AMPTestFE

"Lockheed Martin’s C-130J Super Hercules, aka ’Samson’ is wider and longer than the veteran C-130 Hercules, which has been serving the IAF for decades now."So...how is it wider???

STRATTON AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.Y. – New York Air National Guard Airmen flew 241 missions, delivering more than 3,100 passengers and 4.5 million pounds of cargo and fuel to research stations across Antarctica during a deployment to the southern continent that began in October 2014 and ends this week.

"Powered by four Allison AE2100D3 turboprop engines, the C-130 aircraft is designed to conduct airborne assault, search-and-rescue, scientific research support, weather reconnaissance and aerial refuelling, maritime patrol and aerial firefighting operations"That doesn't seem right for 5 Bs & 11 Es.

Pope used to have FT on their planes, which denoted Flying Tigers. Not sure if this applies here.

They are...compliments of Congress. Tanker 131 now in Washington state battling fires.

Good question...

That's a picture of the first AMP...89-9101...with some sort of picture grafted into the windows.I'll believe the AF when I see more than the 5 poor birds in LRF done.That's a picture of the first AMP...89-9101...with some sort of picture grafted into the windows.I'll believe the AF when I see more than the 5 poor birds in LRF done.

"ECBs" kind of gives that one away, doesn't it guys?

No, the 50th is an associate with the AFRC unit. The 62nd is still hanging around helping out the ANG.

I heard a similar story, and I know it's a fact of life in producing new variants of old airframes. For instance, there were many certification challenges (ie, design changes) on the 737 Next Gen that weren't an issue with the 737 classic, only because of newer aircraft certification standards that came out after the classic. The J is similar in that it was so much different that it had to meet current certification standards. As far as I'm aware, there was no such thing as a stick shaker in the early 1950's.

It's not quite as bad with the old props, just because the blades aren't nearly as efficient as the new designs. JBob, I do know that someone who was onboard told me they just about went over on their backs while doing J-model stall tests. I personally saw over 110 degrees of bank...but now I'm having a hard time remembering if it was with 4 or 8 blades.....I'm getting older.

They all have stall roll-off, not just the J....I doubt the A400M has the same issue, due to counter rotating props.

Looks like the wrong prop on that bird!

I wonder if they tried to find any Navs & FEs to go welcome this one, as they did when I was there.

Strange that they chose 2072's nose....it had some fair mods done to it for some radar testing at Edwards in 2007.

And I'm sure they messed it up with a Dyess tail flash...

When looking through the congressional record, it looks like the language was toned down quite abit, so that it doesn't grab the AMP planes. Harry Reid changed the language to require the AF to assess the needs of the 82nd before moving any C-130s out of Pope. Here's the record: "The thrust of the gentleman’s amendment is that these aircraft be transferred to Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, but they would not really be effectively utilized by the forces there and would not, in my view at least, contribute to the training and the real-time operations of the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIII Airborne Corps, and the special operations forces that are there. So rather than doing that, what we did in the underlying legislation at section 136 is to go through and quite clearly have a careful review of the adequacy of aircraft to support operations of the paratroop forces at Fort Bragg so that the Air Force is fully supportive of this very important issue. The 82nd is America’s most ready Army force, and of course we know special forces operators are all across the globe constantly. So my comments are that this amendment would not essentially help what I think is the underlying goal, which is to ensure that our airborne forces have the platforms necessary. It would, in fact, restrict the flexibility of the Air Force in terms of using C–130 aircraft. It would practically have the effect of simply taking aircraft that because of their modification and their nonstandardization are being parked at Little Rock and moving them without effect, I think, on the operational capacity and capabilities of our airborne forces. So as a result, I believe our best approach is to stay with the language in the underlying bill, section 136, which—to the credit of Senator TILLIS, he was very adamant about including— would have a careful review of the operational capacity of the Air Force to support the airborne operations. It would include the ability of commanders from the corps level, XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd, Special Operations Command, to comment effectively on whether the Air Force was doing this. After such a review and analysis, we could make better decisions about the allocation of the Air Force aircraft. Again, ironically—and again it strikes me that simply moving these aircraft—which are sort of one-of-akind aircraft—to Pope would not help the airborne operations of our military forces. They would simply involve additional cost, and they would not be part of the ability of our Air Force and our mobility command to support a wide range of missions. They would complicate, rather than simplify, our ability to respond. So for that, when this vote, which is scheduled later today, comes up for a vote, I will oppose it, and I will do so because I believe—in the underlying legislation, through the work of Senator TILLIS particularly—we have an appropriate response to the issue of flexibility, mobility, and operational capacity of our airborne forces at Fort Bragg. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FLAKE). The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered." He also mistakenly stated there are 3 modified AMP birds, when in fact there are 5.

