RAF seeks improved airdrop system

[ORAC]

After all, the repeated, chat on here about the merits/demerits of the current system, whether we should have the rolling flooor etc etc, what's likely to end up being selected?

Flight International: RAF seeks improved airdrop system for C-130J, A400M
(http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/24/216274/raf-seeks-improved-airdrop-system-for-c-130j-a400m.html)By Craig Hoyle

The UK Ministry of Defence is seeking a new heavy airdrop capability in a move intended to boost the operational effectiveness of its Royal Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130Js and future Airbus Military A400Ms. Citing a need to replace 1950s technology originally developed for the Blackburn Beverley transport, the MoD has invited information on an “innovative solution” to enter service by April 2009.

Candidate systems should be capable of deploying a payload of up to 11,300kg (25,000lb) into drop zones at altitudes of up to 8,000ft (2,440m) above sea level, according to a requirements document issued by the UK Defence Equipment and Support organisation’s Hercules integrated project team on 22 August. This would mark a massive improvement over the C-130J’s current ability to drop individual loads of just 1t under such conditions.

The MoD says the new airdrop system should be compatible with the C-130J’s and A400M’s common 2.7m (9ft)-wide cargo handling system, and be capable of carrying a range of vehicles and equipment. “We considered that merely making the 1950s system compatible with the C-130J and A400M was unlikely to minimise support costs,” it adds. Companies have until 9 October to express interest in the requirement, with formal invitations to tender for the deal – worth between £93,000 and £685,000 ($185,000 and $1.3 million) – to be concluded before year-end.

While the MoD says “the contract has not been raised to reduce the risk of future aircraft losses”, the ability to deploy heavy equipment from the air could bring the advantage of reducing reliance on tactical landing zones, such as those now used during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the RAF’s C-130s have been destroyed on the ground in the countries since the second quarter of last year, with both having detonated anti-tank landmines placed on remote strips.

The air force, which now has a fleet of 24 C-130Js, expects its first A400Ms to meet an in-service date of 2011, with the type to replace its remaining C-130Ks.

[c-bert]

between £93,000 and £685,000 ($185,000 and $1.3 million)

That's quite a large difference in potential income! :eek:

[airborne_artist]

Two of the RAF’s C-130s have been destroyed on the ground in the countries since the second quarter of last year, with both having detonated anti-tank landmines placed on remote strips.

In at least once instance when a 130 was destroyed by landmines the cargo included quite a few people - are they going out on the heavy drop pallets as well?

[tucumseh]

Yes, C-bert, and it both infuriates and confuses Industry. They don’t get a spec and the MoD customer isn’t allowed to “solutionise”. If they ask for key supporting information, like Interface Control documents or work/studies carried out to date, they are usually told that only the winning bid will get them. (Although favoured contractors or those who did the studies will be given them anyway, and so have an advantage). The resultant bids are difficult to mark, as some will have gone for a staged approach, thus sticking initially to the lower figure; others will “go for it” and bid high. Assessors are never comparing like for like. Prior knowledge is important, so bids from existing suppliers look credible, even if they’re bolleaux.

The answer? I’m told I’m wrong, but what worked in the past was single tender the Design Authority (which saves 9 months or so on the tendering exercise and, after all, they MUST be a major player to modify and get MAR) and have them run a competition at sub-contract level. Or variations on this theme. Quicker, as they’re not hide-bound by MoD beanies yet their process is still auditable for probity/fairness (which MoD’s isn’t!). You’ve no idea how much time and money is wasted on faffing around determining procurement strategies when the answer is blindingly obvious. ISD 2009? They’ll have to go some. Some would suspect they know the answer but have to put it in the bulletin because of competition dogma. This is common.

Still, it seems we've moved on from the stated assumption in 1986 that, if the C130 can't airdrop to a CVS, it'll just land on board. The guy's boss was an old ALM, and he was in fits of laughter, until over-ruled. Jack, you old dog. Hope France is treating you well.

