MoD wants to lease more C-130J's

[Razor61]

By Douglas Barrie

LONDON – Britain is considering leasing up to five additional Lockheed
Martin C-130J Hercules to help plug the capability gap left by continuing
problems with the European Airbus Military A400M.
The United Kingdom is interested in taking more C-130Js by 2012, which
likely means it will need to conclude an agreement this year if the
in-service date target is to be met. The Royal Air Force (RAF) earlier
ordered 25 C-130Js, with deliveries beginning in 1999. All but a handful of
the RAF’s aging C-130Ks are due to be retired by 2012.
Alongside a C-130J lease, the ministry is further considering adding to its
six-aircraft fleet of Boeing C-17s to provide additional airlift.
RAF airlift is under strain due to having to sustain the air bridge between
Britain and Afghanistan in support of the 8,000 military personnel deployed
to combat operations there. Delays in the A400M program are only
exacerbating the issue.
Senior British Defense Ministry officials are believed to have met March 4
to examine proposals for the ministry’s next round of funding, known as
Planning Round 09. The need for additional airlift may have been one of the
considerations addressed during the meeting.
The British debate comes as the French government also is looking at
gapfiller options to avoid a tactical airlift shortage resulting from delays
with A400M (Aerospace DAILY, March 4).

-------------------

Isn't this lease to basically plug the gap of attrition from the airframes lost which have never been replaced?

[Rigger1]

Lease! Words fail me, you think these idiots would have learnt from the C17 lease, it would have been far cheaper to buy in the first place rather than lease.

[Benjybh]

You bet me to it, Rigger :ugh:

[Truckkie]

Just buy 5 more C130Js, fully specced from LM, to replace the SFC130Ks.

This will allow the remaining C130Js to be left in the general AT pool.

Leasing - what a waste of money. Buy them NOW - A400M is all but dead in the water.

[Evalu8ter]

Leasing extra -130Js comes straight from the same mealy-mouthed politcos handbook as the original C17 lease. In effect, Airbus will have lobbied influential European politicians, who in turn lobby our Govt, to make it clear that the "lease" does not impact committment to A400 (as if a major buyer pulls out it could pressage a stampede...); hence we only need to borrow a gap filler, not replace a capability. In addition, the lease has a convenient effect on the Finances. Leased aircraft do not attract cost to capital charges, and the lease rate per annum will be more acceptable than the capital cost of purchase, particularly as the budget is broken over the next 5+ years. So, in politician world, they can brag about increasing AT lift in Theatre, keep within the Defence Budget provision and keep Europhiles and Airbus happy. Oh, and wait to expose the REAL cost of doing this (a la C17) after the next election....

[VinRouge]

So, how exactly are they going to build spare capacity wrt sims for the extra crews that 5 jets will require, or will the current crews be expected to man up and once again, do more with less?

[StopStart]

If this actually comes to fruition then hoorah. Leasing might not be the best deal in terms of value for money but a) I don't care - we need the aircraft and this is the only can get them then do it, and b) if we do this the way the we did the C17 then we these things could be on the line in no time at all. Buying the aircraft just sends all the wrong messages to all the europhiles in govt - this is probably the only way we're going to get anything so crack on.

They'd be US spec and as such would be operated as a mini-fleet with, I suspect, crews only being qualified on one software level/aircraft.

VR - we've got people coming out of ears, it's aircraft we don't have.

WRT to sims I suspect that there would be a requirement to use sims that were running the same level of software although to be honest for run-of-the-mill stuff you'd be able to use the existing sims. The slightly more esoteric stuff would probably require use of foreign sims. No big deal really. Just needs a bit of lateral thought.

[VinRouge]

Well, if we do go down the lease route, I hope for the crews sake they sort out some form of decent spares contract for them a la the Boeing contract.

[Truckkie]

They'd be US spec and as such would be operated as a mini-fleet with, I suspect, crews only being qualified on one software level/aircraft.



Stopstart:-

I know of a good use for a 'mini-fleet' for a couple of years which would release 5 'standard' C130Js back to the airframe pool. Maybe even allow us to modify our own frames with a slighly reduced timescale.

Say 12 crews to operate 5 mini-fleet frames?

I wonder where we could get numbers like that in a hurry?

God knows - we could do with 5 more airframes in whatever shape or size at the moment!

[StopStart]

VR - you strike me as a glass half empty kinda chap :}

Truckkie - I can't imagine who you're referring to.... :)

These things coming (if this were to ever come about) as standard US spec would save us enormous amount of faffing about - external tanks, comms, fast ramp, decent freight bay, higher spec software standard etc etc. Marvellous :)

[The Real Slim Shady]

But would they meet TES and MAR?

And of course other assorted bullsh1t spouted by those individuals the decision doesn't favour - career wise. ;)

[herkman]

Getting a bit rusty but I picked up on the comment about 5 aircraft with standard USAF floors.

I was under the impression that the J models for the RAF had the standard floor and that you were using the B & P standard air delivery system.

Regards

Col

[A and C]

With 12 crews and 5 aircraft you are not planing on working the aircraft very hard!

Most airlines work with 6 or 7 crews per aircraft and have the things in the air for about 19 hours a day.

I don't know much about the way the military use the aircraft but in the transport role the aircraft utilisation seems very low by airline standards.

[StopStart]

That's because the C130 is a tactical transport aircraft, not a tin tube full of full of the beshellsuited masses... When deployed (ie. all the time) we generally work on a ratio of 1 crew per aircraft.

