HerkPerfMan

+1. No one wants to sit in coach longer than the current long-haul flights. The big twin jets can fly almost half around the world non-stop - there is little need to go further than that. I think this is the only viable advantage of this concept - it could help larger aircraft or enable longer flights from smaller airports. Rather than trying to extend range/endurance, you could load up with passengers (or cargo) at a smaller airfield and enough fuel to get to AR rendezvous near departure then top off to reach your destination. There are several cities around the world with large, distant hubs and smaller airfields near the city center. This could make those smaller airfields more accessible and enable non-stop long-haul flights. But passengers would certainly pay a premium.

I disagree. Senators should be accountable to their constituency, just like all other elected officials. States are still given equal weight in the Senate, and the Senators are chosen by the citizens on each state. Even in a Republic, I think layers of separation between a constituency and their representatives create opportunity for misplaced loyalty, entrenched interests, and corruption. Plus, I wouldn't trust my state legislature to choose qualified senators - hell, I don't trust them to do much of anything but bicker and waste my money. I'm no scholar of the 17th amendment so I won't comment on your assessment. But I wouldn't use the dirty word of Presentism to describe my view - more of "living" view with priority still placed on original meaning. The founding fathers were some smart guys and they created something new and comprehensive in the Constitution. But they also acknowledged that they didn't know everything, that they wouldn't get it right on the first try, and that the world was dynamic. One of the greatest and most insightful inclusions in the Constitution is Article 5 - the ability to amend it. It is an arduous process with a high barrier, as it should be. There have been 27 amendments since the Constitution was ratified, including 1 to repeal a previous amendment (Prohibition). I believe that the framers wanted future generations to apply their guiding principles to learn from experience and modify when necessary. The framers themselves learned that the original EC construct wasn't working and in 1804 the 12th amendment was ratified to solve their contemporary problem of deadlocked elections and opposing candidates potentially becoming President and Vice President. Amendments have been fairly regular until recently, when the Constitution has been viewed as some holy document passed down from on high. Originalism is one thing, but exulting the Constitution (and its creators) to religious status is something else. We need to learn from our history and experience, and adapt in a dynamic world using the very tools that the framers gave us - hence the American Experiment. Anyway, I veered off the topic a bit, but this will be my last post about it. To summarize my position : The Constitution is truly remarkable and I will defend it to my death; the framers wanted us to change it based on our experience; the EC could use an amendment to account for the national popular vote. I certainly appreciate the debate. And I bet they have big, goofy, bewildered smiles on their faces as they are dragged out in cuffs.

This is exactly what happens now. Republican voters in CA, NY, and IL are not heard since all of their electoral votes go blue and it most likely depresses their turnout. With a national popular vote or proportional EC, every Republican vote in CA would actually count - so would every Dem vote in Alabama. Speaking of Alabama, which is a reliably red state and voted 62% for Trump, let's see how it stacks up on federal give-and-take: The Federal Government provides roughly $60 billion annually to AL (includes the same grants, services, and direct payments as your total for CA) and direct federal funds account for 36% of AL's state revenue (about $8 billion). And AL contributes only $19 billion back to the feds. While the dollar totals for CA are greater, it is also the most populous state in the union and it takes roughly the same as it gives. Look, I'm not trying to defend anything about CA - I've never lived there, never want to. My point is that we can look at these numbers for every state and find blue states that give more than they take and red states that take more than they give. And they all rely on federal money in their budgets no matter how much they like to bash the feds. This is a good point and highlights the role of states' right in the presidential election and EC - thanks for adding it to the discussion. I would counter that the 17th amendment was a clear move toward direct democracy, by instituting statewide direct election of senators. Wouldn't the next step on that path be direct election of the only federal office? And isn't "all votes are equal" a worthy goal? But where would that leave consent from the states? That's why I think keeping the EC and changing it to a proportional distribution of electors would maintain the state/fed mix while minimizing the chance of a disconnect between the EC and national popular vote results. I agree - changes to letter and spirit of the Constitution require an amendment. To be clear, I am not personally advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But it is certainly relevant to this discussion. My personal preference would be to keep the EC but award each states electors as percentages of the state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all or apportioned by congressional district since we all know those are gerrymandered to hell nationwide. Absolutely it would change the way presidential campaigns are planned and executed. And I absolutely agree that voters in every state would be energized to participate, even in hard right and left states, because they will have an actual impact. That only happens in IL. We're proud that our cemeteries have the highest turnout in the nation.

