combat Talon II -- MC-130H and now they are getting the J.

Why didn't you get me better screens, Skip? And a "John Madden" pen so the nav could draw on his screen and it shows up on mine - cut down the chit-chat during low-level! Damn you, you luddite! Maps! Pshaw! ;)

Great pics thanks, anyone know when the last 10 MC-130E's are going to the Boneyard?

Thanks

Bob

If we get lucky, there'll be more defense cuts and the plans to replace them will get shelved and they'll have to soldier on for the foreseeable future! ;)

We ended up getting approval from the engineering staff not to do the inspections, since the aircraft didn't experience anything over 1.8Gs.

The G issue is always confusing. I can roll the plane and if I never demand anything from it, can keep it basically at 1G all day long - nothing will ever get hurt (unless I do it wrong!) It's not the bank angle...

The other G issue is during landing. The G-meter is completely useless - completely - for landing forces. So guys writing up "hard" landings on the basis of G-meter readings are just causing maintenance unnecessary work - and a lot of it.

Al, I have that handout - I think it's C-130 Low-Speed Flying Characteristics or something like that...I use it. At one point I scanned it in, but this was old days with scanners that didn't compress pics very well, so it was huge. I need to find my original and re-scan it - it's got a lot of great info in it.

US Herk is correct in what he says except it's not 45 w/Flaps down...it's any flap extension. Flaps down is considered 100%. ;-) Mostly based on G loading. I've been past 90 degrees a couple of times myself just not with the "G's"

You are correct - any flap - I did not mean to imply flaps 100 and should have more correctly said "any flap".

For the record, I've been over 100*, but not in a USAF Herk. ;)

Published max bank angle limits are 60* clean and 45* w/flaps down. It doesn't say this, but this is based on maximum G attained during a level turn.

Consequently, the bank angle limits are basically G limits. If you don't attempt to maintain level flight with increasing back pressure, you can bank up to 90* and not hurt the plane at all...in fact, you could roll the plane and not hurt it - of course, you'll need a bit of altitude to get away with this... (helps to do the rudder swap as you go through inverted based on simulator handling - hahaha!)

That may very well be..when I got out..I was under the impression that AMC had funded for the same Enhanced CWB that the SOF aircraft were getting

ALL MC/HC receive the SOF CWB and as of a year ago or so, all J are delivered with SOF CWB (now called Extended Life CWB, I think). To my knowledge, AMC did not get any E/H CWB replaced with the SOF CWB, but that doesn't mean recent/future replacements aren't getting it since Lockheed is only building SOF CWB now, I think...but not sure on that last point (rumor only).

The SOF CWB are good to 85K EBH vs 45K EBH for regular CWB.

The SOF CWB weighs almost 1000 pounds more than a standard CWB.

Well, they got the checkride - not me, and they've got to train like they fight.

Haha...good. Yes, the RO union did force the radios into the Form 48s and 202-V2 a few years back for other crew positions...doesn't mean evaluators don't exercise good judgement on checkrides and prioritize appropriately.

Where those of us w/o an RO miss them is inflight trouble-shooting, not loading or operating. There's ways around everything though... ...and the radios/keyers/crypto are far more reliable than they used to be anyway...

Personally, I don't like the merger of the Nav/EWO union very much - I prefer specialists. But the AF has long been going away from specialists...so we're stuck with CSO. I'd rather have 2 x CSO than 1 x CSO and 1 x RO any day for the low-level mission...

I've been on far too many exercises where I have had to teach these guys how to operate their own radios before takeoff.

Maybe that's because radios aren't their primary job... ;)

Not shot down, but shot up pretty good - Harley 34, MC-130H, during opening nights of OIF - bad enough to divert into Turkey (before Turkey was playing ball) with an engine shut down, no util hydraulics, and fuel leaks everywhere....

FL330 in an E-model in Saudi in the summertime (at night)...oh to be that light again!

Never pass up training. No matter how much you think you already know, it is a base to build upon. There's already a downward spiral of experience in AFSOC due to the rapid growth and changing priorities - training counts.

Even if your terminal area employment is different, you will have a base to build off of instead of nothing.

More training is always good.