HeyChief

Any talk of the T-1 staying around past 2015 has no basis of fact. MAJCOMs run \"what if\" drills all the time, that\'s all they are. I suspect this talk of MCEs stating past 2020 is just a \"what if\" drill that someone has taken out of context. The MCJ is on track to recapitalize MCPs and MCEs, that is a fact. I\'m not saying that an MCJ as presently envisioned is as capable as an MCE, just stating facts as they are. From a sustainment point of view, the T-1s are the oldest SOF C-130\'s out there, funding to maintain the SOF fleet will continue to shrink and need to be maximized. The SOF fleet needs to be recapitalized to remain viable, how they do it will be cussed and discussed for the next decade, but that\'s where we are headed.

Is this the aircraft Lockheed-Greenville converted? Regardless, your command should be able to work with the SPO to find disposition for these antennas. Your AFETS folks should be able to help with this as well.

There are no Shadow\'s getting duals rails at Depot, even though the unit really pushed for it. Dual rail installation should be happening soon, at a contractor\'s facility. I think everyone knows that modifying aircraft falls under the 5 year rule. No mods if the aircraft are within 5 years of retirement unless it is flight safety or sustainment related. As far as I know, there are lot\'s of mods still on the books for the Shadows. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

US Herk is right...1212 got a SOF CWB from Jockey 14 and 0011 is getting a new build SOF CWB. So..When the J-model line starts putting \"ESL\" (Extended Service Life) wings on production aircraft, it will basically be the same structure as the SOF CWB going onto the T2\'s.:laugh: By the way, no T-2s have been in CWB mod at the same time until about 2 weeks ago when 0264 went in for PDM/CWB change. I think the other aircraft that was referred to earlier in the post was an HC getting a standard CWB alongside 0011. Perhaps someone in the King community can confirm that?:unsure:

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)

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.

We thought it was hard to believe too, but we were also told that the SF on a J is higher than a Talon 2. Those engines really beat the wing to death we are told, no matter if it\'s TAC or a straight forward log run. As I said, rumor and probably some propaganda, I\'d love to have a J-model guy give us the skinny on this.

Bob, Those aircraft have been re-designated as C-130E\'s and are basically being used like any slick would be used, log runs, MRT ferry and training. Yes the aircraft has some extra wiring and antennas onboard from when they were assigned to the 193rd, but these aircraft are considered backup inventory, so have no funded mission. There have been efforts in the past to fund these as training aircraft, but, so far has never made the final cut. I think their future is limited from what I understand, I believe congress has decided to purge all C-130E\'s by FY14. Maybe someone from the AMC world can comment on that?

The J models use essentially the same CWB that\'s on your basic C-130 E\'s, H\'s, MC-30 H\'s and AC-130U\'s. There are differences, but for the purpose of CWB life, they are the same. The MC-130E\'s, P\'s and AC-130H\'s have the SOF CWB, now refferred to as ESL CWB (Extended Service Life) If you are to believe the Lockheed sales team, ESL wings will be installed on J\'s starting in FY 10. The MC-130H\'s and AC-130U\'s are slated to recieve ESL wings. We are being told that we should expect 80K+ EBH from ESL CWBs. I\'d love to hear form a J guy, rumor is that that a J model is already programmed to get a new wing in FY 09 or 10 because of high EBH. Not sure if that J is RAF or USAF.

Here\'s an apology to all before they read this, this post is drawn out and probably a little boring, but I thought it is necessary to try and provides some facts about T2 CWB saga. I\'ve addressed it to US Herk, but it is for everyone who has wondered WTF. (and I\'m not US Herk bashing) US Herk, I\'ve just got one question, have you read the message? If not, you need to get a copy of the message sent to the field and share it with your bretheren. Tail number management is NOT by Flying hours per month, but by EBH per FY. The flying hour by month you are referring to is used for illustration for the message. The unit may decide to burn up all the EBH in the first 2 qtrs of the year and coast the rest of the way, it\'s up to them. The total allowed EBH expenditure by tail per FY is the thing to key in on. Think of it as a checkbook that every month needs to be balanced, verified you are on budget and oh by the way..you aren\'t getting more deposits. The unit P&S will have to do this for each tail, every month. (They are the one who will be in scheduling hell) This has to be a T2 community effort, the LG folks are doing their damndest to keep the aircraft available to the crews and the ops folks have to do their part to ensure maximum efficiency for EBH expenditure. The days of launching a sortie just so one guy can get his training has got to be the rarity and not the norm. And since I\'m on my lecturn, here\'s my response to your \'04 T2 move comment. If tails didn\'t move, the school house would have had two outstanding T2 ground trainers today and another ground trainer within 6 months. With the exception of the donor box from the ACH (and installed on 1212) the first production box doesn\'t deliver until the 2nd qtr of the FY, you can figure out how long it would have taken to get the school house out of the ground trainer business again. The swap of \'04 was a pain in the ass for all involved, but the alternative would have tapped out the world supply or Prep H. Opinions are great for conversation, just don\'t confuse it with facts.

I\'ll go ahead and put my 2 cents in on the cwb train wreck since I\'ve been so involved with the first T2 move through the current iterations. Back in \'04, someone hade an \"aww damn\" and figured out that, due to higher than expected SF and subsequent accelerated EBH usage, the CWB\'s for T2\'s were going to ground earlier than projected. The tail moves back in \'04 bought us a little over a year, to avoid grounding until we could get boxes on them. Then surprise..surprise.. someone had a \"aww double-damn\" and figured out that the origional lockheed wing couldn\'t get us to 60K..guess what? 38K was the magic number with restrictions, grounding at 45K. You definately hit on the fact that CWB\'s need to be built/delivered faster, but therin lies the problem, lockheed is the single source until the later CWB\'s buys. I believe that\'s when it may get competed, but by then it will be too late for SOF. Lot\'s of people think that the boxes can be built faster by Lockheed, I\'ve been told many times that it is a manufacturing limitation (something about limited availability of a specific alloy) but it appears to me that they really don\'t have much incentive, hmm..aren\'t they the same folks that are trying to sell C-130J\'s? No one else builds new ESL C-130 wing boxes today. Plenty of contractors want to take old boxes and refurb them, guess what? You just spent 2-4 million and 6-8 months downtime and then just turn around and do it again in 9-10 years. Granted, the slick fleet could probably get 18-20 years out of refurbed wings, but as far as I know, AMC didn\'t bite. We just have to face facts, the CWB issue is about as ugly as a baby can get. We may get some boxes accelerated, but that\'s not going to have a huge effect on the overall picture. The only way to get through CWB replacement is to think outside the box when it comes to managing the aircraft fleets and for the SPO to look at alternative engineering solutions (good luck). It may not be perfect, but that\'s the cards we were dealt.