[MarkD]

do I recall correctly that there a better system available from Lockheed when the Js were bought and MoD insisted on using the old system? Are the C-17s using a superior system (being originally leased and not butchered into Britishness) and thus the penny has finally dropped?

c-bert - I suspect the range in numbers might have something to do with EU tendering regs - anyone confirm?

[wz662]

Mark D we are not talking floors here (and yes the J floor was a cock up - but a decision the Movers liked!!!) What is now on the cards is a replacement for the good old MSP now that sense has prevailed and the equally ancient type 5 platform has been proven to be useless - cheap but useless.
But why is the new system going to be limited to 11.3 tonne when the A400M is being designed for a 16 tonne platform? (Why did they let the union of Air loadmasters kill the HSP?)
Now the C-17 has a good (great) floor but its designed around Yank heavy drop techniques and not the far superior UK method of RME MSP/HSP.
OK I'll admit I'm a bit biased.

[herkman]

Have we learnt nothing from the past, here we go again to try to improve the ADS systems, that are used by the rest of the C130 users around the world.

Proven tested sytems that have performed well in combat, have a proven safety record, and have been tested time and again.

I will bet too that by the time that you get to use this new system, that the costs will have blown out the window, and you will end up with a system that could be incompatable with every other operator.

I also cannot believe that only now that the MOD is thinking what are we going to do about the A400M.

Still what else could we expect from the people who brought us the foam situation.

Have the movers got a say in this too, if so God help us all, wonder they still are not using tape to hold the loads down.

Is there not something more important that needs to be researched for gear that cannot be bought off the shelf.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[ancientaviator62]

wz662,
the 'union of Airloadmasters ' did not kill off the HSP anymore than they killed off ULLA. It was decreed from far above that there was no longer a requirement and that only JATE would keep them 'ticking over' on a 'care amd maintenance basis.

[ancientaviator62]

When we bought the original tranche of 66 Hercules the US floor was changed to a UK specific floor to allow the use of the UK roller conveyor and side guidance system (SKYDEL ) , a version of which was used on the VC10, Britannia, and Argosy. Commonality (and UK workshare ) was the rationale. The system was used for cargo and airdrop as appropriate. The US system then in use was the Brooks and Perkins dual rail system. A version of this I understand is fitted to the C130J. The UK airdrop system was not usable in the US fit without extensive modifications. I do not agree that the UK system is intrinsically superior. The US philosophy was to use cheap unstressed platforms and equipment designed especially for airdrop. The UK went for expensive stressed platforms (HSP, MSP, SSP, ULLA ) and 'ordinary ' equipment. Both systems IMHO work well.
This of course is a very simplified version of the facts

[MarkD]

interesting stuff! Thanks to all who replied above.

[DaveO'Leary]

My uncle (aged 91) WWII Para has been sitting here reading the above. Compensation? I'll not post his thoughts, but they begin with the 'F' word.

Dave

[L J R]

Rule No. 1 - Keep UK industry out of the problem.
Rule No. 2 - Dont let Qinetiq do the R&D
Rule No. 3 - Look at what others have...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Sorry but I seem to have missed something here..........the problem with the C130J floor is ?????????

[DarkBlueLoggie]

Sorry but I seem to have missed something here..........the problem with the C130J floor is ?????????

Just take a look at the C17 floor to see what wrong with the floor of the C130J? The former is an ergonomic delight, easy to use, for example quick to transform from flat floor to rollers etc (they just flip around). The C130J you have to lift the slats out to perform the same job. Much more cumbersome and slow. The Movers I've talked to hate it!

[ALM In Waiting]

Just take a look at the C17 floor to see what wrong with the floor of the C130J? The former is an ergonomic delight, easy to use, for example quick to transform from flat floor to rollers etc (they just flip around). The C130J you have to lift the slats out to perform the same job. Much more cumbersome and slow. The Movers I've talked to hate it!


