Talk:Lockheed MC-130/Archive 1

Archive 1

MC-130H Combat Talon II

I've decided to boldly move the content from MC-130H Combat Talon II into this article. After wikifying and significntly expanding the article, I learned that this is a series of three aircraft and is better suited for a single article dealing with all three variants. Should work out fine here. The old article is now a redirect. Consequentially 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Added MC-130W

I added a section on the MC-130W. While this hasn't officially become the Talon III, it certainly deserves a place. Given it's mission, associated airframes, its location, and its overall capabilities, the MC-130W belongs here http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=4887 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.17.129.22 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Citation for Cambodia claim?

The article reads "Later that year, MC-130H missions carried commando units into Cambodia.[1]". However the text at the provided link makes no mention of US operations in Cambodia. I don't recall any US military action in Cambodia in the 90s nor do I see mention of one on a cursory glace through the Cambodian history articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a {{fact}} tag on it instead of the given reference. If it doesn't change in a few weeks, we should just delete the claim (but let's give people a chance to fix it if they have some information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen from the recent edits, the forces were put in place, but in Thailand, not in Cambodia, for Bevel Edge, so the information was distorted anyway. Over a thousand to be rescued would have been daunting, esp. in the land of "The Killing Fields".--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

YMC-130H

There should be a section for the VTOL MC-130 variant used for Credible Sport 70.55.85.143 (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Credible Sport narrative has been added. It was not VTOL, btw, but "super short takeoff"--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stealthy replacement

The article that got deleted mentioned how the lack of speed and stealth mean that this platform will be left on the ground (at the starting point in one piece or somewhere inbound in many pieces) during future conflicts. Shall I add dozens of other references on the same topic to be deleted?

Additionally: The split is between the USAF and The Army. The Army wants a helicopter that flies fast, hence Joint Future Theater Lift. The USAF sees only one role for a fast transport that doesn't land on a long well-defended runway and that is a Commando Spirit stealth transport that will be built in small numbers to support SOFing. JFTL will return to Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor eventually and be the largest aircraft operated by The Army, while Commando Spirit will return as a deep black program with a large following of fanboys. Hcobb (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The ones you've linked arent very helpful. One is no longer accessible (but its title states quite clearly "C-17B"), three talk about theater/tactical airlift (not SOF), and the only mention of stealth makes that distinction: useful for SOF but not as important for the type under discussion (Defense Science Board pdf p. 20). But the point is these four are about conventional lifters, not SOF. I searched them all for mention of special operations, MC-130, etc, and got nothing. See your own entry above: Joint Future Theater Lift. They're talking about "aerial deployment and sustainment vehicles", to drag a quote from one of your sources, not SOF "platforms". The GAO link speaks only and specifically to the C-130J, not the MC-130J, and there is no mention of a date of 2024 anywhere in it. The final two sources have some application, talking about a study of an "MC-X" and a "M-X" vehicle (whether fixed, tilt, or rotary wing), but both are a little long in the tooth now, and both time and events has largely passed them by. Your link from Global Security actually talks about a 1997 study, followed by a 2002 study. Since then the MC-130s have actually gone through two wars and a complete change of administration at both the White House and DoD. The second is a 2005 industry news blurb about a concept that might be reviewed in the future, but there's no date set, and nearly five years has gone by with no significant followup. Also, its "M-X" would augment, not replace the current inventory, so the edit is inaccurate in that respect too. Its content seems to have a common source with that seen at the Global Security link and thus has the same obsolescence problems. Your entry is more suitable for the C-130J article, because nothing you've linked speaks to the MC-130J at all. The concept of vulnerability is worth a mention in this section, however, and a summary of those past studies/proposals/concerns. Bottom line: What you posted is neither news (the reason BilCat deleted it previously--you created no context for the opinion you stated) nor established fact. There is no IOC of 2018 for any new aircraft yet--there may be at some point, but nothing is in the works now. The MC-130J, however, is an established, and in this case, documented fact. Our opinions on whether or not it will work, is or is not viable, or even is or is not wise have no bearing here. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or forum for advocacy.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Reed on this one. HCobb is sometimes a bit too enamored of news reports as it is. Not everything reported in the news, and especially in news releases (corporate or government) is relevant to the article on the subject. WikiNews exists for such reports; we have to use more discretion, as, as Reed reminded us, this is an encyclopedia - it's not menat to be an exhaustive treatment of a subject. (As an aside, that's a continual battle we have on the HAL Tejas page, as some editors use the page as their primary source of info on the Tejas, and want to include everything about the Tejas in the article, no matter how minor or trivial.) - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split

