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.