Well said DBL. The J floor may be a slight advance on the K, but it is light years behind the C-17's. Having worked on Danish J's in theatre with the same floor design and locks as the C-17, it begs the question; Why not our aircraft? ££££ Would be my guess...

[DarkBlueLoggie]

Which slats are you referring to on the floor when lifting the roller?

The slats the hold the rollers - one side flat, the other side have the rollers. On the C17 you just undo a catch and then spin them on their longitudinal axis. On the C130J you have to lift them out, turn them over, and then place them back into their slots in the floor. Takes a lot longer.

[mystic_meg]

....I think that you will find that the RAF C130J rollers 'clip' to the floor studs provided for the purpose. The RAF C130Js do not have flip-over rollers. When not required, the roller trays are secured to the side rails with strops.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

DBL,

"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"

I rest my case :rolleyes:

Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused :confused:

[Laker Liker]

I was fortunate (?) enough to be the flight engineer on the dropping trials held at Boscombe Down to convince their Lordships at MOD that the Beverley system would work on the Herc.

Early trials were carried out on MSPs with perspex sheets placed along the cargo deck sides and the load was festooned with chinagraph pencils which in theory would give a trace of the attitude of the load as it left the aircraft.

I don't still know what it proved but it frightened us f**tless especially when the loads tended to hang up on the lower cargo door prior to exit. I can still see in my mind's eye a certain wee Scottish captain called S***son standing up and pushing the pole forwards as hard as he could when this happened.

Happy days!

[herkman]

My understanding, is that you can have the flip over rollers if you have a standard 41FT length cargo compartment. I also believe this is an option at extra cost.

However the stretched C130J was originally not available with flip over rollers. The cost of developement from Lockkeed was high, and so the RAAF did not take up the developement and so we lost out. The RAF I also believe declined to go down this track, which shows a complete lack of understanding by both air forces "high ups", of how dangerous AD operations can be.

Whilst the Brook and Perkins system has a weight penality when it is not being used, most of the offending pieces can be quickly removed, when tasked with non AD requirements, such as para trooping or carrying pneumatic wheeled vehicles.

So because of short sightedness decisions, the aircraft has become somewhat restricted in quick role change.

The decisions should be made by the people who fully understand what AD is all about, and the real dangers involved in extracting loads from an airplane.

The clerks and boffins who drive desks, should invited to butt out.

I can just see the cast of hundreds under the existing system, that will want to put their thumbprint on the procurement.

Ah but just like the tank foam and ESP, they will quitely slink off, when it all goes bad.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"So because of short sightedness decisions, the aircraft has become somewhat restricted in quick role change."

You know what they say about a little knowledge :rolleyes:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Who............................?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Over 6 years on type, primarily strat but now tac, both theatres...........and your point is :confused:

edited to ask sod what your point is tell us what your J experiance is :ok:

[DarkBlueLoggie]

DBL,

"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"

I rest my case :rolleyes:

Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused :confused:

Only a couple of weeks working with C130Js and C17s alongside RAF Movers on Magic Carpet a couple of years ago. My apologies, I am probably using all the wrong terminology. My recollection was that the 'slats' on the Hercules were flat one side, rollers the other but have since been corrected. Stand aside that, the C-17 seemed oh so much simpler, with the 'slats' remaining in the floor and just requiring a spin to alter configuration.

I'll wind my neck in now and remember to not spout forth when I know very little of what I'm talking about...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

DBL,

You are quite correct in that the C17 is a very simple system but the -4a is also very simple to use, 4 competent and willing folk can take it from flat floor to full roller in about 10 minutes. The big problem for the J is not the floor but the fact that it invariably has some sort of center seat fit in and removing that for palletised loads is what consumes the time. :ok:

[bythebackdoor]

Back to the original posts, the MSP maybe old but it works(most of the time). With type V you'd need many more aircraft to deliver the same amount equipment. eg. A MK1 with two MSP's could deliver up qto four TUL Land rovers (Piggy back 90's) or even two 105mm Guns and Two prime movers as well as enough ammunition to start the war.
With type V you get one Vehicle and no side stores.
I say, make an MSP 108" wide and be done with it.
I know QinetQ tried this and gave up in favour of type V.