I would vote against a split at this time. That time may come, but it is premature now, and as the apparent expert of the day on this subject, I would say further significant expansion is not likely at this point. Besides the fact that the article began with a merge, with the latest historical edits it is very mature now and likely subject only to tweaks. Further expansion is likely only if there is significant movement with the MC-130J. This article at 75kb (which does not even draw the automatic suggested split template inserted at the top of edit pages) compares favorably with similar weapons systems having a long history and multiple variants. The F-4 article is 78kb. The B-52 is 82kb. More historic systems are much longer. The German Panther tank is at 84kb. The B-17 is a 104kb, and the Iowa Class BB is a whopping 119 kb--and its already been split into an entire family of spinoffs (Armament 53kb, turret explosion 147kb(!), USS Iowa 68, New Jersey 84, Missouri 67, Wisconsin 61). Most of these are FA. The Boeing 777, another FA, is 78kb. Just tapping at random on the FA page I found numerous articles in the 80 to 100 range. My point is not the FA, just to show that some articles stand the test of, or require, length. I have no objection to splits per se, but this topic imo is better read as a flow of development than a series of disjointed articles, some of which would have little meaningful content. That may change, and to that end, this section should be left at the top of this page for discussion.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest here: the reason I'm proposing a split is that I find the layout and flow of the article to be hightly confusing. Granted , you've added good material, and put a lot of work into the article, and that is highly commendable. However, I think it's suffered from having only one editor involved, and that someone apprently not being familar with the general layout used by WP:AIR for articles. As such, it kind of does its own thing, whereas WPAIR strives to have a common layout to help readers who read a wide variaty of aircraft article here. I think splitting of the major variants, which the article is already divided into to some degree, would help alot. There are several ways to szplit the article, and one might be to take out some of the history details, and add them to articles on teh theatres or battles involved. Anyway, neither of us will decide this on our own - it will be up to a consensus of editors to make the final decision. - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, agree to disagree. There's always room for improvement in any article. Your point about a single editor is a valid one, though I obviously disagree about the conclusion. In the meantime I'll review WP:AIR to see what can or needs to be done to standardize and perhaps end any confusion.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

After a quick review of the page, a reorganization is probably in order, with incorporation of the operational history content in a daughter article along the lines of "Operational history of the MC-130", and a generalized summary of the series as a whole left in the original. Then the variants can be listed in standard section for that, and their development summarized in a single development section. For now I'll let all that ride, but will put some thought and study (and sandbox explorations) into it. btw, not to create a fuss about this, but I am as familiar with the aircraft article layout as anyone else here, having contributed to many and created others. The MC-130 article just took on a life of its own based on the way it was originally organized by others, and became a "forest-trees" type situation.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HC-130?

Could someone please explain to me how the original C-130E-Is were "modified HC-130s" when no such airplane existed? The first HC-130s were HC-130Hs and were purchased for the ARRS. The first C-130E-Is were production C-130Es that were purchased by TAC in 1964 and were equipped with the Fulton recovery system and terrain-following radar on the production line at Lockheed-Georgia, then delivered to the 464th Troop Carrier Wing at Pope starting in July 1965. Also, just how come the flight line at Pope was so "crowded" that the airplanes were moved to Sewart? In the summer and fall of 1965 Pope had two squadrons TDY overseas, with one at Kadena and the other, which in fact was the squadron that had been chosen to recieve the C-130E-Is and equip for the new mission (which was a world-wide covert operations mission, not for Vietnam, which was just starting to heat up), the 779th TCS was deployed to Mactan Island in the Philippines. In short, the flight line at Pope only had half of the airplanes that were assigned there. Furthermore, in December 1965 the 776th TCS was PCSed to PACAF which reduced the Pope contingent to three squadrons. The 779th started returning from Mactan in December and some of it's personnel went to PACAF to join the 776th. I don't know where Col. Thigpen got his information that the airplanes were delivered to Pope without the Fulton system because it is flat-out not true. They were identical to every other E-model on the ramp - EXCEPT for the Fulton system! After the 779th went TDY to Mactan for one last deployment in order to give the crews more combat experience, the folks back at Pope pulled the winches and what not out of the cargo compartments and started using the airplanes for routine training missions.

The 779th was equipped with C-123s until August 1964 and was actually slated to move to Hurlburt Field, but when TAC decided to buy the C-130E-Is, the squadron began equipping with C-130Es. How do I know all of this? Because I was one of 15 mechanics chosen to cross-train to loadmaster due to the sudden need for 15 new C-130 crews in the 779th. I was present at the briefing in August 1965 when the new mission was revealed a day or so before the first modified airplane showed up on the Pope flight line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamMcGowan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for the input. I will be splitting this article per the above, and when I do the re-write I will incorporate changes that reflect the information. I know as well as anyone that documents used as sources "lie" (esp military) if for no other reason than unskilled writers often prepare them without regard for the truism that "words have meanings". Col. Thigpen may have fallen in this pitfall, since he came into special ops after this took place and may have had had to rely on documents or faulty memories. (Much of what I have read over the years about Phu Cat to use as sources is at variance with my own personal recollections, but just enough outside my specific time frame that I hesitate to change them.) Some conclusions writers list are just their deduction of skewed facts, when a piece is missing, and this may be the case here. The simplest way is to reorient the narrative to avoid such conclusions, and your input helps.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

btw, in re-reading the source, I don't believe he intended to imply that delivered HC-130s were used as Rivet Clamp aircraft, but diversions from the block ordered, while still on the production line. With some commonality already present, this would make sense. That would also jibe with the Thin Chain aircraft being modification of standard C-130Es.As to the Sewert AFB characterization, I have to admit it struck me as odd too.

“Other variants” section redundant

I would like to propose removing the “Other variants” section and moving the other variants up. The Dragon Spear and MC-130J will be the operational versions going forward as the MC-130E is retired. I believe the original reason for the section was lack of content, but that has changed significantly since the article was created. Ng.j (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Over a month and no objections. I will take the lack of discussion to mean I have the go ahead from the silent majority.Ng.j (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Combat Wombat

The "Combat Wombat" reference is certainly not the best we could provide and the nickname was used from as early as 2005 (if my memory serves me correctly). I think it is worth mentioning, but can't really find a good reference. Anyone else? Buffs (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember my dad mentioning something about this particular name, though I can't say that I know where it came from. Anyone know? Jak474 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)