I don't know much about the way the military use the aircraft
Clearly

[Good Mickey]

Herkman,

brit floor is 'E' model standard. No underfloor winch, no ECHS, no intergrated CVR etc, etc. Our finest military brains were involved with procuring the J hence no external tanks either...genius!! :ugh: Oh, and -4A was only an afterthought, we very nearly ended up with skydel.

GM

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Stoppers,

Maybe you should have also included that in theatre it's one crew per aircraft with the crew generally working 14 hrs on and 10 hrs off for up to 10 days in a row, see how that fits with his civilian model.

[A and C]

If you are going to quote me please use the full paragraph and not just the bits to try to make yourself look clever.

It is clear that by civil standards the aircraft are under used, perhaps you should start to ask why when deployed on tactical tasks you only have one crew. It would seem to me that a valuble asset is sitting on the ground waiting for the crew to rest, brief and plan when if more crews are made avalable the aircraft could be working.

I think it is time for the RAF to have a hard look at the way it conducts business and suspect that the one crew per aircraft attitude started when the air force had a lot of aircraft, now it is due to the critical overstreach in manpower that I see when ever I talk to guys I know in the RAF.

[Truckkie]

It is clear that by civil standards the aircraft are under used, perhaps you should start to ask why when deployed on tactical tasks you only have one crew. It would seem to me that a valuble asset is sitting on the ground waiting for the crew to rest, brief and plan when if more crews are made avalable the aircraft could be working.


Aircraft requires refuelling, servicing, minor (and sometimes major) rectification, re-arming and re-roling.

While the crew is 'resting' all this is carried out by only a few engineers who also have maybe 3 or 4 other frames to look after.

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of pitching up an hour before to a fully prepped aircraft, with all our planning done by a despatch system, with only a black leather flight bag, to monitor the autopilot for 10 hours before relaxing in a hotel for 3 days.

One crew, one airframe works well for tactical ops as a lot of the time the crew have to live in the back of the aircraft!

5 airframes would allow 4 to be used, with an in-theatre spare, or to allow one to be in deep servicing.

We have a better crew to airframe ratio for strategic ops - believe me our AT fleet is not sat around idle.

5 more C130Js would certainly help with both hub and spoke strat lift and relieve the pressure on the in-theatre tac airlift fleet.

[VinRouge]

He does have a point though. Why work ourselves into an accident due to crap crew duty regs in theatre (not including rocket alarms, mid crew rest call outs, crap air con, noisy buggers in the corridor etc) when we COULD deploy more crews and have more crews at home if we had the facilities and manning to do it. IMHO, the J fleet is drastically undermanned when you bear in mind the Operational workload we are doing.

[Oops Lajes]

Post #16

Which Herc do you think we are talking about?

Seems like you have got a mixture of "E", "H" & "K"!!!!

[herkman]

Re my previous post, I thought I was right about the floor, but was not sure.

It should be understood, and I would be surprised if at least Marshalls did not know, that all J models come from the factory plumbed for externals.

Aircraft can be fitted with externals, I believe it takes about two days.

The source of all bits could be taken off the K models as they go out of service.

Neither stretched J models of the RAF and RAAF have the flip over rollers (what a shame, because the RAF and RAAF were not prepared to finance the plug in extensions. Now of course that I believe it was developed for the USA stretched air planes the retrofit is so expensive.

Would have thought that both air forces having C17 experience would see the folly of cost cutting.

Anyone who has flown with the B& P sytem knows the restictions that places on you if you have to floor load.

I think you would be wise to buy more C130's even if it only gives you better use of the fleet by spreading the hours around.

Does anyone know when the first mainplane changeover is going to be made.

Hope you do not make the mistake of letting the K's go with the external fitted, like you did with the first batch that were traded to Lockheed.

Nose wheel centered, parking brake set, exit clearance and watch the props.

Col

[HaveQuick2]

Didn't we sell off a load of our C-130s a few years back? They are still in service in Mexico, Sri Lanka and Austria.

I hope we got a good price for them!

[StopStart]

A&C, not "trying to make myself look clever" merely trying to save the internet some space. However if do you want me to quote your entire post and then state that you clearly don't understand how we do business then fine.

It is clear that by civil standards the aircraft are under used, perhaps you should start to ask why when deployed on tactical tasks you only have one crew

What on earth have civil standards got to do with anything? Your're comparing apples and orangutangs. To be fair, I don't know you from a hole in the ground and you are entitled to your opinion but the military and civil worlds are different. Sure, one can draw comparisons between our shiny fleet moving lots of people (or not) from A to B and the way the civvies do it but I'm afraid the grubby world of the C130 is very different.

I think it is time for the RAF to have a hard look at the way it conducts business and suspect that the one crew per aircraft attitude started when the air force had a lot of aircraft, now it is due to the critical overstreach in manpower that I see when ever I talk to guys I know in the RAF.

Sorry, and you are? It's true the RAF is overstretched in places but I would hazard that the C130 pilot world isn't one of them (other than in terms of aircraft which are getting too knackered too quickly from being flown too much :hmm: ) The deployed C130 could not sustain the flying hours of being worked 24hrs a day and to be honest they don't need to be. The one crew per aircraft "attitude", as you rather disparagingly refer to it, has nothing to do with the good ole days and me painting my name on the side of the old kite and everything to do with managing our fleet and personnel to create the best minimum arse-ache/maximum efficiency balance for all concerned. We don't have the aircraft/simulators/instructors or indeed requirement to sustain a massive expansion of C130J crews.

