PDA

View Full Version : C-130J Upgrade Programme


ORAC
19th Oct 2006, 07:42
Defense Industry Daily:

Lockheed Martin has now entered into a $110 million upgrade contract to upgrade and enhance the C-130J Super Hercules transports flown by Australia, Britain, Italy and Denmark....All four participating countries will share the cost of development, design, test and integration, while fielding the upgrades in their own chosen time frame. Known as Block 6.1, the upgrades include:

- Improved Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management systems.

- A common Flight Management System.

- Takeoff and Landing Data update enhancements.

- A Terrain Awareness Warning System for low-level/bad weather flight, with both audio and visual cues. This has been standard equipment on special forces variants for some time, but appears to be moving into the mainstream.

- Enhanced Identification Friend or Foe systems.

- An updated loading ramp, and door hydraulics system to support high altitude airdrops.

- A Safe/Gunbox/Storage unit on the aircraft.

- Development of a robust PC-based system called the Data Transfer and Diagnostics System (DTADS) to enhance aircraft diagnostics and health management.

The Helpful Stacker
19th Oct 2006, 07:47
Any news on a larger galley?;)

wz662
19th Oct 2006, 11:35
The Galley is being removed for the following reasons
a. The microwave's Ping was being mis-identified as an ACAWS warning.
b. The microwave's light wasn't NVG compatible.
c. The microwave failed on EMC with the new software.

The rest is being chucked as it wasn't designed in accordance with Def Stan 00-970. :)

MrBernoulli
19th Oct 2006, 14:00
Upgrade a C130J? Isn't that throwing good money after bad? Or is the 'upgrade' just bringing the J closer to where it should have been in the first place?

MrBernoulli
19th Oct 2006, 15:41
That may well be ..... good work, that is. But it does not hide the fact that the J was a duffer when it was 'sold' to its buyers. It did/does not do what it was advertised to do.

And try riding in one ..... from the UK all the way to Turkey. Be-jay-sus! You'll be deaf and your nerve endings will have been vibrated to death!

sprucemoose
19th Oct 2006, 15:51
Er, doesn't that happen with all Hercules, Mr B? Or is the ride in a K better these days than the last time I went in one? The clever stuff in the J is up on the flight deck (like the microwave), but maybe they didn't show you that far forward...
:\

mayorofgander
19th Oct 2006, 15:53
It did/does not do what it was advertised to do.



ROFL.......

movadinkampa747
19th Oct 2006, 15:54
Or is the ride in a K better these days than the last time I went in one?

The ride in a K is alot smoother than the J due to the fact they dont get off the ground!!!!!:eek:

mayorofgander
19th Oct 2006, 15:56
Not much turbulence in the Instrument Pattern:ok:

MOG

The Helpful Stacker
19th Oct 2006, 16:05
And the' K vs J' thread spills across into yet another innocent thread.:ok:

BEagle
19th Oct 2006, 16:12
"And try riding in one ..... from the UK all the way to Turkey. Be-jay-sus! You'll be deaf and your nerve endings will have been vibrated to death"

Once described as probably the most uncomfortable form of transport since Stephenson's Rocket.

Although that's a bit unfair - at least the Rocket's wagons had proper passenger seats, not bits of string intended for one-way meat bombs!

glum
19th Oct 2006, 16:29
The noise at the prop line is beyond limits. I better not say how far...

movadinkampa747
19th Oct 2006, 16:35
So what is the limit for flying hours for someone with ear plugs in and wearing standard issue eardefs over the top?

ZH875
19th Oct 2006, 16:52
Development of a robust PC-based system called the Data Transfer and Diagnostics System (DTADS) to enhance aircraft diagnostics and health managementLet's hope it is much much better than the 'wonderful' GMS, and I hope that the designers who come up with the program, have actually seen what goes in an F700 and how it is actually used.

Ken Scott
19th Oct 2006, 16:57
Mr Bernoulli: Military tactical transport aircraft are not rated by their passenger comfort alone, especially as the passengers were meant to only be on board for part of the flight. The J does its job extremely well, particularly in the hot/ high environment, certainly when compared to the aircraft it part replaced. Unless you are J aircrew/ a test pilot etc & therefore know what you are talking about, please keep your ill informed recycled banter for the appropriate forum!

