View Full Version : TACAMO replacement to be C-130
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2023/04/03/northrop-lockheed-raytheon-team-up-on-navys-e-xx-doomsday-plane/
Northrop, Lockheed, Raytheon team up on Navy’s E-XX ‘doomsday’ plane
NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works and Raytheon Intelligence and Space are teaming up to bid on the Navy’s next command-and-control aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2018/08/01/us-air-force-may-replace-3-types-of-aircraft-with-a-single-platform/), to be used if a nuclear war breaks out.
The “E-XX” would replace the Navy’s fleet of 16 E-6B Mercury aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/03/08/us-navy-to-work-with-air-force-on-e-6b-replacement/), which carry out a mission the Navy refers to as TACAMO, for “Take Charge and Move Out,” that allows the president, the secretary of Defense and other national leaders to communicate with and control forces such as nuclear missile-armed submarines.…
The Navy decided to use the Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Super Hercules, a version of the C-130 with 15 feet added to the fuselage, as the platform for its TACAMO aircraft, said Henry Cyr, Northrop Grumman’s director for multi-domain command and control capture programs.
The stretched C-130 will be the right size for for the mission and will fly better than the E-6, he said….
The Navy wants a quick transition, so the E-XX likely won’t bring significantly new technologies to the table, aside from more advanced radios and computing systems. The goal, Cyr said, is to take already-existing technologies and field them in a new air frame as soon as possible.
“This is not intended to be a new technology demonstration,” he said. “It is intended to take existing capability that can be fielded in the near term.”
TACAMO is a “can’t-fail” mission, too important to endanger by experimenting with something unproven, Cyr said.
“The nuclear command and control communication business, it is more important to do 100% of the time correctly than to maybe take a little bit of risk on developing new technology,” he said.
SASless
3rd Apr 2023, 22:59
Dusting off the old C-133 design perhaps?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x820/216335_big_7af45208142aaabd0139e003ecbb47e3bd079347.jpg
Coochycool
3rd Apr 2023, 23:03
So if a tech upgrade isn't the impetus, wheres the advantage in the move to turboprop over jet? Its hardly a mission you'd think would be allowed to be compromised by the beancounters.
Surely Vmax is already one consideration against? Is a turboprop considered more survivable? Just askin....
Cooch
GlobalNav
3rd Apr 2023, 23:32
Dusting off the old C-133 design perhaps?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x820/216335_big_7af45208142aaabd0139e003ecbb47e3bd079347.jpg
Hardly. It is a return to the C-130, though, pre-1990.
No one wants to return to the C-133, which had an abysmal safety record, hardly what is needed for TACAMO.
Chock Puller
4th Apr 2023, 03:46
Some better background information about the 133...... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/the-curse-of-the-cargomaster-2241392/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY26Uaws4DI
The model mentioned, C-130J-30, in wide service.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1186/050701_f_0003d_001_bab16a74298c5e00997815fa5237e36a949d21bc. jpg
lederhosen
4th Apr 2023, 05:40
Sounds quite sensible and probably quite urgent given the reported age and state of the current aircraft and world affairs. The Hercules would seem to offer a number of advantages apart from cost. It can be operated with much less infrastructure (airfields, spares, training etc.) and the size of the existing fleet makes them harder to track, more shoal of fish than big shark. Advances in technology probably mean the need for less crew and inflight refueling is obviously an existing capability.
Less Hair
4th Apr 2023, 06:56
How high can it fly? I agree to the bleeding in advantages but it feels a little slow. How about some P-8 variant? Long range, navy parts and pilots and low profile as well?
There should be parked C-17s available for this low flight hours job if anybody should want to go second hand.
Davef68
4th Apr 2023, 08:38
From memory from when this as first announced, I think they wanted an airframe with 4 engines, in case of failure. There are no C-17s in AMARG.
Also, if I recall this is strictly navy TACMO - not sure what will fill the 'Looking Glass' role. maybe the USAF have eyes on another platform
Yet again, the "evergreen" Hercules lives on, over 68 years since its first flight.
Clunk60
4th Apr 2023, 10:42
Unless of course you are the RAF and know better.
Davef68
4th Apr 2023, 11:30
Unless of course you are the RAF and know better.
I wonder the odds on a future RAF C-130 purchase based on some 'new' operational requirement
BEagle
4th Apr 2023, 11:47
Zero
.......................................
Less Hair
4th Apr 2023, 11:56
Does a future TACAMO need a tail ramp for some reason as a requirement? For a long antenna, or maybe to drop drones or similar?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45086/this-is-our-first-look-at-the-navys-next-doomsday-plane
Not_a_boffin
4th Apr 2023, 14:43
Have to say that a speed delta in the 100-150 kt region, ceiling delta of 10k ft or so and an endurance delta of 4 hours might make me want to use something other than a Herc in a GTFOoD moment.
Plus a bit more fuselage length for comms antennae.
If four engines are really necessary, then the E4 replacement is going to be interesting.....
Less Hair
4th Apr 2023, 15:08
Or they want to go back to the most classic, proven super robust steam technology available, for EMP resistance and such?
Could they mount everything on a truck that is carried in the back and can be moved out onboard the next transport if necessary?