That's what it sounds like to me...

My fear is that if things are delayed much longer, the H will not meet regulatory requirements and will certainly be it's end...an even greater example of waste. A new program will not meet timeline requirements. We have a viable airframe that has decades of life left, but the lack of a proper support structure would doom the 200+ acft fleet. I don't think we're in disagreement about the major issues, I just think we are too close to the edge of the cliff with the H. I don't want to see it get tossed over, so it's my opinion that the AMP system is the best answer for us to keep the fleet. The mere fact that it has an open architecture design, to me, alleviates concerns about future upgrade concerns. Can anyone name a major program of record that has NOT gone over budget? And if it wasn't for that bribery crap that went down, we'd all be griping about something else, huh?

Amen reverend MHeflin!

I'm not quite sure why people think the AMP system failed...except that I think everyone who says it has never flown it, or at least learned how to operate it properly. Just an observation. I firmly believe the system failed AMP....unrelated to the airplane. Just because the FMS was derived from a 737 doesn't mean much. I think the idea was that it was less work to make it do the Herc stuff, than to make a "SCNS" type of system do all the stuff needed for civilian airspace requirements. Remember, it was all the extra stuff AFSOC wanted out of the system that drove the cost up & extended the timeline...then they left the program hanging, taking their funding, but leaving the bill. I think we avoided tons of certification requirements by using a fielded FMS. The goal was to fly the Herc within modern civilian airspace....you think LM or anyone else has more capability than Boeing? Why can't the J model fly a GPS approach downtown? (I blame this on AF more than LM) I do think the folks underestimated what it would take to get SKE to work in the FMS....but really.....SKE? I'm not sure why we even hang onto that requirement. The last time it was used in anger was for the Haiti Head-fake....almost to disastrous end. Anyway, my point is, that without all of AFSOC's crazy system requirements, AMP will work just fine for what the slick fleet needs it for. The airdrop functions beautifully, but with any system, you can get it to lock up if you do all the wrong things....that's what training is supposed to be for. Also, the way AF contracting works, we're still better off with what we've already spent the money on versus starting a whole other program. I counted at least 3 AF people in my short time within the program, who felt they needed to make "important" changes to the system. This was after the design was finalized. Our job was to test the design....not change it...that was for the AMC testing. These other people somehow coerced their will on the right people & cost us more time & money with each gripe they had. So if you want to start another program & open it up to all the personal preferences of people who come & go every 2-3 years (active duty slam here), go ahead...I'm out. And in the meantime, the H fleet gets grounded while a new contract gets worked out. Speaking of AMC test....you had at least 3 of those peeps there at Edwards who were dead against AMP.....great staffing, no biased reports there! I personally witnessed the AMC IOT&E Det chief at Edwards refuse to learn the AMP...so when her....um, their checkride came due, our tax dollars were used to send them TDY to fly a EC-130H instead. Fantastic commitment to the program at hand! I love the Garmin1000....fly it myself, but good luck with any AF SPO agreeing to that! Just my opinion...

No, the J is actually not "ready to roll". They too need to be modified to meet RNP requirements. They only just got the radios we need a couple years ago.

Scares birds...so they say.

Right...I understand torque would be felt the same...so no worries with the Lord mounts. What about the structure holding the nacelle on the wing though?

Really, a new contract?? Do you know how long that would take with today's AF contracting, and how much more money it'll end up wasting? Time is wasting...this "15 year old" technology the AMP has will allow upgrades so much easier...per design.