dude, I disagree?

parachute flares that hover and then start moving at an accelerated rate to the right in unison one after anoter??

I’m telling you…trust me 😉

The heat of the flare makes the decent extremely slow and sometimes they will rise, they are also at the mercy of the wind gusts.

Trust me.

Hi,

Could anyone please shed some light on why the C-130H seems more popular than the C-130J?
I’m somewhat surprised that pilots don’t love an aircraft that flies higher and faster?
Is it this issue that it was not designed to mil specs?
How much of the goodness of the C-130H did they throw out?

Why doesn’t Lockheed offer C-130H’s anymore? There seems to be a lot of worldwide demand for it. The Belgians are getting a 40+year-old WC-130H refurbished, the Dutch are getting a Navy C-130 out of AMARC refurbished…
If these air forces and the USAF just said to Lockheed: “We want C-130H’s and we’ll pay for them”, why won’t they just build them?

Cheers, Transall.

The J is nice and squeaky clean. Yes it can fly higher…but because it is so damn slow, ATC will not let it get up high enough to gain the fuel efficiency advantage. If you notice, many users are now putting the external fuel tanks like the E/H model aircraft have, there is two reasons for this. One, because the aircraft flying at the lower levels are not as fuel efficient as what was once calculated and they are getting hit with range issues. Two, because the Js too are having CWB issues and the extra weight on the wings helps ease some of that stress on the CWB.

Another reason I dislike the J model is the prop. It is going through bad delamination problems and when used in the dirt, they are having to replace a lot of very expensive props and blades…this task is almost impossible in the field unlike the older 54H60 props.
Sometimes less complicated, less sophisticated is better for tactical operations in the dirt. There is a reason why the Active duty AMC units as well as AFSOC are kicking and screaming over the J model…they do not want it.

There are missions where the J model are better suited…but I would turn it down every day of the week doing tactical ops.

The latests unit to give the J model the hit the road sign…
the 109th AW LC-130s out of the NY ANG. They will be adding the eight bladed NP2000 propeller to their older H model aircraft.

Do you understand that all the older C-130s need are new center wing boxes… $3 mil parts and labor and that will get you a J model Box or a SOF box…
Now you just saved $80-110 mil per plane…

Who said anything about a 3000 foot strip being the only length a C-17 might ever use? The point is that with a light load it is capable of doing so. You put on a larger load, and it will still land in strips of 5,000 feet or 7,000 feet which are still much shorter than the runway requirements for airplanes like the C-5 or other more traditional cargo aircraft (i.e. converted airliners or jets like the KC-10 and KC-135 when used in an airlift mission). The whole purpose of the C-17 is not tactical airlift though. It’s a good compomise between large, strategic airlift and smaller tactical airlift. It has it’s deficiencies (as do most airplanes), but by and large it is a well-designed airplane that does a variety of things that its predecessor wasn’t able to do, thus offering the USAF more flexibility.

The USAF will not go for the A400M, and since they have not expressed interest I don’t even know why this subject is being brought up.

The saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” comes to mind so why in the world would the USAF all of a sudden need an airplane of a different size to replace the C-130 when it has been in service for over 50 years and even though there are a few stretch variants around, for the most part the standard size has proven to be perfect for USAF needs. This won’t change.

The only thing in question is what the USAF will do if the C-5 program ends up getting the axe. Obviously it’s larger than the C-17 so a question of which aircraft would replace the Galaxy comes to mind. More C-17’s? An all-new design? Who knows? The bottom line is that the -130 is in no danger of being replaced anytime soon, and with the C-130J being on the production lines and orders being placed you’re going to be looking at the Herc for a while yet.

My statements were not just about the shorter/narrower strips… I was talking dirt strips in general. They have a very heavy footprint that tears up the dirt strips… for it to land at these strips, equipment already needs to be in place, (Road graders and of the such), so they either need to be driven in, or flown in by another aircraft type first, not very practical.

The C-17 WAS bought as a tactical aircraft and it was not able to meet any of the written requirements for the aircraft. You are right, it can land shorter then a C-5 and KC-10, but at what cost.

A 400,000 pound airplane that can land in strips of around 3,000 is something I’d consider a tactical mission……I’m not really sure what your definition of it is.

The C-17 isn’t the best at long-range support, but it has proven time and again to be the airlifter the USAF needed to replace the long-successful C-141. It perfectly fills the gap between the larger, C-5 and the smaller and more tactical C-130.

The C-130J takes everything the C-130 was good at, and it makes it just a little bit more capable in a variety of areas. Sure it has its problems, but many airplanes do, and production has hit a stride at this point and I can guarantee you that you won’t see the USAF stray from the J program….especially for something like the A400M which we have no use for.

The A400M is an odd hybrid between C-130 and C-17, and the USAF currently has no use for that aircraft as it wouldn’t be able to replace either due to its awkward size. I’m not saying it won’t be a good aircraft, (by all means if it works out then it will be perfect for air forces who need a larger aircraft but don’t need something like the C-17), but it is not what the USAF needs, and seeing as no one in the USAF has stated any interest in the A400M, I doubt you will see that change anytime soon. The focus now is on getting the required number of C-17’s and getting the C-130J to replace all of the older E and H model Hercs as time and money allows.

Airbus won the tanker program because apparently they offered a better product for what the USAF needs as a new tanker…..this doesn’t mean the USAF will now abandon all American companies and look to Airbus for all their airlift and tanker needs.

First off…I know what is written…but the C-17 can not and will not land on 3000 foot strips with any kind of load. And when we were playing with them at Pope, they would destroy the strip for hours and then the road graders would have to fix the whole strip before the next plane could land…

Can it, sure…

will it… NO

How does C-17 manage, then?

May wouldn’t consider her a true tactical aircraft. She does not do extreme short dirt strips…

A modern YC-14 😎

Turboprops…only!!

Jets still have way too much spool up time for a good tactical airlifter…

But I will give you that the YC-14 looked cool…

excellent find sir, think i’m gonna go read for a bit! thanks. 🙂 Edit: i’m sure its the page i passage i qouted from the book is still in there somewhere – i will link to the page if – oh wait just checked, you linked to p36, i said p39, perhaps thats why i got confused doh.

That is where google linked it… I only typed in the name of the book and that is what it came up with.