MC130J Roll-out
 

Marietta have just rolled out the first MC-130J for AFSOC. Looks good.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h6...saw/mc130j.jpg

Here's a thought - how's about we lease a fleet of these aircraft as we did with the C17 as we draw down :rolleyes: our current J fleet? (admittedly we wouldn't need the AAR fit).
In my humble opinion, the A400M just isn't going to suit the SF support role and we will continue to need C130 sized, specialized TacAT. Leasing would do away with the hideous cash pit that is QQ and would swerve the massive of Office of No that is the IPT.

My only concern would be that we might struggle to get on board in our massive clown shoes.... :hmm:

PS. Don't seem to be any bending moment issues with this aircraft. Clown shoes and spinny bow tie?

Keep dreaming.....

Like the little steps - handy for when it is a bit taily!

Obviously with all that extra kit we would need a few K navs on board!:ugh::ugh:

Now stick a few guns and a howitzer out the port side and now we are talking.:D

Have fun all:ok:

TWZ

It isn't mandated that QQ is used, just that independent assessment is made to verify main contractor safety claims and provide independent advice. There is no reason why MoD Flight Test Aircrew can't operate in partnership with any other UK defence contractor to get the same (or better) results, quicker, and therefore for overall less money.

I am clearly ignoring the fact that the MoD will never buy or lease this aircraft of course, but the point is valid for any other aircraft procurement or modification programme!

Except that unless you want to foolishly follow the septics you don't necessarily want something bristlingly obvious in that role, particularly in these internet savvy days. The Puma XW233 "why has it got really big wheel sponsons" has had its cover blown for a very long time.

FTE - you are indeed correct. Sadly the C130 world seems not to take advantage of that fact.

There's nothing foolish in equipping an aircraft for its intended task. You can't get much more "bristingly obvious" than a Herc turning up (except maybe a C17 or an A400) regardless of what's attached to the outside.

:hmm:

Stoppers

I would rather have an AC-130J :E

Clott

We could just purchase the Harvest Hawk modules and extend the life and usefulness of our existing frames.

We'd all rather one of those but you know full well we'd get the 105mm replaced with a surplus WWII 25pdr and the Gatlings with 5 SLRs bodge-taped together....:hmm:

HH was briefly looked at but it was too cheap, simple and obvious and thus failed to meet any of the criteria for UK military procurement.

Stop Start,

Comments worthy of the award of a saucer of milk (fresh) and a brand new Emery board.

Outstanding! :ok:

Hows about one of these.......

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...r/c3e2d834.jpg


BW

The RAF had its own Herc gunship. It consisted of a GPMG firing out of the port para door. As may be imagined there was not a huge field of fire ! After the trials it was all written up and mainly forgotten. Just as well perhaps.

The MC130J is obviously well designed, tested and based on proven technologies - why would we want that?

:mad:

I would imagine that Harvest Hawk went into the same "rejected" tray as arming the Nimrod at Basra. Couldn't possibly do it as it would risk future funding for FJ if we could prove, albeit in a permissive air environment, that it would be cheaper and more effective to have large war-loaded ac loitering over contacts for several hours than keeping multiple flights of FJ on the go with associated tanker support...

Perhaps just a bit too cynical...?

Er so why has it got really big wheel sponsons then? :E

...to confuse people who think they might be looking at XW223?



Photo Search Results | Airliners.net

About 5 down from the top, and in numerous other places, page 4, page 5 (twice), etc..... At least one of which was at RIAT, where it was bound to be highly photographed.