GlobalNav
4th Apr 2023, 17:23
How high can it fly? I agree to the bleeding in advantages but it feels a little slow. How about some P-8 variant? Long range, navy parts and pilots and low profile as well?
There should be parked C-17s available for this low flight hours job if anybody should want to go second hand.
I doubt we have enough C-17s as it is. I don’t know the un refueled endurance of the J but it must be fairly good. I’m not a Navy guy, but I doubt its operational ceiling or speed is a significant issue, except perhaps for tactical repositioning, compared to the E6 or E7. It basically needs to be able loiter and maintain a comm link out in the middle of nowhere.
tdracer
4th Apr 2023, 17:58
I'm puzzled by this, and the apparent 'rush' need. The current E-6 aircraft are not all that old - 1990 EIS - and the 707 airframe is known to be pretty robust (same structural technology as the KC-135 that's been flying far longer). The CFM engines are pretty much the same as on the KC-135 as well. I don't get what's so worn out that it needs urgent replacement.
Or they want to go back to the most classic, proven super robust steam technology available, for EMP resistance and such?
The 707 is a shinning example of the classic analog instrumentation - which by it's nature has far better EMP resistance than modern electronics. In contrast, the C-130J is basically a glass cockpit.
GlobalNav
4th Apr 2023, 22:49
I'm puzzled by this, and the apparent 'rush' need. The current E-6 aircraft are not all that old - 1990 EIS - and the 707 airframe is known to be pretty robust (same structural technology as the KC-135 that's been flying far longer). The CFM engines are pretty much the same as on the KC-135 as well. I don't get what's so worn out that it needs urgent replacement.
The 707 is a shinning example of the classic analog instrumentation - which by it's nature has far better EMP resistance than modern electronics. In contrast, the C-130J is basically a glass cockpit.
I wonder if a modified KC-46 could fill the USAF doomsday mission (used to be Looking Glass on KC-135). Not sure how many airframes would be needed, and the E4 would seem to be too expensive.
sandiego89
4th Apr 2023, 23:16
I'm puzzled by this, and the apparent 'rush' need. The current E-6 aircraft are not all that old - 1990 EIS - and the 707 airframe is known to be pretty robust (same structural technology as the KC-135 that's been flying far longer). The CFM engines are pretty much the same as on the KC-135 as well. I don't get what's so worn out that it needs urgent replacement.
The 707 is a shinning example of the classic analog instrumentation - which by it's nature has far better EMP resistance than modern electronics. In contrast, the C-130J is basically a glass cockpit.
1990 is quite a few years ago and the 1950’s when the 707 was designed are even longer ago and 707 based aircraft (JSTARS, AWACs and Mercury) are rapidly running out of life. Yes they have been well maintained and cared for, but support, spares, fatigue, and technology have caught up.
As for those questioning speed and altitude, TACAMO really does not need either. They are not intend to operate in contested airspace. Lazy, cruising patterns are the mission, which the herc can do all day (and already did). If you want low risk and 4 engines, hard to argue.
bobward
5th Apr 2023, 06:33
A touch of back to the future here. The USN operated C130's in the Tacamo role back in the 1970's I think.
Maybe the Navy will buy our surplus Herc's, as they did with the Blue Angels support aircraft recently.
First TACAMO test aircraft was a C-130 in 1962 and two squadrons were formed in 1968, operational 1969 with twelve C-130, replaced with E-6 1989.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-drops-air-forces-mission-from-its-next-doomsday-plane
Navy Drops Air Force’s Mission From Its Next ‘Doomsday Plane’
The Navy is removing the Air Force’s ICBM communications part of the airborne command and control mission from its new C-130-based E-XX.
tdracer
5th Apr 2023, 17:58
1990 is quite a few years ago and the 1950’s when the 707 was designed are even longer ago and 707 based aircraft (JSTARS, AWACs and Mercury) are rapidly running out of life. Yes they have been well maintained and cared for, but support, spares, fatigue, and technology have caught up.
Eventual replacement - sure. But I don't get the 'urgent' part - the airframe may be 1950's technology, but the airframes themselves are low hour (especially compared to other 1950's airframes currently in service like the KC-135 and B-52), and the rest is 1980's technology (i.e. a decade newer than the AWACS and JSTARS).
If the requirement is for a long loiter time, I don't know that a C-130 would be my first choice...
unmanned_droid
5th Apr 2023, 22:06
Perhaps the kit will be ro-ro containerised (long antenna thru a ramp aperture or door mod) and can be fitted to whatever airframe is available at the time - and there will be a lot of available c-130s. It seems the easiest solution if looking to move out of the 707/135 fleet.
Good background on the E-6A/E-6B.
One reason for retiring seems to be that they are based jointly with the E-3 wing at Tinker for engineering and logistic support - and the USAF are expediting the purchase of the E-7 and retirement of the E-3.
https://www.key.aero/article/transformation-us-navy-boeing-e-6-mercury
SLXOwft
6th Apr 2023, 10:46
Also the other B707-320 based aircraft, the E-8C, is also being canned. The JSTARS fleet has be rundown fairly rapidly since the FY19 decision not to replace with a manned aircraft, eight in FY23 and the last four are slated to go under the AF FY24 budget. Mind you, seem to have been doing a lot of flying in Eastern Europe in the last 13 months.