Be careful what you wish for - CA has the 6th largest economy in the world and contributes >$300 billion a year to the federal coffers (11%), which we all benefit from. 2008 and 2012 were not exactly close elections with Obama getting 7.2% and 3.9% victory margins, respectively, in the popular vote and hefty EC victories. No disagreement between popular and EC votes, which is the expected outcome and has been true for all but 5 of 58 presidential elections. So why spend political capital messing with it? But when a candidate wins the popular vote by a 2.1% margin and handily loses the EC, don't you think that disconnect disenfranchises voters and subverts the "will of the people"? I'm not disputing the outcome of the election - Trump won fair and square according to the Constitutional rules, period. But that wasn't who a plurality of our nation voted for. I would be making the same argument if the tables were turned. Of course voting trends, opinions, the number of states, and political parties themselves change over time. Democrats are disenfranchised by the EC right now. That could easily swing the other way but the key point is that VOTERS are disenfranchised over the long term. I did not wake up on November 9 and decide the EC was bad - I just had more substantiation for that opinion. My assertion that "all votes are not equal" is demonstrably true. See previous comment and outcome of 5 previous elections over the last 200 years. Yes, there are 51 separate elections in 50 states and DC, but the assignment of electors is based on House seats (population) plus 2 (for 2 senators per state) and they are winner-take-all except 2 states. Since the presidency is a NATIONAL office decided by a NATIONAL election, shouldn't the NATIONAL vote decide the outcome? I would also argue that the national popular vote would make our election process more resilient and prevent targeted tampering/influencing from swaying the overall outcome - something that I think will see more of in the future. An end-run around a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC is already underway: 10 states and DC have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow each state to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote, rather than the state's individual popular vote. I'm not sure I agree with that arrangement - it would make more sense to assign state electors based on the state's vote distribution rather than winner-take-all.

Right, nothing new just an alternative perspective. The problem with the state (or county) election maps is that they exaggerate the gap between right and left based on physical geography, and completely overlook the large portion of "purple" voters. The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies. The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live. 2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes 80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else The best strategy for the Democrats in 2020 would be offer relocation packages for CA residents to move to swing states. No need to sway anyone or win hearts and minds - just change where you vote. Anyway, the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality would be happy we're having this discussion.

Yes, the Porkins Package is a factory option, but it cuts into the useful payload.

Airbus A330 MRTT has UARRSI installed as well.

Reminds me of this new airframe from South Africa - the unfortunately named "Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft" (AHRLAC). And I think you only need a Light Sport certificate to fly it...

That's exactly what a covert operative would say! But seriously, it seems my sarcastic accusation did not translate well. Exactly. And it's become much easier on the internet and through social media. Of course, we run our own influence campaigns around the world in favor of candidates with positions favorable to U.S. interests. And those same disinformation and influence campaigns are not limited to national elections. Whoever hacked the DNC committed a crime which should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. If the perpetrators were foreign government agents or directed by foreign governments, it was espionage and should be treated as such. As far as Russia influencing the electorate for a particular candidate, I think the line in the sand would be whether there was communication, collaboration, or collusion with that particular candidate's campaign - which, to be clear, the FBI has already investigated. Without that, there's not much that can be done about external influence except to shake our fists at Putin and do the same to him in the future. As far as the effectiveness of any external disinformation and manipulation campaign, it's impossible to tell. If HRC had won, we would say Russia's efforts failed. Since Trump did win, it's easy to say that it was those damn Russians when, in reality, it was a multitude of factors. Many voters decided in the final few weeks before the election, and they broke for Trump in huge numbers - was it Russian disinformation, or the FBI email investigation announcements, or people flocking to Trump's message, or a combination of 100 other things? I hate to drag the Electoral College into this, but it's worth noting that it makes any external influence campaign easier - using the same tactics as a presidential campaign. They only need to influence a few voters in key states to the get the desired outcome.

