C-130 to Replace E-6B?

[Ozarky]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ing-c-130-hercules-as-its-next-doomsday-plane

“The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) TACAMO Program Office (PMA271) intends to negotiate and award sole source contracts to Lockheed Martin Corporation (CAGE: 98897), Marietta, GA for the efforts associated with the procurement of up to three (3) C-130J-30 “Stretch” green airframes in FY22/23 for testing and analysis.”

A few questions for those more knowledgeable than I:

1.) In situations such as these, will the C-130’s they procure for testing generally go to a test squadron, or would they go to the community they’re intended to serve with in house testing?

2.) With procurement for testing starting as soon as FY2022, and the service expectation of the E-6 going into 2038, there seems to be a large gap between the spaces. I know the government moves slow and likes to stay ahead on these things, but is 15 years on par? Is it unusual for aircraft to be sundowned/replaced before their projected retirement?

 

[MIDNJAC]

This would be the height of irony.....didn't the E-6 originally replace...[drum roll]...the (E)C-130?

 

[DanMa1156]

I am in no way involved in this decision making process, but have been privy to discussions there is concern about the long-term health of the E-6B fleet. This conjecture doesn't entirely surprise me.

 

[nittany03]

This would be the height of irony.....didn't the E-6 originally replace...[drum roll]...the (E)C-130?

Yep . . . it replaced the EC-130Q.

If STRATCOM is looking for a Looking Glass replacement that can disperse like the article says, what's wrong with, say, an EC-17? ?

 

[hlg6016]

In before the first Viking post!

 

[Pags]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ing-c-130-hercules-as-its-next-doomsday-plane

“The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) TACAMO Program Office (PMA271) intends to negotiate and award sole source contracts to Lockheed Martin Corporation (CAGE: 98897), Marietta, GA for the efforts associated with the procurement of up to three (3) C-130J-30 “Stretch” green airframes in FY22/23 for testing and analysis.”

A few questions for those more knowledgeable than I:

1.) In situations such as these, will the C-130’s they procure for testing generally go to a test squadron, or would they go to the community they’re intended to serve with in house testing?

2.) With procurement for testing starting as soon as FY2022, and the service expectation of the E-6 going into 2038, there seems to be a large gap between the spaces. I know the government moves slow and likes to stay ahead on these things, but is 15 years on par? Is it unusual for aircraft to be sundowned/replaced before their projected retirement?

Test airframes will go to a test squadron. Depending on how many aircraft the program buys they may stay at a test squadron or they may be turned back into fleet birds.

 

[RedFive]

I am in no way involved in this decision making process, but have been privy to discussions there is concern about the long-term health of the E-6B fleet. This conjecture doesn't entirely surprise me.

How is it that the AF can keep 400 KC-135s working just fine but the Navy has trouble with 16 E-6Bs, so much so that they're looking to go back to a Herc? The 707 is a pretty robust platform. @nittany03 brings up a good point about an EC-17...seems like a much better choice.

 

[Jim123]

We could have a poll on here for the new platform for TACAMO Mk III

EC-17
ES-3 (not the old Shadow... it would be something else)
EH-60 (throwaway COA)
EP-8
EV-22 (not tied to obvious deployment sites that are on adversary country targeting lists)
EMQ-4

I think the last one has merit. Put all the moles up there in the mission module and let the pilots fly it from an air conditioned trailer somewhere in Nevada.

 

[nittany03]

How is it that the AF can keep 400 KC-135s working just fine but the Navy has trouble with 16 E-6Bs, so much so that they're looking to go back to a Herc? The 707 is a pretty robust platform. @nittany03 brings up a good point about an EC-17...seems like a much better choice.

Minor quibble, though . . . C-135s aren't 707s. They're cousins. Both came from the 367-80.

 

[Pags]

How is it that the AF can keep 400 KC-135s working just fine but the Navy has trouble with 16 E-6Bs, so much so that they're looking to go back to a Herc? The 707 is a pretty robust platform. @nittany03 brings up a good point about an EC-17...seems like a much better choice.

From what little I've seen on this it sounds like the requirement to operate from other than big airports is a driver moreso than the current airframe.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Yep . . . it replaced the EC-130Q.

If STRATCOM is looking for a Looking Glass replacement that can disperse like the article says, what's wrong with, say, an EC-17? ?

Isn’t that production line closed?

 

[Dontcallmegump]

We could have a poll on here for the new platform for TACAMO Mk III

EC-17
ES-3 (not the old Shadow... it would be something else)
EH-60 (throwaway COA)
EP-8
EV-22 (not tied to obvious deployment sites that are on adversary country targeting lists)
EMQ-4

I think the last one has merit. Put all the moles up there in the mission module and let the pilots fly it from an air conditioned trailer somewhere in Nevada.

Honest question, would it be a good angle and make sense to try for some 737s to make some EP-8s and some into and E-8s?

Two birds kinda thing and turn 3 frames into 1? I'm sure boeing would be on board...

 

[Pags]

Isn’t that production line closed?

If it is that would be a big reason not to do it. That and USN already flies C-130s and doesn't fly C-17s thus making a C-130 easier for the USN to man, train, and equip within USN lifelines.

 

[Pags]

Honest question, would it be a good angle and make sense to try for some 737s to make some EP-8s and some into and E-8s?

Two birds kinda thing and turn 3 frames into 1? I'm sure boeing would be on board...

USN has been adamant that the replacement for the EP-3 is the MQ-4.

As mentioned in an earlier post, if the users/CONOPS require use of something other than big airports that would also probably cross off the 737 from the list (I don't know how austere a P-8 can go).

 

[taxi1]

Interesting. While the E6 obviously has dash speed and payload, if your mission is to fly in a slow, tight circle carrying some heavy electronics gear, hard to beat the C-130.