The J has done rather badly for upgrades over the last few years, for some reason all the funding for new kit has been spent on the K, so it's about time it received some. Pity there's no new defensive aids./I][/I]

nigegilb
19th Oct 2006, 18:00
Ken, stand by on that front.:)

Tam O'Shanter
19th Oct 2006, 18:07
Ken,
I like your optimism and I agree its about time some money was spent on the J the only thing is I wish it was spent on the correct things ie. things that would be of use to current ops.:ugh:

glum
19th Oct 2006, 18:37
The guys with the small pot of money had very difficult decisions to make, and made the decision they thought best at the time. History has proved they were wrong as the K ran out of hours well before we expected it to. Of course, if Lockheed hadn't asked for such crazy sums of money to integrate the things we wanted, it would have been a much easier choice.

If Tony hadn't commited us to yet another conflict when we weren't really ready, the K may still be able to cope until the J was fully geared up.

The J is the way forward, as there isn't a choice. Still think they need to install a WSO to make it at capable as the K when the sh*t hits the fan.

Better still, train up the loady, so you can take two on nasty missions, and just one when you don't need to defend yourselves...

mayorofgander
19th Oct 2006, 19:43
The J is the way forward, as there isn't a choice. Still think they need to install a WSO to make it at capable as the K when the sh*t hits the fan.

Better still, train up the loady, so you can take two on nasty missions, and just one when you don't need to defend yourselves...

Don't even read between the lines...there is no job for a NAV.
The two guys up front do really well with a bit of help from the third bloke. Sometimes the third bloke does some useful stuff and can do with a set of eyes in both camps....

MOG

glum
19th Oct 2006, 20:22
Totally agree. That's why I suggested a loadie trained to do WSO stuff. I've seen how busy it gets and can't believe two guys can cope when it's getting sporting, and then a major fault developes.

On_The_Top_Bunk
19th Oct 2006, 22:30
The next poster to start a J v K pi$$ing post / thread hi-jack should be banned.

Antique Driver
20th Oct 2006, 06:57
Glad to see the J getting some useful updates!!! Useful for all that route flying around the world they are doing - oh my mistake!! What about spending money on a decent DAS so we can rest the tired C130Ks.

I wouldn't want an improved TCAS/FMS over DIRCM/LAIRCM/RWR etc etc...

Spend the money on the kit we need to protect our crews while we support these pointless operations!!

ancientaviator62
20th Oct 2006, 08:46
Not wishing to get involved in the J/K argument I was a member of the Hercules Airworthiness Review Team before I retired from the RAF. This was to review the K as the J was already behind schedule for service entry and the frames were piling up at Marshalls. One aspect of our TORs was to visit the J procurement mafia at Abbey Wood and ask about aspects of the J that had caused concern on the K . One of these was cargo compartment noise. (There were many others ). After much prevarication they eventually admitted that the noise level would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than on the K but were unable to provide us with figures. Nor could they provide an in service date for the J. We predicted in the report that the K was likely to have to run on longer than anticipated and this would have an airworthiness impact unless urgent steps were taken, mainly in the provision of spares. I suspect there was no provision for funding this, but the current problems with the K can, I believe, but directly traced to the fact that the J was over 2 years late entering RAF service.

Always_broken_in_wilts
20th Oct 2006, 10:24
Just when you think you have heard it all:ugh:

All the current problems with the K are a direct consequence of the J being 2 years late into service..............what utter utter tosh:rolleyes:

Are you seriously teling us it has nothing at all to do with the previous 39 years worth of attrition we have put this venerable beast through. Lyneham is about to celebrate 40 years of the C130 and in that time we have flogged the thing to death during the Falklands conflict, GW1 and 2 plus numerous other theatres, excercises etc etc and to suggest it's now broken because the J was later into service than planned just beggars belief:rolleyes:

No it's not a J K issue just me pointing out how ridiculous the last post was:=

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

glum
20th Oct 2006, 12:24
I don't think it was pointless.

If the J had arrived on time and fully ready, then the K would have been retired and the current problems wouldn't have cropped up surely?

It's not the fault of any of the operators, or the ground crews that we are where we are. It is, as usual, the tiny pot of money not being able to provide what was needed, when it was needed.

ZH875
20th Oct 2006, 12:26
I suspect there was no provision for funding this, but the current problems with the K can, I believe, but directly traced to the fact that the J was over 2 years late entering RAF service.
Only 2 problems with your statement:

1. You suspect - Where is any FACTUAL evidence to support your theory?.
2. You believe.... - again lack of any FACTUAL material.