Despite my fear of prompting a link to an InfoWars "article," I'll ask the question: who is "they"? This is how. Based on your SNAP status and your not-so-subtle, Russia-leaning screen name, you may be one of Putin's operatives described in the article!

I was just going on basic models still in U.S. government service, not specific variants: 1. B-52 (USAF) 2. KC-135 (USAF) 3. C-130 (USAF, USMC, USCG, NASA) 4. B-57 (NASA still flies WB-57) If we're opening it up to all models that still have airworthy examples, a lot more can be added to the list.

The B-36 was also the testbed for another kind of "nuclear bomber" - the NB-36H flying nuclear reactor.

Me too, if active NASA service counts. Are any F-86 or Century Series fighters still in the inventory, even if only used by TPS or something?

Definitely a contender for Most Interesting Man in the World.

T-38 is a supersonic advanced trainer, so I made the leap that T-X would have to be supersonic as well. But going back through the T-X requirements matrix, speed is not even mentioned. The closest thing I can find is: "25. Maneuverability - flight characteristics - Remain in controlled flight while conducting all APT syllabus maneuvers." Are there any supersonic maneuvers in the APT syllabus? If not, then I stand corrected and a transonic jet fits the bill.

What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it.

Form factor looks "inspired by" A400M but the early specs I've seen suggest a smaller size - more like 180,000 lb GW vs 260,000 lb for an A400M. The size may grow as the design matures to get it beyond the C-130 weight class. Not sure what they have in mind for engines, as that may also be a limiting factor on GW.

Right now, CG is more worried about funding to actually operate the C-27J hand-me-downs and a few C-130J add-ons they've been gifted recently. New airframe acquisition will be on the back-burner for a long time.

Probably the same wing planform and area, but with improved flaps, slats or drooped leading edge to target equivalent STOL performance at higher gross weights. More photos for the MC-130J with winglets at Eglin. The short description also mentions a Lift Distribution Control System, which was described in several of the LM fuel efficiency papers.

I don't think any of the "XL" or "wide body" designs ever got past the study phase since there was never a formal requirement for USAF.

That about sums it up. They had several good proposals and the technical capability to back it up, but couldn't get traction. LM's competing resources and friends in high places probably had something to do with it as well. I'm not sure the current status of their C-130A...it may be beer cans by now. In the '80s, it appears Lockheed was enamored with the three-hole design after the L-1011 TriStar design. From the same link that Clark posted, I was pleased to see this photo of yet another Herc variant for the Navy with 3 turbofans replacing the 4 turboprops. I remember seeing this design previously but not in the public domain. The ECX-130 (and KCX-130 for the tanker variant) had a completely redesigned aft body with a T-tail, similar to the C-141. But they left the nose exactly the same. This would have been an interesting sight, to say the least.

LM ended up partnering with Alenia on the C-27J briefly around the time of the JCA program, rather than build a twin-engine "mini Herc." Snow Aviation developed some interesting mod packages for legacy C-130s but never signed any customers. They were trying to compete with the J by offering performance and avionics upgrades (referred to as "C-130M") as an alternative to fleet recapitalization with Js. Snow had a C-130A that they had a lot of fun with - they were the first to fly with the 8-blade props (NP2000). Snow developed a wingtip fuel tank too as a replacement for the underwing tanks. It had many advantages in lift distribution, aileron effectiveness, and stall delay. Never made it past flight testing.

I would put my money on "microvanes" for more drag reduction, less weight, and fewer integration headaches...but winglets are sexier. Here is a good summary of all the drag reduction initiatives in work at LM, as of 2012. https://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=91

MC-130J with winglets spotted at KCEW.