Basically (good basically) you're entitled to your opinions and as a civilian airline pilot they're probably fairly well educated opinions but don't be fooled into thinking that your procedures/rules etc have read-across or relevance to what we do on ops.

herkman
It should be understood, and I would be surprised if at least Marshalls did not know, that all J models come from the factory plumbed for externals.

Indeed they do however Lockheed were asking about £100 billion per tank and so we said no thanks. I didn't think the K tanks could be switched across to the J (1553 stuff?). That said, even if they could Marshalls would make a pigs arse of it and they'd end up costing more than the aircraft itself :ok:

Ideally, we'd buy some of the US Js and they'd come with all the good stuff already fitted - we only really need external tanks on a few aircraft.

HQ2
Didn't we sell off a load of our C-130s a few years back?
Yes, because it was part of the deal for the Js plus they were all pretty shagged anyway....

[Been There...]

Whilst the externals from a C-130K could be fitted to the -J, LM will not underwrite that changeover, so externals for the C-130J will be new ones.

[Brain Potter]

I remember hearing a story that when the FSTA project was in it's infancy, a civilian aviation consultancy was hired to explore the concept of leasing aircraft to replace the VC10 and TriStar. They examined the flying programme and pronounced that they could redesign it such that the MoD would need 1.8 aircraft. Of course they had not factored in all the concurrent tasking and had not appreciated that some aircraft and crews are still doing their job when they are not flying, by holding a readiness state.

SS is quite rightly points out that the C-130 is a world away from airline operations, but it is also worth bearing in mind that the much-maligned shiny/Strat AT fleet consists of only 3 aircraft. The rest are also tankers, a role that also has unique facets, with no civilian equivalent.

I hope you get your extra frames, they are going to be needed as A400M tries to shed it's excess 12 tonnes.

[herkman]

Well your statement about externals and lockgreed is undoubtably correct.

But the US forces have just done upgrade and they did it within their own structure.

About time this new breed of aces at LM, learnt who is the customer is and people getting ripped off by their excessive costs need to take a long hard look at what they are doing.

It is the RAF who did the in flight refueling from bits which I believe came off the Vulcan, and did it all in 6 weeks.

Tanks, come the need for wartime for operation could be on in days. The RAAF has tanks in reserve for just this need and they are the same tanks.

Regards

Col

[Truckkie]

What we actually need is 5/6 C130J (Mk4s) fully equipped with externals, decent floor and winch, RWR, etc, etc.

This 'mini-fleet' could be put to very good use releasing 5/6 'standard' C130Js back to the strat/tac AT pool.

The C130Ks are sha**ed - and yes we did sell a load off as part of the C130J buyback scheme. Each one went with external tanks and cupola! - most of them were Mk1s as well - the platform that has suffered the worst combat attrition.

However, if we don't decide to buy them now it will almost be too late - we need to plan for the next conflict/operation.

[ukcds]

Buy your 5 J's Replace the floors with the current k floor from the aircraft you are scrapping,instant fully interegrated Airdrop platform at a fraction of the money that is being wasted on developing new airdrop platforms and systems for the current J. how radical.

[StopStart]

Rip out the enhanced cargo system, the flip floor and the built in winch and replace it with parquet flooring...Genius. And while we're at it we could rip out that annoying glass cockpit and get rid of those tedious high performance engines too.... :hmm:

To be honest, I wouldn't put that sort of idiocy beyond UK Plc. Intead of such nonsense, how's about we just use the US systems? Or just integrate our current/development systems with the new, clever cargo system? Given that it's the serviceability of the dash 4 that's causing most of the problems I can't see my suggestion taking much longer to integrate....

[ukcds]

isnt it wonderfull how a T**T like stop start bleats on about engines and glass cock pits. dont believe i mentioned anything about that , just a sensible cheap and effective way to get 5 fully spamed up aircraft out in to theatre as quick and effectively as possible to cope with the demands of certain ops

[StopStart]

Bleats? Bless you for your kind words. Clearly irony passes you by :hmm:
I'll elucidate for you.
Ripping out a flip floor ECHS back-end to fit a K floor would be the equivalent of pulling the engines off a J and fitting K ones in their place. Nigh on impossible, a backward step and, of course, pointless.

just a sensible cheap and effective way
Your idea is none of those things.

[juliet]

K floor on a J, awesome idea.

Where do these clowns come from?

[StopStart]

"Location: lyneham, wilts, Uk" ....which makes it even more distressing...

[juliet]

Distressing? I actually just had a good laugh at that. Remember to laugh Stoppers! Dont become one of those serious South Siders!

[Truckkie]

Dont become one of those serious South Siders!


Hey Juliet - don't jump to conclusions about every 'south-side'.

A lot of us have done 'north-side' - well before the J arrived!!!!

We're all one big happy family south-side:ok:

I think we all agree we need more, fully-equipped platforms and quickly - before we sh*g another fleet through excess fatigue!

[Mactlsm1]

Hows this for cost saving

Buy your 5 J's Replace the floors with the current k floor from the aircraft you are scrapping,instant fully interegrated Airdrop platform at a fraction of the money that is being wasted on developing new airdrop platforms and systems for the current J. how radical.


You can't rip the floor out, the J is manufactured around the ECHS and the flip floor.

