# C-130 question



## Mud (4 Feb 2008)

I tried the search but found nothing on this - are the stretched Hercs still in service?  And would they be replaced by the J's - since they are newer airframes I'd think they would not need to be replaced right away....?


----------



## geo (4 Feb 2008)

Length:
C-130E/H/J: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.3 meters)
C-130J-30: 112 feet, 9 inches (34.69 meters)
Maximum Load: 
C-130E/H/J: 6 pallets or 74 litters or 16 CDS bundles or 92 combat troops or 64 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.
C-130J-30: 8 pallets or 97 litters or 24 CDS bundles or 128 combat troops or 92 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.

There are a number of threads that discuss the CC130 replacement.  

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28994.0;wap2

It is evident that the older & shorter Hercs will be retired as and when newer aircraft can be placed on the ramp.


----------



## Globesmasher (4 Feb 2008)

Mud said:
			
		

> ..... are the stretched Hercs still in service?



We only have two of the "stretched" Hercs in service - the H30's.
130343
130344
Yes, since those two airframes were only acquired in the mid-late '90s they are still in service.




			
				Mud said:
			
		

> And would they be replaced by the J's - since they are newer airframes I'd think they would not need to be replaced right away....?



The E and the H fleet of the CC-130s are ALL being replaced in the "Tactical Air Transport" role by the C130J (ACP-T project).
Nearly all the E model stubbies will be retired by late 2009.
The remaining 11 or so H model CC130s will slowly transition over to the SAR role as the J comes on line and assumes the Tactical role.

As the H model CC130s begin to retire post 2009 the FWSAR replacement project will be replacing the them in the SAR role.
As to what date and what airframe that will be?  Who knows - well beyond and above my pay grade and outside my swim lane.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Zoomie (4 Feb 2008)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Who knows - well beyond and above my pay grade and outside my swim lane.



2040 is the scuttlebutt among SAR squadrons.


----------



## ringo (5 Feb 2008)

What will become of the H model tankers, will there refuelling kit be transferred to new J models or will they soldier on?


----------



## geo (5 Feb 2008)

Ringo... until all the Js are delivered & the oldest airframes are retired, what's the point of discussing this matter.
Any decision on who does what with what equipment will only be speculation.


----------



## Globesmasher (8 Feb 2008)

ringo said:
			
		

> What will become of the H model tankers, will there refuelling kit be transferred to new J models or will they soldier on?



No.
The CC130J will not be made into a KC130J.
The J models will not be performing AR.

As the H models transition away from Tactical Air Transport and AR they will perform SAR only.
The AR will be assumed by the Airbus.


----------



## ArcticObserver (7 Mar 2008)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> As the H models transition away from Tactical Air Transport and AR they will perform SAR only.
> The AR will be assumed by the Airbus.



Will the A310s be able to operate with an effective fuel load from the 6000' runways at FOL Inuvik and Rankin Inlet or will they have to stage them out of Yellowknife?  Could make things dicey for the fighters in the far north if they have to wait 3 hours for tanker support to get on station...

AO


----------



## aesop081 (7 Mar 2008)

ArcticObserver said:
			
		

> Will the A310s be able to operate with an effective fuel load from the 6000' runways at FOL Inuvik and Rankin Inlet or will they have to stage them out of Yellowknife?  Could make things dicey for the fighters in the far north if they have to wait 3 hours for tanker support to get on station...
> 
> AO



Who said they have to wait ? The tanker will  already be in the refueling track before the fighters need to top up.


----------



## ArcticObserver (7 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who said they have to wait ? The tanker will  already be in the refueling track before the fighters need to top up.



LOL... only if they coordinate the flight schedule in advance with the Russians.  Probably be able to save both governments a lot of money if they did.  "The Canadian Forces Air Command cordially invites you to a staredown at 80N 150W a week from Thursday at 0700z - RSVP"
 :rofl:


----------



## ArcticObserver (7 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who said they have to wait ? The tanker will  already be in the refueling track before the fighters need to top up.



Financial considerations aside, I suppose you're correct.  It is only an extra 90 minutes from Yellowknife instead of Inuvik and the A310 would move a lot faster than a Herc anyway.

AO


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2008)

ArcticObserver said:
			
		

> LOL... only if they coordinate the flight schedule in advance with the Russians.  Probably be able to save both governments a lot of money if they did.  "The Canadian Forces Air Command cordially invites you to a staredown at 80N 150W a week from Thursday at 0700z - RSVP"
> :rofl:



 ???

I am missing something here.  When the Fighters are "launched" so are the "Tankers".  I seem to be missing your point.  With Tankers in the air and on Station, they would be there for Fighters to return to their Location.  They don't fly right into the "front lines" with the Fighters.


----------



## ArcticObserver (7 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> I am missing something here.  When the Fighters are "launched" so are the "Tankers".  I seem to be missing your point.  With Tankers in the air and on Station, they would be there for Fighters to return to their Location.  They don't fly right into the "front lines" with the Fighters.



I was thinking if the fighters launched north from Inuvik and the tankers followed from Yellowknife.  But yes, assuming they'll tank about 450NM north of the base its only a time difference of about a 1/2 hour between a Herc arriving from Inuvik and an Airbus arriving from Yellowiknife.  

I'm sure there must be other operational aspects though (loiter time?) that would make us want to fly the tankers out of Inuvik with the fast movers instead of staging them that far apart?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Mar 2008)

ArcticObserver said:
			
		

> I was thinking if the fighters launched north from Inuvik and the tankers followed from Yellowknife.  But yes, assuming they'll tank about 450NM north of the base its only a time difference of about a 1/2 hour between a Herc arriving from Inuvik and an Airbus arriving from Yellowiknife.
> 
> I'm sure there must be other operational aspects though (loiter time?) that would make us want to fly the tankers out of Inuvik with the fast movers instead of staging them that far apart?



Don't worry, us dumb air force folk thought of everything


----------



## Globesmasher (9 Mar 2008)

For the sake of OPSEC I will refrain from commenting or highlighting the launching and fuel tankering procedures or policy for Northern Sovereignty Operations.
Suffice it to say - Air refueling has been thought of and dealt with.

Really guys - that is all we should be saying on the matter.
It is not important where or how it is done.

Mods - close watch please.


Cheers.


----------



## Franko (9 Mar 2008)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Mods - close watch please.



Already done.       

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------