The J model was brought in to replace SOME of the K fleet, and the FACT is ALL of the K's that were due to be replaced by the J's HAVE BEEN replaced. Therefore, as all affected airframes have been retired from service, I put it to you that you are talking out of your 'Tony Blair'.

For once I agree with ABIW.

Ken Scott
20th Oct 2006, 15:52
Have to second ABIW's comments - the J was only meant to replace half the Ks - the 'short term fleet' as they were known. The remaining Ks were always meant to soldier on until finally replaced by the A400M starting around 2010. The problems with availabilty on the K fleet are not in any measure due to the late arrival of the J.

Long term life of the J fleet might well be affected by their current over usage due to the inability of the K to shoulder any of the burden.....

BEagle
20th Oct 2006, 16:52
Hmmm....

Faded old notes of mine made in 1996 indicate that there was a requirement for 25 'FLA' aircraft to replace half the C130K fleet - and that In Service Date (i.e. 50% in use) was to be....2004.

Also 9 C-17s.

Also a need for 36 'MRTT' aircraft to replace the VC10, VC10K and TriStar fleet. Assumed then to be the A310MRTT.....

10 years later? Well, the RAF has its C130Js. The C130Ks are being caned by high operational tempos, the 'MRTT' is nowhere in sight - and even if the TriStars are not replaced, with a mere 9 A330MRTTs in use, that makes for a total future jet transport force of.....23 aircraft? 5 C-17, 9 A330, 9 TriStar?

pr00ne
20th Oct 2006, 18:33
Isn't it even worse than that BEagle? I thought that the 9 a/c A330 fleet (14 in emergencies and dire need, like now?) was intended to replace the Tristars as well.

Leaving a jet transport fleet of 5 C17 and 9 (14 when were in trouble) A330, a total of 14 or 19?

In addition this fleet will have to meet 100% of the RAF AAR need.

mayorofgander
20th Oct 2006, 18:39
Long term life of the J fleet might well be affected by their current over usage due to the inability of the K to shoulder any of the burden.....


Now there is a common sense statement....:ok:

We need to buy another 2 'J's a year for the next 10 years to cover for the retirement of the 'K'.
(Gawd bless it for all its work in the last 40 years).:ok:
Hell, we might even be able to afford it if we dump 20 typhoo..s:D

And the wait for the A400 (& MRTT etc) will undoubtedly go on!!! :ugh:

MOG

Ken Scott
20th Oct 2006, 19:57
It's even worse than that....the 25 A400Ms intended to replace the Ks will also be, at least some of them, equipped as tankers, to replace the VC10s. FSTA was cancelled due to costs, over £1 billion per frame under the PFI. Not sure what, if anything, will replace the Tristars, I think 13 A330s sounds unlikely. Some new sets of wings for the K mini fleet will aim to keep them going.

At least the whole AT force will comfortably fit into Brize!

BEagle
20th Oct 2006, 20:05
"FSTA was cancelled due to costs, over £1 billion per frame under the PFI."

Oh really?

Yes, A400M common standard aircraft does include an AAR capabilty.

Tam O'Shanter
20th Oct 2006, 22:38
OTTB well said as it is wearing a little thin to say the least. As for MoG I suggest you need to do your homework because the last time I looked ALMs were in fact WSOps and when people talk about needing an extra set of eyes or person and mention WSO/WSOps it covers a multitude of specialisations so don't have a seazure when someone mentions WSO to help on your precious flight deck.:ugh:

Always_broken_in_wilts
20th Oct 2006, 22:52
I am constantly amazed at the amount of ill informed folk, most of whom have never even been on a J flight deck let alone operated one yet constantly prattle on about an "extra set of eyes" as being something we despearately need:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Could I ask if there are any current J operators out there who feel I am missing the blindingly obvious and that we ACTUALLY do need an extra WSO or whatever to improve our lot............is that a deafening silence I can here:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

TheInquisitor
21st Oct 2006, 00:01
Oh, DO give it a rest ABIW - no-one is interested in turning this into ANOTHER fruitless pissing contest.

You seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of your flight deck for a loadie....shouldn't you be in the boot?

BEagle
21st Oct 2006, 07:11
pr00ne, yes, currently the A330 is supposed to be replacing the TriStar as well as the FunBus as you say.

But I hear that a large amount of money is currently being spent on the TriStar flight deck upgrade and improved DASS. It would be folly of the highest order to throw away such aircraft if they had any remaining life in them - or if no life extension programme had been fully investigated.