Mac

[flipster]

All,

Don't start the North/South willy-waving contest again........pleeeeease!:eek::eek:

Anyway, been on both sides of 'the bund' and the view from either side is great and everyone (apart from Juliet, apparently) takes their role very seriously and (dare I say it) professionally - shock horror!!?

CDS - As others have pointed out, a J with a K floor is a non-starter - period! SS was quite right to compare such folly with the retrograde step of replacing FADECs with 'Mrs Shilling's Orifices' - even if he was a bit harsh - perhaps you didn't appreciate the complexity/impossibility of changing the floor! Either way, please lighten up both.

J - Get 'serious'!

SS - As you know, I've seen both sides of the aviation spectrum and I think that Vin Rouge may have a valid point that manning/crewing levels are not doing you the best of favours and only predisposing crews and ground-staff to fatigue induced error/strain. Please let me know if I'm out of date but history, even if recent, is a good teacher.

In 2002-4, remember how hard everyone was working on the J in OIF - but you had 4 ac sitting on the pan at LYE with no engines! How hard would everyone have been working with 4 extra ac to fly?

Now, no-one expects a J, K or C17 to work 24/7 (except in a slip pattern - do you do those anymore?) but there is no reason why a well-serviced and maintained ac with the right number of spares and engineers in theatre should not be working 18-20 hours a day, even with re-roling and minor servicing (a contentious statement perhaps - so feel free to appraise me of the state of the AT fleets). But of course, most combat-threat flying is done at night which may reduce these hours a little!?

Truckkie - I accept that if you have to 'live' on the ac it may it cloud things a bit in theatre - but its nothing that a few portacabins, DRASH or even some 12 x12s wouldn't fix - its been done before!?

Unfortunately, I suspect all your problems will lie with Group/PMA manning levels rather than with the number of ac . In OEF and OIF (01-05), the Herc crewing levels had dropped significantly from that of the Cold War. In 01-02, trying to run an airbridge to AFG from a 'neighbouring country', we could barely keep 5 ac (out of 8) flying each night - with just 2 crews per ac in theatre (flying 17-21 hour 'days') and a full engineering det and a few AGEs. Back at LYE, the theoretical manning levels were about 3:1 but we never got our full quota of crews in theatre; for the simple fact that they weren't actually available - or were knackered/out of hours! That's why you need more crews. We were lucky that our loads only required 5 ac/night, plus a spare frame , with 2 ac constantly being worked on. To the detacthment's great credit, even then, we ran the movers out of loads to AFG! Instead, they found us some pilgrims to take to Mecca but that's another story!

Okay, you won't need as many as 6 -7 crews per ac as VR suggests - perhaps 3 or 4:1 would be sufficient to allow for a short surge; bearing in mind, it feels like we have been 'surging' for almost 11 years - since Kosovo/Sierra Leone!

However, the fact is that the 2 Gp/AC budgets have shrunk (aided and abetted by PMA) so as to keep the ac crewing levels way below acceptable levels - they are probably about 2:1 for a constantly falling number of ac, which is barely sufficient IMHO. OTOH, if crew numbers were to increase there would be a greater training and admin burden - at geat cost to AC/HMG, so I don't think this is a starter.

However, should there be an accident where fatigue caused by insufficient manning is a major factor, then 'the MoD system' as a whole, could be at fault for not providing you guys with enough raw material (people) with which to do the job. Arguably, more ac would be better but the system would have to provide with more crews to go with them, so that's not going to happen either - its an 'angry oval' or 'vicious circle'; as you prefer!

Just getting on with it, in old military fashion, is just not sufficient defence these days. Everyone needs sufficient rest - its a physical requirement - just like food and water (and even sex)!!! Anyone who thinks they can get operate efficiently and safely with insufficient rest for more than a couple of nights, is fooling themselves. Countless studies and anecdotal evidence have underline this but yet we all convince ourselves we are 'fine, thank you'. If you want to see what years of insufficient rest does to someone - see how Maggie Thatcher and even Tony Bliar look now!

So, if you can't use the ac to their full potential with the number of crews that you have - don't try to get the proverbial quart out of a pint pot! Pressure your execs to point this out to Group/PMA and up the manning levels - which really would buck a trend.

I will gladly eat my hat if you succeed!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

flipster

[VinRouge]

Spot on post Flip! :ok:

[threeputt]

It would also help if you had an AOC who knew a bit more than four and threequarters of f**k all about AT!

3P:ok:

[flipster]

3putt

Ah......that old chestnut....t'was ever thus!

flipster

[StopStart]

Flip - if I chill out any more I'll die of hypothermia.....

Fella, I think you're confusing det manning and sqn manning? Aircraft in theatre are manned one to one. There is genuinely no reason to increase that. The aircraft don't need to be hammered 18-20 hours a day. As a fleet (J) we've now "been on det" continuously since Feb 03. Deployed ops flying is now our core business and whilst we still haven't got it quite right we're getting there. Crews do 3 or 4 1 month dets a year (or more in some cases) and in between times they get in the sim or twiddle their thumbs. Whilst on det they work a 14 hour crew day doing routine trash hauling and other bits and bobs. We don't, for perfectly good reasons, work round the clock.

The tasking is (serviceability permitting) pretty easily covered by the current manning/airframe allocation. Increased crewing just isn't needed. It also isn't supportable by our current fleet. Doubling the number of crews we have is totally unfeasible with the number of training aircraft/sims/instructors we currently have. All it would achieve would be a massively increased training and administrative burden at Lyneham for a negligible increase in productivity.