[dragartist]

Does anyone know if this 2007 project ever got off the ground? did it make the 2009 ISD?

I note a couple of the original posters are still around.

I suspect it became a victim of the cuts and with the demise of the K a capability holiday will have been declared. It would be interesting to see what we get when the A400M comes along.

[billynospares]

1. Knock UK industry yawn
2. Knock QinetiQ double yawn
3. Everyone else's stuff must be brilliant triple yawn with cheese on

[Always a Sapper]

What happened to a bloke by the big back door just chucking the stuff out?

Okay some bits might be a bit on the large side (AE's butty box for example) but the driver could put a bit of nose up on to help? :E

[dragartist]

Allow me to add a bit more to the RFI @ #27. It was really prompted by the A400M flight test thread. Airbus appear to be pushing the AD capability of their machine. They talk of some really big loads, far bigger than anything we ever put on an MSP or HSP.

Ancient Aviator spoke of the requirement for a HSP in 82 that never came off. Bythebackdoor spoke of two piggy back TUMs on MSP. We certainly don't have these capabilities on the J. I am not sure the last time an MSP was dropped from a K.

My insider knowledge suggests that Tucs assessment of the DCB is sound.

The 108" MSP from the J was not safe. yes we did drop one from the K. The US Also dropped a Type V with our RME (From a US Civ 130). It was not Q2 who put a stop to it. nor did they favour the Type V. We [Q2 and JATE] did drop a few type Vs from the J but not using the US parachute methods or RME.

Is it classified information as to what systems are to be employed on the A400M?

[ukcds]

The simple fact of the matter is the MOD has buried its head in the sand over Ariel Delivery over the last 15 years once the "eye catching" CDS and Para were inservice, the K 1960's tech, with an even older floor solved all the problems with our AD capability. Now with the loss of the K someone's woken up realised were much less capable, and is now going to spend a fortune sorting it out, AD is a very expensive business as all of you who are or were involved would know. What ever system they choose... It won't be cheap. Shame they didn't make the J as capable as the K in AD terms whilst they had 15 years to sort it.... Surprised. ahhh no. And the major difference between the J and the C17 is they started with a concept... The Abrahams tank, built the back end with experienced loadmasters then built a plane around it. If the J had been built in the same way...minus big tank then it to would be as good... Alas it wasn't .

[dragartist]

You are absolutely correct Ukcds. AD was never properly funded when the DLO was formed and morphed into DEC holding the purse strings only interested in big ticket items.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't think Skydel 3 on the J would have solved much either. we may have been able to continue with MSP for a few more years. You could never have made a new one cost effectively. I don't believe many in the community understood the true COO/WLC across all LoDs of the MSP either.

A400M is only able to drop the same number of CDS as the long J anyway. Using Type V on the A400M (which I think they are going to do) would provide a FARP capability but that is about it. No wheeled vehicles other than a Quads which can be done on double CDS anyway.

Its good to know we had some of our [UK] top Loadmasters on the A400M cargo handling working group. I am really looking forward to finding out if it does what it says in the brochure.

[ancientaviator62]

dragartist,
according to my logbook the last HSP I dropped was on September 26 1984 ! XV 186 was the a/c operated by JATE. I have a pic somewhere I think. This was after Op Corporate so someone must have decided that the capability was still needed in the light of lessons 'learned'.
I have a vague memory that the only reason one platform survived was that it was 'hidden' away in a corner of the JATE hangar and not scrapped.
I can not recall any being dropped after this date but stand to be corrected.

[ksimboy]

HSP was dropped by JATE crew on Ex Purple Star , purely ( I would suggest) to demonstrate to the USAF we could drop heavier platforms than standard MSPs . That I believe was the last time an HSP was dropped.

