Wikipedia

Talk:Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules/Archive 1

< Talk:Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Why isn't Qatar in the list of operators?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been acknowledged that Qatar has ordered some of these aircraft for their air force but it is not seen in the list of foreign operators. Shyampsunder2003 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Qatar Buys 3 C-130Js". Defense News, 8 October 2008. -Fnlayson (talk)

AC-130J Gunship

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not familiar with the Wiki system to post this myself, but I'll pass it to someone who can and let them proceed to tell the story.

SOCOM's refinin' AC-130J gunship plans. Here's a link from military(dot)com: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212676,00.html

And also a little somethin' from the Air Force Times: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/04/airforce_gunship_040410w/

Semper Fi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.130.219 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The gunship version of the C-130J is already covered at Lockheed AC-130#Recent and planned upgrades. The modifying of the MC-130W Combat Spears to be gunships probably should be covered better though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It does state at the end of that article that it's not sure whether or not the J-model will become an AC gunship, and with this information it is confirmed. Just wanted to make sure y'all knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.130.219 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Variants in infobox

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The limitation that "variants should have their own article" is there to make sure that minor variants (like the Canadian CC-130J or the Indian version) don't clog up the list. However, major variants are fine. There is no separate article for the WC-130J, but it is included in the box because there is a WC-130 article with a lot of WC-130J and it would be stupid and confusing to create a separate WC-130J article. Similarly, the KC-130J, MC-130J, and HC-130J should also be listed. The EC-130J should particularly be in there because it is the ONLY Commando Solo still flying. Ng.j (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the note, it is intended to assist readers in finding a variant with its own article. Whenever you go to the WC-130J link, you are directed to a general article on the Lockheed Martin WC-130 series of which the J is only a sub-variant. You have to have an independent article on a variant which is what the Lockheed Martin C-130J is, merely a variant of the C-130. FWiW, keep your comments WP:Civil! Bzuk (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
Actually, most of the J-variants have been covered on the C-130J page, witha few exceptions. The KC-130 article really isn't needed, and ought to have been discussed beforehand. It will probably be ADFed soon anyway. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree on that point. There is a lot of information in the article not found elsewhere; there isn't anything in the C-130J article about refueling, for example. It is a major variant with 50 years of history, some more stuff will come up. Give it a week... Ng.j (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait as long as I think is necessary. But my main point is that we have a LOT of variant articles already, and it's creation has caused a lot of unneeded disruption that could have been avoided had you discussed it first. - BilCat (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The KC-130J could have been covered in this article easily enough. No reason to go on about future/possible operational use of it. The upcoming MC-130W and other C-130 gunship upgrades can be covered in the AC-130 article. Same type thing works with HC-130, MC-130 and others. -fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Operational history - failed deals

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is a current editing debate on the following sentences in the operational history of the aircraft.:

Lockheed Martin has offered to lease four C-130Js to the German Luftwaffe, which has been awaiting a Transall C-160 replacement set for 2010 (Airbus A400M), but the deal was rejected.

In June 2009, Lockheed Martin said that both the UK and France had asked for technical details on the C-130J as an alternative to the troubled Airbus A400M.

These items are sourced, but I am in favor of removing them, because I really think that there is no point in listing every failed commercial deal. Every country operating tactical transport aircraft is a potential customer of the C130-J, and is going to request technical or pricing details at some point. This information could have been worthy of inclusion if the project was endangered and these failed deals had been critical blows, but more than 200 orders of this aircraft have already been passed.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the subject. Cochonfou (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of these offers and requests for information etc happen in every aircraft project as it is part of the normall promotion and selling activities. I would remove them as most dont end up in contracts and are really not notable to the aircraft. In the case of the UK as a current operator it also sound a bit daft would an operator of the C-130J ask for technical details? more likely they just sounded out the commercial aspects of any more purchases. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The lease offer is the more notable one of those. But it seems a bit premature to remove these now. Maybe in a year or so they won't be important enough to mention. -fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well. No harm in keeping them in the article for now. Cochonfou (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Four years later...are we still in favor of keeping this material in? At this point, I'm not sure the statements are still relevant, but I don't want to remove them unilaterally. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no discussion on the matter, I'll go ahead and remove those statements per WP:BRD. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NAMEING OG HERCULAS SERIES

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE OF NAMING SERIES AS I WANT ORISION OR FULL FORM OF KC-........ ,. PKLESE UPDATE ALSO IF POSSIBLE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishodawarrior (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Video overlay

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are the A/V capabilities of the C-130J worth a mention?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/hoc/2011_HOC_Presentations/Mon_1440-L3_Display_Systems.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, the glass cockpit/multi-function displays were among the big upgrades for the C-130J over its predecessors, so yes. The outside video systems can be mentioned as part of that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll snoop around and see if I can find something better than a sales brochure. This smells like options so I need a ref that states to what extent it's actually installed. Hcobb (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deliveries

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This table doesn't look right. For instance the 2011 row says 26 but appears to be at 27.5 judging from the shading. Marcus Qwertyus 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable incidents

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since a Norwegian C-130J now gone missing I'll advocate for a 'Incident-section' in the article. Anyone disagree? Please see link --213.185.8.109 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian Air Force Crash

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

28 March 2014, Indian Air Force C-130J-30 KC-3803 crashed near Gwalior killing the entire crew. There is no news of the investigation into the cause of the crash. A speculative "wake turbulence" is not really an answer. A brand new, high-technology aircraft like the 'J' deserves more than just that. Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The actual accident occurred when the aircraft was rolled 180 degrees before slamming into mountain. Jak474 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oman tiny Mistake

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know how to do this so I'll let someone else work on it.

In the map the UAE was colored blue instead of Oman (which is under it) although the UAE is not listed at all, as it did not sign the contract. I hope this is changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.65.38 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mislabeled Picture

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The picture that shows the unpainted C-130J has been captioned to say that it is a KC-130J. This is not true. The aircraft in this picture is actually an MC-130J, and is also the aircraft that my father worked on. Cheers, Jak474 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you know which aircraft it is, nothing visibile on the aircraft and no clues from the uploader. MilborneOne (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I know because my dad showed me this picture and told me that it is the same aircraft that he helped develop.

Jak474 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly a positive ID of the actual airframe, your dad could have been talking about the Hercules in general. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the image as it is not clear which aircraft it actually is and in any case it doesnt add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough.Jak474 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Martin_C-130J_Super_Hercules/Archive_1&oldid=1136961780"