Maybe in the old day. C130Js are 6 prop now where as the P-3 is 4 prop. They also have no common parts.

You can buy it... Or try to steal one from the military base but good luck with that.

You can't really compare the P-3 and the C-130 (I mean you can obviously but you shouldn't) considering one was designed based off an airliner and the other from the ground up. Plus their missions are totally different. Just because it has 4 turboprops and some wings doesn't make it the same. That's like saying a Yugo…

The program in and of itself shouldn't be cancelled but it should be tabled with it going back to the R&D phase in the background while we use the majority of our funds to upgrade and purchase new current gen aircraft. This rush and money dumping to get it operational as soon as possible is going to cause mistakes…

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're fucking joking with your nonsense.

VLSes are not what many would call compact. Just go read the article from earlier today about the LCS with VLS tubes. VLSes are deep. The first part you said was true though now any ship that can carry torpedo tubes on deck (pretty much any size ship) can now have mid to long range missiles. Plus this system…

COTD.

I’ve been pondering this question since I got to Hawaii and found out the auto hobby shop is closed for renovations. I could drive across the island to use another base’s shop but I think I’m just going to do it outside my office. It’s partially covered and secluded.

I will gladly join you in that endeavor.

Couldn’t agree more. On my journey from Newport to Baltimore I had to drive through America’s trash can and intentionally avoided not getting gas in Jersey even at the risk of running out of gas. Thankfully I'm here to say I've still successfully never gotten gas in New Jersey.

You should do your research in the future...

Regardless. The picture is of a C-130T (4 blade prop). Whereas the article talks of a C-130J (6 blade prop). Also I'm Marine so it's force of habit to write KC-130.

Not to detract from the focus of this because it's always a sad day when we lose guys and girls over incidents like this but as an aviation guy I keep getting distracted by how it was a KC130-J that crashed but the title photo is of a KC-130T.

$100k would be my cutoff. Regardless of how much money I had I would never need a car that costs above that.

Came here to say this. I want to know how wide those tires because they look narrower than light duty truck tires. That or the hubcaps are throwing off my perception.

Jet versions could possibly work in the civilian world as long as you don't start up the engines while people are boarding. It wouldn't work militarily because of the jet blast and heat would be terrible for troops loading into the A/C.

“It has 345 HP from its twin-scroll turbo inline six-cylinder engine, a bump of only 2 from the regular S60 T6 R-Design”

“Toyota manufactures only the engine block, the cylinder heads, the valve seats and guides, and the valley cover, White said. Like the other manufacturers, Toyota outsources all other engine-related parts from traditional NASCAR vendors such as Edelbrock, Crane, Drake, and Holley.”

They have to use the stock block and heads per NASCAR regulations. You can't race without it.

I don't even want to begin to contemplate the headache that would be an LFA V10 swap. You'd have to rebuild your entire dashboard too to accommodate the digital cluster that would have to go with it.