14 aircraft to meet the entire UK AAR and jet AT needs...... Heaven help the poor guys in the sand if that's all there will be in future. And will the RAF still be using unsuitable tactical transport aircraft in the strategic passenger role? Troop seating in the A400M (I wonder how they're going to get that through certification?) is only marginally less awful than that in the bowels of Albert. Surely the RAF can do better than that for its passengers?

scitzo legman
21st Oct 2006, 07:17
ABIW

We're talking about when the sh*t is hitting the fan, not when you're strat moving water and pax from the Deed to Basrah. When, one day, you actually do a misssion that requires some nouse you might come round, always on leave boy. Until then I guess you'll be a subscriber to the ' we're too good for another bod on the flight deck' possee.

Brainwashed by the frontenders. So sad for one so experienced, aparrently! Can't wait to hear you change your tune sometime soon. It's only a matter of time.

BEagle
21st Oct 2006, 07:23
The A400M will certainly have a 3rd seat on the flight deck, plus MFCU for the occupant. Quite who will use it will be up to the end user, obviously.















I do not endorse any goods or services described in any advertising which may have been included in this post without my agreement.

120class
21st Oct 2006, 09:29
Perhaps one should question why a portion of the DIRCM-equipped C130K fleet fitted under UOR are being upgraded to E-DIRCM so late in their service life and ahead of the C130J?

Cheers

Ken Scott
21st Oct 2006, 09:36
As a current J user, no, I don't see the need for a 'third pair of eyes'. The aircraft was designed for 2 pilot operation, there simply is not enough to do to require a WSOp (or are we really talking about WSOs here?) The Italians carry a third pilot, having spoken to them they said he read the FRCs & did the radios etc, but were a bit vague as to what the PNF did!

If we're talking about actually investing some real money in the J rather than throwing it all at the K, fitting JTIDs etc, then possibly we might need the WSOp(ALM) to put the teapot down & multi-task even more than they already do! This discussion should be about the best way to operate the J, not finding jobs for under employed K WSOs.

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 10:23
That is all very well Ken but how much does it cost to integrate RWRs in HUDs etc. Cheap fix could be sitting right behind you.

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 10:32
Dear oh dear Scabies,

You really do take all the fun out of Pprune when you bite so easily, still not got a seat I guess:rolleyes:

The informed reasoning I use to make the claim that an "extra pair of eyes" is not needed is based on 10 years of flying on the Puma, initially single pilot then 3 man crew, a brief but enjoyable tour on LXX and now almost 6 years of operating the J model, skill sets I would politely suggest you have never developed.

On the Puma there was a definate need for the crewman to nav assist etc, not because of any ability issues with the LHS occupant but simply because at times his having to decipher the limited defensive aids suite, make radio calls and mission manage with the technology available meant that we had a limited but valuable role to play........and bloody good fun it was:ok:

I came to the J hoping that I would be able to re create those time but it is simply not possible and more importantly NOT NEEDED. The Avionics suite on the J is just so damn good that..............................sh!t we have been over this ground time and time again.

The only way the sceptics amongst you will ever be convinced is to swallow your pride and come along on a TAC trip and see just how the two guys at the front do their business and all will be revealed, but ask yourself this question.....We currently have pilots and loadies with a wealth of K SF experiance now operating the J and if not a single one of those reckons we need extra eyes then do we?????????

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 11:59
His/her problem Ratty is that advances in techonolgy means that he/she no longer has a seat at the coalface and the advent of A400M and the like means he/she never will:p

Furthermore he/she continues in a very petulant and childlike manner to denigrate the capabilities of the J and question the competancies of those who operate it whilst puffing out his/her chest boasting about his/her daring do's and constantly telling us that the J model has yet to do anything really dangerous:rolleyes:

Envy as we see displayed in all his/her postings is not a very pretty thing:(

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Ken Scott
21st Oct 2006, 14:02
That is all very well Ken but how much does it cost to integrate RWRs in HUDs etc. Cheap fix could be sitting right behind you.

Nigegilb: the whole point of the J is that the avionics are all integrated - yes, bolting a RWR onto the 'augmented crew position' desk & sitting another person there might work in a limited sense, but you then have to factor in the training costs, salaries, etc to come up with your 'cheap fix'. I for one would rather they did not degrade the efficiency of the flightdeck by keeping the pilots out of part of the information loop. The joy of the J is that the pilots have great SA, and are not dependant on a verbal flow of information, which might be good or bad, from the rear of the cockpit.

