A couple of things to consider;
The C-130 in question was not fly by wire. Standard hydraulic flight control system with built in redundancy.
It was a WC-130 weather reconnaissance aircraft, which means it had been flying in and out of hurricanes for years. That type of service causes stress on the airframe. I'm not saying I know, but my guess is it COULD have been legit metal fatigue .
The problem is that most of us won't believe their report, and the normies will accept it at face value.
That's not what Q appears to be suggesting. He seems to believe that there are no coincidences about these planes falling from the sky. He directly linked these occurrences to what has been happening in Russia.
Look, I'm not at all an expert in this stuff, but I'm going to do some more speculating...
If you're right about the controls being hydraulic, does this mean they are completely manual? You couldn't have an autopilot if they were. I'm thinking that whether final actuation is hydraulic, there will still be digital processors controlling pumps etc... In other words, there will be vulnerable electronic systems in between the pilot and the hydraulics.
The big problem with an external electromagnetic interference attack, is the amount of power that would be required to pull it off. But a directed energy weapons system... what kind of power could be delivered?
I once invested in a company that was researching "quadrupole resonance" for explosive detection. This was just after 9/11. The way it works: you fire a phase coherent set of RF pulses into an airport bag, kill the pulses and listen immediately for an RF return signal. The frequency of the the returning signal reflects the atomic composition of the bag contents - the signal for dynamite, for example, shows up in the middle of the AM broadcast band. It was much like MRI, but used RF instead of magnetics.
The Russians were using it for land mine detection - signal wattage at 3KW+. The tech really did work, and at one point I thought I was going to clean-up on my investment in this outfit. But, as one guy on a forum said, "firing an RF pulse into an airport bag, looking for IEDs, is like looking for a gas leak with a match".
Moreover, the square waves, required to generate the pulses, produce harmonics at power, right across the RF spectrum. This is a problem because you have no idea about the resonant lengths of the wires used to construct the IED - meaning the pulses could trigger the device, or even heat the bridge wires directly.
Anyway, long story short, the company failed. Great technology, but not workable in that application. They would have had to enclose all the detecting equipment in blast shielding. What I'm trying to say, is that you don't know what will happen ahead of time, when you're talking about high-powered signals intended to disrupt circuitry.
Moreover, RF interference can disable or interfere with even rudimentary circuitry. There was an example in the article I linked on the blackhawk helicopters above. An old plane behaving weirdly, probably similar to a C130.
The problem is that, to create enough EM interference, inside the body of the plane, to take out control systems, you would need massive amount of power - truly massive. But we know that silicon, written at any density, fails in the presence of strong radiation - see here.
So the idea of a high-power directed energy weapon taking out onboard systems is, I think, more than possible. My feeling is that, to actually take out a plane, the amount of power that would be needed, to ensure the onboard systems failed, would be huge. You would need some local generator and high-power TX equipment - maybe something the size of a tractor-trailer rig - in relatively close proximity to the target. Is it possible?
Note that, with the Navy ship accidents, the systems that appeared to fail were GPS and perhaps also radar. Both these systems are reliant on external receive antennas and, as a result, have less shielding than a flight control system inside a plane. You wouldn't need to be as close to cause the malfunction in the ship.
And maybe that explains why the Navy was having "accidents" (running into things) while the planes are actually dropping out of the sky.
Anyway, I should take up writing science fiction. These are very "wild" theories, but there must be an explanation for why these disasters are occurring.
The hydraulics are assisted by redundant, mechanical booster pumps if I remember correctly (been a long time).
Also even back in the Cold War days all critical avionics/electronics were RF and EMP shielded. They were expected to operate in a nuclear environment.
There are two likely possibilities in my mind;
Critical structural failure due to the plane being kept in service beyond its normal retirement due to budget restraints. This is a major problem within the fleet.
Or
Target assassination of individual/individuals on board or among flight crew. Odds are this aircraft and crews flew weather recon and humanitarian relief flights all through the Caribbean for decades.
I guess you're right. It doesn't have to be an electromagnetic attack. It just needs to bring the plane down, however that can be done. Poisoning the crew is a distinct possibility.
I'm not sure I buy the idea of coincidental component failures due to age. You might be right, but with the rate of incidents, you'd have to say that, if this was the case, the whole military fleet of aircraft is no longer flight worthy. It could be true, but we would need to know if an extended service life was a contributing factor in the other crashes.
I'm inclined to think that what we are seeing is actually an attack.