Don't let the ongoing saga of the shiny fleet blur into deployed C130 ops. 500 crews per C130 in theatre would have absoluetly no impact on the time it takes to get people into or out of theatre.

If you're worried about an accident due to fatigue etc don't tell us to double our manning/number of dets etc. The answer is far cheaper and easier. KAF needs to provide quiet accomodation to sleep during the day. They also need to provide a feeder that serves food to those on the det (ie the workers) that work through the night. On my last KAF det my crew rest coincided with 4 meals. 4 out of a possible 90. It's an admin issue we've been fighting for years that shows no sign of ending. The blame for an aircraft accident or incident due to fatigue will lie firmly at the door of the EAW Air Cdre and I happily be the first to give evidence (there'll be a pretty long queue mind).

[Minorite invisible]

Lease! Words fail me, you think these idiots would have learnt from the C17 lease, it would have been far cheaper to buy in the first place rather than lease.

The purchase price at the time was over budget so the lease thing was imagined as a back door approach to C-17 acquisition. Remember this was before the Afghan war began. It was lease or no C-17.

Then the war began in 2001, the usage the RAF had planned for the C-17 went above what had been signed in the contract, and the price of the C-17s became a moot point......

[OmegaV6]

SS

Flipster needs no defending by me .. he is more than capable of putting his point across ... however he may not wish to state some things as others may think he is bull****ting ..

So for those that don't know, he is extremely experienced in AT Ops both as an operator and a flight commander. He was (is ?) somewhat famous for his robust positions taken whilst detachment commander on more than one rotation during OEF & OIF.

Not always the easiest boss to work for, but always a good one to have behind you when support was needed.

He's been there, got the T-shirt, and had the arguments (in both directions).

[flipster]

SS

Thanks for that - I can readily see what you are saying - I'm sorry I should have spotted that one ie - single ac, single crew and single AGE. Ahhh! those were the days on det!!!

Sadly, that is only one way to go to war and you never know when HMG require 'just a little bit extra.' But perhaps my answer to Truckkie touched on this - notsure!? The only thing I'd say is that don't be suprised when HMG ask you to do a 24/7 surge - for a few months. If you are only crewed for 1 crew per ac then it would take a madman to ask for such a surge - and, equally, a similiar such madman to agree to it. That is not to say it has not happened before and may I suggest that it could easily happen again!

Also, I take it that slips are but ancient history? As I predicted, if I recall.
It seems as if your problem is knackered ac and those that aren't knackered are in theatre? Also predicted.

If may suggest, the fact that you can cope with 1:1 manning in theatre may be because your customers are quite close and you don't have to fly 1000 nm to the airhead. Nor do we have 2 major and a host of minor theatres all at boiling point at the same time. Unfortunately, life rarely stays that simple for long - especially with Nu Labour at the helm. How would the fleet(s) cope with a NEO in Zimbabwe, a new det in Kosovo along with a surge in AFG/IRQ?


But I am so glad that you intimate that 24/7 is NOT 'de rigeur' - that is a comfort at least! However, fatigue (especially the chronic long-term variety) is insidious and you are wise to be wary of it. Remember the 'Flintstones' camp with the 12x12s, hot and hot running water to the accompanying sound of Uncle Sam's B1s/JSTARS/E3Ds getting airborne every half an hour - seemingly all day (when we were trying to sleep)? I recall I blew a gasket when the Admin WO decided that we should have a camp fire drill just as the Herc crews had got to sleep - at about midday!! Happy days! At least the MCSU was 24/7, even if the mealtimes were not! As they say

'An army marches on its stomach'

- which always was my interpretation of 30 Sqn's 'Ventre a Terre'!

ps I'd wipe those icicles off your brow, if I were you!


Omega - thanks for your kind words

flipster

[juliet]

Truckie/Flipster,

Not willy waving, not slagging off the K. Love the K, well aware of the personalities on here, and where they are from. However, the day I cant give a K guy a bit of a wind up, and expect to receive one in return, is a sad day.

Back on topic.

Stoppers is bang on. There are many problems with C-130J ops, most easily solvable. In fact they have been easily solvable since we started ops many years ago. The ability to eat a meal before, during, or after the end of your working day would go a long way towards a happier crew, a refreshed crew, one that is less likely to make mistakes. A small thing? Not really, but it appears that 6 years of asking wont make a difference.

As for management of crews / crewing ratios etc, leave it up to the Sqns. Stoppers has made the points as to what is needed. Airline scenarios dont work, and if you dont understand that feel free to head down to Lye and ask why.

It still amazes me that most of these problems could be sorted very easily, if only some input from the operators was allowed.

[StopStart]

Flip - EGDL has moved on a little (only a little mind!) since you left and, as I mentioned earlier, this det business is now our bread and butter sadly. We do regularly surge for the RiPs but even then it's only another frame going out rather than multo crews. With a little planning and rationalisation the det tasking is perfectly do-able.

It seems as if your problem is knackered ac and those that aren't knackered are in theatre?
Spot on pretty much. Our engineering world has been decimated over recent years and the line (a non-deployable unit of course, and manned as such) have to run 2 deployable eng lines as well as the line here. There's only so much they can do hence we are constantly fighting for training frames here.

OmegaV6 - I know flip very well thx and in my 14 years here I've picked up a fair bit too :ok:

[flipster]

It seems as though the hymnsheets from which we are all singing bear some passing resemblance!