I have nothing against WSOs (Navs), I have flown many happy hours with them on an aircraft that needed them because of its outdated kit & the non-integrated nature of its upgrades with bits bolted on here & there. But lets not try & step back several decades - the 2 man flight deck ain't broken, don't try & fix it with a WSO!

Two's in
21st Oct 2006, 14:31
That's the irony of the modern cockpit such as on the J - software driven integrated displays make the job much easier and safer for 2 crew than the previous "UOR goes here, here, and here" on the older cockpits. The trouble is, it costs about ten quid to add another box and 300' of wiring looms, but on the J the mighty LM want a couple of million quid just to open up the OFP software, never mind change it. That leads to the retrograde thought process that it is easier to add boxes, crewmembers, and wires, than to change software, whereas the reality is it's only cheaper in the short term, and leads to this muddled thinking of "Automation through Manpower". It is also a function of the stranglehold the Original Equipment Manufacturers have over the platform upgrades that makes this seem so costly, and that's a direct result of ineffective procurement. Bottom line, don't degrade the platform by cutting corners on upgrades.

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 19:00
Originally Posted by nigegilb

"That is all very well Ken but how much does it cost to integrate RWRs in HUDs etc. Cheap fix could be sitting right behind you."

Is this the same nigegilb who is attempting to create ministerial merry hell because the MOD have taken the cheap option with regards foam in tanks but is now telling us to take the cheap option of employing a WSO instead of full package integration.......................what was that old adage about about faces and town hall clocks:=

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 19:20
I asked the question how much was the integrated package.

Someone wanted to know why the K is getting the gucci kit.

Try putting 2 and 2 together.

Oh and there is nothing wrong with a cheap fix. When foam was offered in 2002 its cost was $25,000. Cost of a replacement aircraft £50mil. I have no idea if the money is there for an integrated fit for the J, I certainly hope it is. But you could bolt on a solution for a cheaper price. I am just pointing out the options so please don't shoot the messenger.

Ken Scott
21st Oct 2006, 20:12
Someone wanted to know why the K is getting the gucci kit.


Two reasons: Biggest is the ludicrous price LM puts on any work because it's trying to make up the loss it made on supplying the ac in the first place. Second is the efforts of the 'Nav Mafia' in the staff chain to deride the J & its capabilities in favour of their own 'seat'. I have often been shocked by the hatred directed at our ac, & simply because there's no seat for a directional consultant.

Perhaps we DO need a Nav on board - then with all the competition for postings & promotions in the J Sqns from the WSO branch we might start attracting some more funding!

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 20:19
Mr Scott,

That is heresy and may your cup be forever rimmed for such an abhorrent suggestion..............the top corridor is currently an odour free zone and long may that continue:E however I fully concur with your second conclusion:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 20:46
Ken, one of the reasons I kept hammering away at the Herc Foam stuff was because the J initially was not going to get it. You guys have got my total admiration, I know the risks being taken by the J crews.

My life was saved my flight engineer, he was wearing gogs when he should not have been and saw another Herc lights off on a head on collision path. I would always take an extra pair of eyes and ears, but maybe that is because of my personal experience. I can perfectly understand why you want the integrated solution, but I remember the totally outrageous figures banded around 3 years ago. Just hope you get what you want.:)

PS Agree with what you are saying about the navs.

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 21:00
My captains meal was saved from burning once cause the GE spotted it was about to boil over...........whilst I wish we always flew with a GE as observant as that it did teach me that flying demands professionalism and to always concentrate on the job in hand:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 21:09
There is no accounting for Americans ignoring SPINS, flying at the East bound level when they are travelling West bound with all their lights off is there?

There is also no accounting for a collision avoidance heading from AWACS actually putting you in a direct collision is there?

Hey ho maybe I should have anticipated the above....Wished I was as good as you. I am sure I am not the only person to have been saved by an engineer, but thanks again fella!