[ancientaviator62]

ksimboy,
thank you for the correction. Can you recall the date ?

[ksimboy]

Not sure of exact date, but Exercise ran Apr -May 96. I was primarily doing an Ops job( although did manage to fly on one Para sortie). The drop was towards the end of the Ex ,with the JATE crew returning from El Centro, I remember watching platform being rigged in the hangar and I believe the vehicle concerned was a CVRT (or similar) You may know the Nav who would have date etc in his log book.

[dragartist]

Yes Ksimboy, There was actually two drops around the same time. One in the US on Purple Star and one South Cerney or perhaps Keevil. both with CVRT. The UK drop may have been a rehursal!

My friends at JATE had been working on some new side frames for the HSP unfortunatly the design had not considered the wash away to handle tip off. A rather expensive modification was proposed. It was shelved as not affordable. The round poles were kicking around for ages being used as rollers to get MSP CoG.

We subsequently tried to bring it back to life around 2004/5 for an updated version of the CVRT that was heavier. Only to find the existing frames were also outside the envolope. HSP may have been on the A400M Exhibit A list. It may be that someone wanted to drop it to justify it being on the list for A400M.

You could not make it up! That was the icing on the cake and consigned one of the reamining two HSPs to the Airborne Museum at Duxford. I hope they look after it as it took the efforts of many Army folks to get it there.

[ancientaviator62]

dragartist,
I am sure we dropped the Scorpion CVRT on the MSP initially. or is my memory playing tricks ? All my pics of that have vanished. This would have been as a 'one off ' overweight drop above the normal 18000lbs AUW. As I recall the load on the last HSP I dropped was a grader/roller or similar.
We did go to Pope AFB when I was at JATE to airdrop the 105mm gun with a One Tonne L/R on top and all the operational kit. The load was followed out by six RHA paras who derigged the platform and set up the gun.
This was an attempt to sell the gun to the US. No go, 'not invented here' but the troops did like the One Tonne L/R !

[Uncle Ginsters]

Is this load big enough for you? 77040lbs in a single load with plenty of lateral safety margin:

C-17 ARES Airdrop
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6EpOLEjV_Mw

[dragartist]

Great one Uncle Ginsters! The biggest one I ever saw was 35,000 lbs. I don't think the video is on public release yet. Search for X38 for the nearest.

One thing that always troubled me was how the weights were expressed. We were worse than anyone. We had extracted mass, suspended (beneath the parachute) mass and payload. payload was most important to the guys on the battlefield.

the weights quoted above for MSP are totally misleading. probably leaving not enough of your pasties to feed a platoon let alone an army!

[gr4techie]

Great one Uncle Ginsters! The biggest one I ever saw was 35,000 lbs.

If you think that was an impressive airdrop you should see this. Unbelievable ending too.

C-5 Galaxy Minuteman ICBM Drop Test - YouTube

[ancientaviator62]

Great videos,
any more out there that can be shared ?

[Cows getting bigger]

You must admire how the Americans play around with concepts. Even if we had the capability, could you imagine any European country actually having a go at dropping an ICBM from a transport aircraft?

Another one that always impresses me is the C130 gunship - "Hey, let's put a big gun in the side of a C130".

......or landing a C130/U2 on a carrier.

Of course, some of the ideas are barking but at least they give it a go. :D

[ORAC]

Of course, some of the ideas are barking but at least they give it a go

kWttlUxntr4

[gr4techie]

Ah, that looks like the USA's plan to fly a C-130 full of guys who wear black tape across their eyes into Iran, land inside a football stadium, come to a stop, hooligans do their abseiling through windows stuff, then take-off out of the stadium! What a crazy idea! I find it ironic they called it "Credible". I would have loved to have seen it work for real. Maybe they can do it at the next Superbowl for half time entertainment, they could drop off the match ball out the back end :-)