Yes, I had heard those fine people on Eng Sqns have taken a real pasting over the last few years and are no longer able to do what they once did - all because of some inept, glory-chasing, management. I may be wrong but, it seems as this, along with reducing crew numbers and frames, means that we'll not be able to operate 24/7/52/12 at maximum efficiency ever again. That is not say that some plank of an Airship may not try to get you to do it!

Be careful out there and watch eachothers' backs.

Flip

[threeputt]

Just like I said earlier. I was also going to post on the Nimrod thread. The same current AOC, with two rows of campaign medals and a DFC, as a GR1 Tornado stick monkey, knows f***k all about Nimrod Ops. I don't give a sh*t that he is briefed by experts, he needs to have been there.

2 Gp needs a man/woman who has operational AT experience; FJ "fit in" career slots to Dep CinC Air Command etc are not the way to go.

The current AOC 1Gp is an outstanding, ex GR1/4 pilot, the current AOC 2 Gp is an ex GR1/4 pilot/QFI; where are the good truckies....? Gladis get yourself back from Iraq!


3P:ok:

[Truckkie]

Flipster et al

I think the only surge Lye could cope with is a push to the Five Bells!!

5 more J's would help sort some of the problem if bought now with the right kit!

However, keeping them 's' with dwindling number of engineers might prove a problem.

Manning is a constant juggle - who knows where we are going with crews to airframe ratio during the K draw-down:mad:

SS - 4 meals out of a possible 90 - know how you feel!! Don't forget though that KAF works a normal day, just because you're on nights doesn't mean you can get access to admin, food and good rest! Flight safety my arse:mad:

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash, along with 'Future Brize':mad:

Once again, the C130 fleet produces only because of the hard work by the deployed crews, engineers and support staff.

Fly safe!:ok:

[The Real Slim Shady]

Guys, apologies for sticking in my tuppence worth, however, from reading through this thread the collective message that rings out loud and clear is adaptability.

You all acknowledge the limitations and tribulations you are working under, yet have managed to adapt to this to continuously provide the demanded service.

The human being is very adept at this "find a work round" solution, however, it is a CRM and HF crisis you are experiencing and a classic scenario for an accident.

This thread, the ageing transport aircraft thread , the FSTA, JSF and A400 threads provide clear concern from the front end that "things can only get better" .......Hello Dave, Bye Bye Brown.

[A and C]

I am just trying to get my head around this, you are telling me that on operations at the moment the aircraft (& crew) will fly for about 8-9 hours and then the aircraft is on the ground for the rest of the day.

Why ? I can understand maintenance down time, re-role etc but a down time of 15 hours a day for the aircraft seems very high, why do these things take so long to happen?

Is this down to lack of suport staff, engineers or parts? or are the airframes just past the sell by date?

I can understand that the military flying role is much more demanding than civil flying but I can't help feeling that with more crew avalable (both air & ground) the flying rate per aircraft could be increased.

I am pleased that you think that the C130 world is not in overstreach, but from what I can see the SH world is!

[OmegaV6]

A&C

I'm sure the aircraft could be flown more hours by the simple expediency of more crews .... but would it achieve anything ?? Other ticking a few boxes for those that think they know better ??

An aircraft is tasked to fly to deliver its cargo .. be it walking, wheeled or flat packed ... when the recipient is in a position to recieve that load, physically and safely. I see no value in the C130's flying holding patterns just to improve utilisation time. It is some while now since I was last in the area .. but when I was I always seemed to eat breakfast just before going to bed, and dinner when I got up to go flying ... now ... if memory serves me .. this was not out of choice .. but due to decisions by those on higher pay scales than mine. I have no idea if those decisions are still the same.. and this is not the forum to discuss them ... but I came to sympathise with the life style of bats... :)

You talk about aircraft "downtime" as a negative .. try thinking aircraft "tasking" as a positive ??

[Truckkie]

Hot rumour at the mo is either 1,4 or 9 C130Js straight from the factory (US Spec) and more C17s

Lets hope that's true:ok:

This is to offset the probable cancellation of A400M which is a £4.2 billion debt about to double:mad:

MOD wants to cut and run...

[OmegaV6]

Truckie .. its not just the cash .. it's the delays and options that "may" lead to cancellation ... but I'm sure cylops and friends will somehow find cash to "rescue" the project .. :(

A400M doubts dog EADS profits rise - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/4968673/A400M-doubts-dog-EADS-profits-rise.html)

[VinRouge]

Well, depends if we buy a few more 330s to placate Airbus. plenty of UK jobs will be saved by properly equipping us with 330 tankers/pax aircraft with C-17/C-130 used as hub and spoke for our equipment.

Cant see much point in wasting cash on a lame duck that was designed around an army system that is now up for the chop.

[A and C]

I take the point about poductive tasking and don't want to see aircraft flying hours used as a box ticking program but on one hand this thread is about more aircraft (and I assume that this is becuse of a shortage) and on the other hand the flying hours per day seem to a civilan observer to be very low.

Thi first question that an outside observer has to ask is why this is so, stopstart has gone some way to sheding some light on this, another contributor to this thread said that I might have a point so I suspect that what I am thinking might be half true.