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 21:35
Reeling in:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 21:44
you got me....bar steward

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 21:47
Apologies Nige,

Red wine and an evil streak...........a horrible combination:E

Keep up the good work on the foam front it's much appreciated:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

nigegilb
21st Oct 2006, 21:52
No worries, sitting here doing the commander's tax return, turning into Mr Angry.:}

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 21:56
Tax return................sounds like she earns shed loads so why so angry......unless it's the clothing allowance your are trying to compute:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

movadinkampa747
21st Oct 2006, 21:59
an evil streak...........a horrible combination:E

Hello everybody, this is your PPRUNE news reporter
With all the news that is news across PPRUNE
On the scene of C13OJ Thread
There seems to have been some disturbance here
Pardon me sir, did you see what happened?
Yeh, I did...I was standing over there by the "Oh dear" thread
And here he come
Posting thru the C130J thread, thru the "Oh my god I've joined the RAF thread" and "More Merlins"
Naked as a jay-bird
And I hollered over at Nigegilb...I said don't look Nigegilb
It was too late, he'd already been incensed...

Oh yes, they call him the streak
Fastest thing on two feet
He's just as proud as he can be
Of his anatomy
He's gonna give us a peek
Oh yes, they call him the streak
He likes to show off his physique
If there's an audience to be found
He'll be streakin' around
Invitin' public critique ...etc

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 22:04
Outstanding:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

glum
21st Oct 2006, 22:43
With a limited pot of gold, would the fleet manager rather have bolt on bits and an operator on 6 aircraft, or 1 completely integrated one?

Those are the realistic numbers being considered at the time.

Not really a lot of choice for them was it?

In the current climate, if the K das could be bolted onto the J aircraft (complete with operator) within the budget available, would they rather have that than nothing as now?

Knowing how long it has taken to get the K suite effective, the J would not be fit for use for many years yet I suspect. Still, lots of time away on trials eh?:ok:

Always_broken_in_wilts
21st Oct 2006, 22:55
You read some things that just make your blood boil and they are normally posted by f@ckwits with the brains of a duck:}

"Still, lots of time away on trials eh?"

Who does the trials you ar@e, those at the caolface currently on det after det or the muppets at Boscombe who are civvies, in no hurry and go home every feckin night:}

"(complete with operator)"..............FOR WHAT FECKIIN USE:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Ken Scott
21st Oct 2006, 23:19
The problem is that if you put an additional crewmember onto a 2 man flight deck just to operate a 'new' piece of kit, for 99% of the time he will have NOTHING to do. As that would seem to be a waste of a presumeably highly qualified aircrew person, the temptation would be to give them other jobs, just to fill their time up, such as the radios or reading the FRCs or even God forbid, doing navigation, & before you know it you have a 3 man flight deck because you can't even go to the USA without that person because you've built them into the system.

Or the WSOp(ALM) could do it, with no increase in crew numbers.

glum
21st Oct 2006, 23:52
ABIW:

I've been there you f*ckwit. It was written tongue in cheek, and as per bloody usual you stomp round the forum shooting at stuff like a damn yank.

Reeled in...

And as for the operator, the one needed to operate the piece of kit which has been bolted to the back desk as we can't afford to integrate it. Am I using words which are too long for you to understand, or are you p*ssed?

Ken:

My idea would be to use someone who already has a job on the squadron, such as the loadie. On a normal flight with no defense requirement, you have one loadie. On one requiring the extra kit, you take two. Seems pretty cheap and effective to me...

billynospares
30th Oct 2006, 18:32
By muppets at boscombe i assume you mean the guys who work damn hard to clear the kit you need as fast as possible. Maybe the same guys who were working the J before you had ever seen one. I can tell you that having spent time with the semi trained flems at lyneham i can see why they send the trials to us for a safe conclusion. Stones and glass houses abiw

Chicken Leg
31st Oct 2006, 08:20
Just to put this J Versus K argument into perspective, it would be interesting to know what some of you guys/gals actually do.

Mr Bernoulli
glum
Scitzo legman
nigegilb

You chaps are openly hostile to the J, you wouldn't happen to be Navs or Air Eng's would you? (Or is that a ridiculously obvious question?)

For what it's worth, I've been an 'passenger' (don't ask!) on both types and I know which one I want the next time. It's the one with plenty of room on the Flight Deck and enought umph to get my boys and their boxes to where we need to go.

glum
31st Oct 2006, 08:54
I'm not hostile to the J! I think it COULD be great if we could afford the bits it needs to do all the jobs it has to do. As it is, it's just very good.

Chicken Leg
31st Oct 2006, 10:17
Yes glum, but are you a Nav or an Air Eng?!

FormerFlake
31st Oct 2006, 11:18
I wonder what the 99 Sqn crews are making of this thread? Probably too busy doing their primary job to post.

glum
31st Oct 2006, 11:57
Neither!:cool: