Lockheed C-130 Hercules Projects

AFAIK the concept of TACAMO is for the critical deciders to escape incoming destruction of their headquarters.
Nuclear destruction most likely.
Then it raises the question: Do you really want to be in a C-130 puttering around at 400mph, when that happens?
 
After a 12hr stint in the back of a Hercules, you'll be rooting for the end of days! An EC-130(Y? - surely it will get an unique designator? How many different Js can you have?) is obviously cheap and readily available but I wouldn't say it's an outstanding platform for the role. Cruising speed has been mentioned and it's service ceiling isn't great either, is it? I also have to wonder why the ostensibly newer E-6B has to go while it's RC-135 elder kissing cousins are good for the 22nd century, give or take.

Surely a 767-derivative would be ideal.....forget I said that!
 
The trick is deploying the VLF antenna. It is miles long and has to be nearly vertical to work. The TACAMO plane has to fly a tight, highly banked turn to make it hang down properly. Cruise speed is irrelevant. A C-130 derivative also opens up a much larger number shorter auxiliary airfields for dispersal, too. I've never heard how the ride is in the C-130J variants with the six-blade props, but likely a little better (lower vibration) than the earlier models with four-blade props.
 
Hank58 said:
Cruise speed is irrelevant
Click to expand...
Well for an aircraft that may have to scramble and clear datum in the event of a nuclear exchange, jet performance is a hell of a would-be-nice. How often will it have to do that, you ask? Only once but what a once!

Service ceiling is a far more important metric for me, though. I can only imagine that VLF propagates better at @40kft than @25kft and the E-6B can climb over weather that a C-130 can not. If crew comfort doesn't matter when busy weighing the weight of the world then I would argue something has gone wrong. I'm not saying the Hercules can't do the role, of course it can but it is not the most obvious candidate. Other platforms are available and quite frankly 1988 is no age for a Boeing four-piper! EC-130Q > E-6A > E-6B > EC-130XYZ isn't the most intuitive progression!
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
An EC-130(Y? - surely it will get an unique designator? How many different Js can you have?) is obviously cheap and readily available but I wouldn't say it's an outstanding platform for the role.
Click to expand...
When the E-6 was introduced, going from a C-130 airframe to a 707 airframe was seen as a huge step forward for the TACAMO force in capability. It allowed the USN to consolidate operations to a single central US base, thanks to the higher speed and greater endurance, and allowed more capable equipment, and more of it, to be carried.

In that light, it's hard to see going back to the C-130 as anything other than a retrograde step.
 
RLBH said:
In that light, it's hard to see going back to the C-130 as anything other than a retrograde step.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It must be a budget-driven (constrained if you prefer) decision. I cannot believe it was the preferred option. When you watch the USN burn green on the likes of Zum-a-walts, Literal-Crap Ships and Ford Pintos in straitened times, it strikes as odd to skimp on the nuclear deterrent now.

If this and coming FYs are too chock-full then why can't the Mercury be run on? The USN recently bought an E-3D to serve as trainer so fatigue is clearly a concern for the E-6 fleet but to belabour the point, I saw a KC-135R yesterday with twenty years on the E-6 and an Extender whose daily MTOW would make an E-6 blush, still going strong. They must be some thunderstorms in Oklahoma!

ETA: An effort to keep the C-130J line ticking over perhaps?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C-130 upgrade is well alive and now includes guided shells and air launch "electric" mini-cruise missile:

To make that work, Foertsch said, personnel are eyeing air-delivered munitions primarily for the “best lethality.” An example of this approach, he explained, is an integrated weapons data link added to a 50-pound warhead class last year.

Foertsch called the data link an “incredible capability” that allows the crew to fire and then communicate with the round in flight, issuing instructions.

The link gives the user a “dud” command option, which can render the weapon inert midflight if a strike needs canceled.

But that still needs improving, he said. To do, that they’re looking to industry to provide guidance and next-generation sensors that can work in GPS-denied environments.

“We largely do laser targeting now,” he explained, and even that’s not enough. They are also looking for optical or automated target recognition in modular, open systems.

But they want to do that by dropping in capabilities to their existing forms, rather than adding another, purpose-built round. And they want greater range and standoff.

Work on that front is being done with two small business research grants, he said. Those involve testing a miniature cruise missile with electrical propulsion that fires past 100 nautical miles, and another small cruise missile that can go twice that distance.
Click to expand...

www.militarytimes.com

Lasers, water landings, crewless ops: Upgrades are coming for the C-130 family

The 1960s-era design continues to transform.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com
 
Last edited:
All the brains can go into munitions with consumer electronics rendering air assets as trucks. Now for drone biplane dogfights controled from gunships. Drones can fly in forests now.
 
While a bit leary of the idea initially, I hope it works. Having the entire ocean, lakes, and rivers as runways sure seems a good idea in an age of extended range precision weapons.
 