Perhaps it might be of value to the RAF to get a few of your planners into the ops department of a charter airline for a few months and see how the other side works, I think that it would be time well spent even if it only proved that the RAF had got it right in the first place.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

A and C,

When I first joined the J fleet, about 9 years back we had an established slip pattern running the aircraft from Lyneham to Cyprus, Al's Garage, Kuwait, Cyprus and back to Lyneham and apart from 90 minute flag stops the aircraft kept moving. I can think of several other examples where we needed to keep the aircraft moving, wont bore you with the details old chap but suffice to say we already have the knowledge in place to manage that sort of thing.

Stoppers etc gave you a sound reasoned explanation for why we currently operate as we do which for reasons beyond me you seem to have ignored. Civilian airlines like to keep their aircraft flying because of the obvious revenue implications but even you guys would not fly empty, it's all about customer demand.

The way we do business in both theatres currently not only satisfies customer demand but for the majority of time actually exceeds that demand, such that hauling sh1t for the sake of it, or even no sh1t what so ever is not an unusual occurrence.

Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion on here I think you have been a tad rude ignoring the information you were given and a tad arrogant in assuming you know best.

[OmegaV6]

A & C

Not wishing to turn this into a personal discussion .. but I feel you are totaly out of step with reality

Perhaps it might be of value to the RAF to get a few of your planners into the ops department of a charter airline for a few months and see how the other side works,That is the essence of the matter ... Operational flying is NOT repeat NOT a charter airline.

If I may give an old example, as I don't know the present rules, and would not wish them discussed here anyway.

When we operated in my time some of the rules were very simple....... we were only allowed "over the border" in the dark, we were not allowed more than one aircraft "on the ground" (at destination) at any time, and factors were built in to allow for ground handling problems. There were others I won't discuss. Combine these restrictions and during the summer months there were only 2-3 tasks a night ... rising to 4-5 in the winter.

So more aircraft would have achieved nothing, there are only so many hours in a night. The crews worked long hours due to the transit times from base-border.

I can't see a charter fleet operating to such restrictions.

[StopStart]

A & C - we could go round and round in circles for ever with this. The posters above have alluded to a lot of what drives our operating day but I think you just need to accept that we do business differently to you. Not because we're arrogant know-it-alls but because we're operating a military cargo aircraft, from a deployed base, in an operational theatre with it's associated threats whilst responding to tactical level tasking. Spending time with your planners would, I believe, give us little beyond a hotel bill for the RAF and a few hangovers. Like I said, I'm not being arrogant (he said arrogantly!) just calling it as I see it. It's always interesting to see how other folk work but we're not new to this world and I suspect the RAF has been involved in AT longer than most charter airlines (although you wouldn't believe it with the shinies sometimes....:))

Seriously old bean, the only thing your job and mine really have in common is the nice view from the office window :ok:

[flipster]

A & C

Without spelling it out, I hope now that you understand more clearly the 'operational restrictions' facing in-theatre tactical assets - which is what the Hercs are - they cannot operate 24/7, unless in a totally benign environment - if there is such a thing these days!?

However, it is also obvious from a number of posts that if the Hercs were required to 'slip' everywhere - keeping the ac flying a la the airlines, then they could not because:

a. There are not enough serviceable ac any more.
b. There are not enough crews to fly them in such a manner.


What wories me is that some plank on high will try to ask too much of what is left of the once-large Herc fleet!
Being such fine, proud and honourable people, no doubt they will give it a go if asked - I just hope they are very careful if they do!

That said, I still think approx 2:1 crews is not enough. As I said, we almost came a cropper at 3:1 in early OEF because the sectors were so long, it ate up the crew's hours pdq!

[Minorite invisible]

I will attempt not to say anything "top secret" this time, so I don't get blocked off the thread again by ruffled Air Force guys who don't like getting an earful of sobering truth.

I fly civilian jets.
We have about 8 crews per aircraft.
Pilots fly 80 to 85 hours a month. We have a lot of read eye flight and I often have breakfast when I wake up at 5PM.
The aircraft fly 5000 hours a year, which is on average over 13 hours per day. That accounts for the down time for repairs, inspections etc. Recently, I flew an aircraft built in 1991. It had 79,500 hours in the logbook. I rarely see any with under 50,000 hours.
The first person we see when the door opens at every landing is the ramp mechanic who asks about anything needing fixing. Once he is told what needs attention, he (or she) and his/her buddies gets to work right away.

I know the military is a very different environment, but I have several ex-military colleagues. Many loved the military, loved what they did, but I haven't found a single one out of the lot who ever told me the Air Force was run in an efficient manner like the civilian outfits that they discovered after they took the exit. In fact they mostly have tales that describe the very opposite.

Canada is now running a war at the other end of the Globe. Yet several of its five Airbus 310s are often seen parked for maintenance. They barely fly around 1000 hours a year on average. I believe the RAF averaged about 1700 hours a year with its C-17s, which is WAY better than the CF, but still not very good compared to civilian airlines.

For example, when we (civilians) do a flight to far away destination that requires en-route stops, we pre-position crews to take over the aircraft, so that when it lands at the first stop, the plane fuels and continues to destination within an hour with a fresh crew. When an CF chartered IL-76 or An-124 leaves Canada with a military load, it arrives in Afghanistan 20 hours or so later. The same is done for the return. Off-load, load, fuel, change crews as required and within 90 to 120 minutes the aircraft is on its way for the return trip unless the return is delayed by the cargo. When the CF do such trip, often there are no pre-positioned crews, so the aircraft will be parked somewhere en-route to allow crews to rest, as often as necessary.

When Canada sent aid to Burma last year, the C-17 arrived in Thailand three days after it left Canada.

Then our Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly volunteered the use of CF C-17s to carry UN helicopters from Ukraine to Thailand for the same disaster. He promptly got a phone call from the Air Force: One C-17 was tied up supplying our troops in Afghanistan, one was in Texas for maintenance upgrades (it was installing the thing I am not allowed to mention on this thread) one was broken down at its home base in Trenton and the fourth was also broken down in Thailand, where it was since delivering Canadian aid for Burma. He was told that in any case that the MI-8 helicopter being shipped could not fit in the C-17 unless they were partially dismantled. Canada finally had to charter an An-124 to carry the Ukrainian helicopters to Thailand. Three out of four brand new C-17s were down while we are at war in Afghanistan.

I know Air Force people make a lot of effort to make do with what is available and that often the country seems ungrateful, but don't tell me that the Air Force is some well run and efficient organization that does what it is doing well, for that is far from the truth. You should face the truth and attempt to fix those problems instead of patting yourselves on the back and bragging about doing such a great job at running aircraft.

As far as fixing maintenance and staffing problems (flight crew and as well as maintenance) by purchasing new aircraft when those that are available are so underused and so ill maintained, that is ridiculous. Put a few million dollars or pounds in more crews, more technicians, more parts, more tools, better contracts, and if that doesn't work then buy aircraft. Not the other way around.

I hope nobody turns me in for writing "security sensitive" stuff here again like last time. You know who you are.

[Truckkie]

Again, the above poster seems to have missed the point.

If we need to get somewhere quickly, in a strategic role, then we either augment the crew to give us a 24hr crew duty period or we use a slip pattern with pre-positioned crews. The current airbridge goes from the UK to theatre and back in 18-20 hours (when 's')

The one crew/one airframe ratio is for tactical in-theatre/intra-theatre tasking.

Operational constraints and other factors lend themselves to this manning arrangement and it works!

Also the RAF's C130 fleet currently contributes 75% of the ISAF in-theatre military airlift, operating round the clock when tasked.

Not bad for one crew per aircraft.:ok:

What we actually need now is more aircraft to ease the burden.

[Been There...]

I know Air Force people make a lot of effort to make do with what is available and that often the country seems ungrateful, but don't tell me that the Air Force is some well run and efficient organization that does what it is doing well, for that is far from the truth. You should face the truth and attempt to fix those problems instead of patting yourselves on the back and bragging about doing such a great job at running aircraft.
Nobody is saying that the RAF runs an efficient system, we all know that it isn't, if you class efficient as being able to use the aircaft in the air most of the time.

The problem between military operations and civilian operations is the tempo of operations. In the civilian world, you pretty much know that you are going to be able to fill the aircraft for each sector (because otherwise it wouldn't be cost effective). In the military, whilst we have some operations which have high utility (normally the surge phase and initial sustainment of an operation), the majority of the time the airlift required is for the "customer" wherever they are operating; that maybe a Red Flag in the US lasting 2 weeks, an army exercise in Africa lasting a month, Naval exercise of Gibraltar. None of these are regular tasks so we cannot set up a standing slip pattern. Customers want their freight when then need it, not 2 weeks later when the slip pattern allows it.

As has been said, we do run slip patterns when we can but this means that you have to have much more manpower than we currently have as a core requirement. What do those aircrew do when there isn't a surge on? They get bored, frustrated and walk! More importantly they lose the skills which are so important when conducting operations in a high threat environment because we do not have the required number of aircraft to conduct training on.

What we need are some more aircraft to increase the serviceability rate of the aircraft rather than trashing the ones we have and bring their replacement dates forward.

We cannot replace the aircraft when they become uneconomical to run because we do not have the revenue stream which civilian airlines have.

Civilian charter and schedule operations are a long way away from military charter and tactical operations and therefore they cannot be compared as apples against apples.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Perhaps the RAF can start code sharing with the AQ Air Force.

Its won't solve every problem with how the civil community view the operation of military airlift but at least it'll give us a baseline from which to start drawing comparisons.

BTW, does anyone know the ICAO code for 'dusty piece of desert some miles west of Kandahar?

:ugh:

[Ken Scott]

Most of the (civilian) posters are rather missing the point regarding military AT operations - as we don't generate a revenue stream we need to minimise the costs of our flying, so we use the minimum assets we can get away with to achieve the task, we can't make things more efficient by throwing extra people at the task because that 'wastes' taxpayers money. As we operate in a non - benign environment we also have to mitigate different risks and currently that makes us largely night - owls and so we can't operate 24/7, the day is for sleeping. No increase of crews/ frame will change that.

The military don't pretend to run an efficient charter operation (although perhaps the shiny world could learn some tricks....?) so spending time with RyanAir's ops dept wouldn't help except to give someone more stupid ideas, and we already have plenty of those. Replace the ACC with a 'healthy CTM' from BZN - great idea, we can sack all the chefs and save loads. And don't even get me started on capped actuals!

[flipster]

Boys,

Probably the biggest limitation is engineering manpower - we don't have the bods to fix what we have now, never mind MORE frames.

flip

[collbar]

If we flew our C-17s at 5000hrs a year they would last..uummm 6 years!!

It could never happen though. Untill the movers get kit that brings them into the 20th centry and they stop thinking AT revolves around just the C-130, we will be stuck with load times 2 1/2 times the international standard of 90 mins for a lot longer.

you cant blame the guys on the ground, its their managment that just havent put up a decent case for proper kit!