Last edited:
Some back story information regarding the EC-130V

This is from "Aviation Week & Space Technology", September 26 - October 9, 2022, page 5 in the feedback section.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Responding to "A Little Bit Ruthless" by Brian Everstine (Sept. 12-25, p. 61), my comments are based on a career as former head of special avionics projects for the U.S. Coast Guard, chief of electronic maintenance in the performance engineering division for the U.S. Army Signal Corps and chief engineer for the 2762LSS/Det2 at Carswell AFB, Texas, for projects other than the Air Force. I was also a project manager for many well-known Army, Coast Guard and other government agency projects over the years, most of them classified, and it is to this aspect that I want to comment.

Many "one-off" projects are of the "Priority One" category: highest national urgency. These are done outside the normal contracting arena and as a result attract a lot of attention. In most cases, the claim is that the Air Force or Army is spending vast sums and get- ting nothing in return. Unfortunately, as the contracts and the subjects are classified, I was never able to comment at the time, nor are the individuals working on them today able to do so.

One project with which I was involved, the EC-130V, was an E-2C weapons system on a HC-130H supplied by the Coast Guard, which would require much more power, both on the ground and in the air, and also several industrial control systems (ICS) and redundant radio systems in all bands. Even before the contract was awarded, an article in "The Washington Post" by a former cabinet secretary said the project would have vast overruns and end up costing over $1 billion.

It was done on time and at cost, and it met or exceeded all requirements for around $57 million. We had planned on five aircraft, but the Coast Guard and Marine Corps decided not to go ahead with it. There was much pressure by a company already providing another aircraft, under-at the basics, you might think so, but there was more to the story. The communications suite, the ICS suite and the aircraft were put through complete Tempest testing, which meant it had to be hardened. And even though the weapons system may have been off an E-2C, our software was all unique, and we pushed the limits and built all-new chips that were not previously possi- ble. So where was all this used? On the next-generation AWACS, of course.

There is sometimes more to the story than meets the eye. My group did 47 projects, and all were done on time, at or below cost, and all met or exceeded requirements. Of that we are all exceedingly proud.

Bill Danner, Lompoc, California
 
Poor things need to go to Dr. Pimple Popper to get those growths removed.

Hurricane hunter dropsonde chutes could be used for tiny munitions in a pinch. Same with Electras as well I should imagine.
 
Can someone help please? I am looking for the details of the avionics suite of the C-130A-II ELINT version of the late 1950s and the 1960s.

One of such planes, # 56-0528, of the United States Air Force 7406th Support Squadron, was shot down on September 2, 1958, in Armenia by Soviet MiGs, killing all 17 crew members. The bird was on the Sun Valley ELINT mission.
 
Thank you for this long history of the C-130 and all the associated projects

But I have always been amazed by the narrow main gear of the C-130, compared to that of the Transall C-160

Have there ever been plans for a different main gear? wider? more adaptable to rustic landing grounds ? For example for STOL versions ?
 
"Have there ever been plans for a different main gear? wider? more adaptable to rustic landing grounds ? For example for STOL versions ?"
In answer to all 4 of your questions-Yes. Great info for the last 3 questions is in the book "On Atlas' Shoulders" by Chris Gibson-who is a big contributor to this forum. The book has a whole chapter on the C-130. For answers to all 4 questions I refer you to "American Secret Projects 3, US Airlifters Since 1962" by Cox and Kaston, Chapter 9 "The Once and Future Hercules". There is even a drawing of the new, bigger, stronger landing gear.
 
hesham said:
Hi,

The Lockheed had old project called C-130J,it was developed
from C-130E with increase aileron and rudder chords, wider u/c
track, improved braking system and additional armored protection;
do you have a drawing to it ?,(of course I know there was a new project
to Lockheed in 1996 called C-130J ).
Click to expand...

No drawing survivor to this old project ?.
 
fightingirish said:
The Lockheed AC-130J was set to get the first operational airborne laser weapon, but that plan is over as the gunship changes to ensure its relevance. IMHO, the Lockheed AC-130J will add more capacity to launch more precision-guided munition and (suicide) drones.
Source:
https://www.twz.com/air/ac-130-gunships-laser-weapon-cancelled-105mm-howitzer-may-be-removed
Click to expand...
Im honestly wondering how useful that laser been if they mod it for anti drone use.

Imagine a C130 circling the back lines helping protect the Arty, Tocs, Mechanics basically all the logi needed to keep the front line running. And just using its laser as an shueld against all the cheepo drones as another layer to the defense net.
 
If only the USAF Inc. would be willing to "waste" a C-130 and crew on such a frivelous mission. But we will do that with UAV as they are the 'cause de jure' just now.

Now back to our regularly scheduled TAC airlifter discussion (please!)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom