RAF C130J Freight Bay. Why?

[ALM In Waiting]

Hi,
Does anyone out there know why the freight bay on RAF C130J's differs from every other operating nation?

For those not familiar with the type, the RAF J model has a freight bay which is more or less a copy of the H model design (AFAIK). Where as all other operating nations have a 'C-17' style freight bay arrangement with flip roller and electronic locks etc.

I've heard various rumours as to why this is the case:

MoD felt the design was 'too complicated' and hard to maintain.

Simple cost saving by having an older system fitted.

Movers wanting standardisation across the AT fleet. E.g. The roller and guidance system common to both the K and VC10 (this obviously makes less sense).

The aircraft were flown before the cargo floor was fitted and this 'bent' and unable to accept the standard floor (even more dubious).

If anyone out there could shed light on this I would be most interested.

[Mactlsm1]

Oh Dear,
Did you really need to ask this. It was to keep the floor and hence the ground equipment the same as the C130K. Our Js are unique because of the floor and that's why we can't really take any more off the production line (like we can with C-17) and have a common J fleet. Most of the other J operators have the ECHS (Enhaced Cargo Handling System) floor whereas ours DON'T. ECHS allows the ALM to control cargo loading and air drop amongst other things. Having seen the system at first hand on a Danish aircraft it is the dogs doo dahs.

Mac

[Harley Quinn]

Oh dear, you have to wonder who thought that was a good idea, maybe they should have chosen to keep the same engine type as well to maintain compatibility with the old fleet :ugh:

I seem to recall one of the brochure selling points was the rapidity of re-role using ECHS

[Nomorefreetime]

No mover input, It's only since after the J came in that both ALM's and Movers have had any input to requirements down the back. A400 should be back end friendly

Danish aircraft also has a fitted winch and the ADS arms do not need to be undone to allow the ramp to be grounded.

As always it comes down to the pennies.

[ALM In Waiting]

Mac,
Not really sure how the C130J and K floors could be described as common as they are chalk and cheese. Unless you are referring to the actual floor loading limits etc.

The K role is a nightmare meccano set of bits, pins and manual spigots, although able to take pallets in F or C fit. Where as the J is just large sections of roller conveyor and a fixed F fit -4 side guidance system.

[ALM In Waiting]

Thanks NFT, but even without 'user' input, was it still cheaper to have them built differently? With most things in life, if you want to go away from the 'standard spec' i.e. ECHS it will cost you an arm and a leg to be different.

[Nomorefreetime]

Dont forget we were the launch customer for the J, always room for improvement afterward. The J initially was slow for other nations to purchase, USMC were the only ones who initially followed us

[Whopity]

The best one was the Argossy floor. Hardened to take a Saracen, but when the floor was fitted there wasn't enough headroom to get the Saracen in!

[StopStart]

What JTO said above.... I think the ECHS existed only as a concept when we purchased the aircraft. I think I'm right in saying the Australians and Italians also have the -4A back end as do the USMC.

The hope of incorporating USAF airdrop systems also failed to consider the RAF/MoD's inability to just buy something off the shelf without first getting QinetiQ to reduce said proven system to it's constituent atoms, reassembling it slightly incorrectly with most functionality removed and then paying double for the privilege.

Slight thread drift but just imagine if we could actually just buy things off the shelf..... :rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/KC-130J_Harvest_Hawk_%28front%29_at_Camp_Dwyer_Afghanistan_2011 .JPG/800px-KC-130J_Harvest_Hawk_%28front%29_at_Camp_Dwyer_Afghanistan_2011 .JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/KC-130J_Harvest_Hawk_mission_markers_Afghanistan_2011.JPG/800px-KC-130J_Harvest_Hawk_mission_markers_Afghanistan_2011.JPG

[WE992]

Jus like we could have had the under floor winch but instead some clowns decided that we ought to adapt the Blackburn winch to fit to save money. Of course it did not work and we had no which apart from the movers manual Tirfor winch. No we have reconditioned Starlifter winches. The cargo hold on the J has been a complete cluster from the moment it was delivered with no palletisation system.

[NutLoose]

It's the RAF way, why change what we do best, if it is compatible we would never buy it..
, I was reading about the Neptunes when they came into service, they had pencil holders, ashtrays and clocks in the cockpit, the RAF removed the lot saying they don't need clocks as we provide the crew with watches.

[ALM In Waiting]

Thanks guys, at least there was some logic behind the madness.

[VX275]

First off ECHS was rejected as it was too expensive (and at time untested). There was going to be a version of Skydel CHS so that the J could carry and drop the existing inventory of UK heavy drop platforms. This was built and test fitted but Lockheed wouldn't back its fitting and use so it was dropped. Too late to retrofit the ECHS the UK went for what the (deluded) movers wanted all along - Dash 4a. When the 4a beams arrived for fitting at Lyneham the holes in the beams didn't line up with the holes in the aircraft so the beams were filed out to fit, thereby ruining them as they are classed as primary structure. The reason the holes didn't line up was simple. Being the lead customer for the J the UKs aircraft were built using the jigs that had built every other Herc and these jigs were worn out (Part of the offset from the UK buy of the J was the supply of new jigs, but these didn't get to Marrietta until our 25 aircraft had been built).
So that is how the RAF J Hercs have the heap of rubbish that Dash 4a is instead of a tarted up version of Skydel.
Before anyone steps in and says the 4a system is modern and Skydel isn't I'll have to be forced to dig out the NATO report that called for a cargo restraint rail system. The Yanks went for Dash 4 and the UK went for Skydel that fitted its fleet of Transport aircraft, the VC10, Argosey, Andover and Hercules (the reason the K floor is different to any other Herc).

[ancientaviator62]

When we bought the C130K (basically an E model with the uprated H engines- a mixed blessing !) it was decided to fit certain items of UK kit into it to provide work for UK firms. Some of it was Avionics the other was in the cargo handling/airdrop roles. The result was as has already been mentioned, the RAF used the Skydel system both for cargo handling and airdrop. The UK pallets and airdrop platforms were unique to the RAF . The UK used stressed platforms for airdrop, the US unstressed platforms. Both systems had advantages and disadvantages. So the decision to so equip the our Herc was understandable at the time despite the fact that the cargo floor was now unique to the RAF. What was probably not sensible was to keep in service the already dated winch from the now defunct Beverley. It would have been far cheaper in the long run to have sourced a new winch. But as we all know MOD does not do 'the long run'. Of the J I know nothing as I was out by the time it was in.

[ancientaviator62]

Just picking up on VX 275 and the 'deluded movers' remark. When we used to go on Nato exercise with our new 'K's the host nation would turn up with -463L pallets aready loaded for a quick turn round. Unfortunately they could not be secured into the RAF Skydel system at that time. No quick turnround as everything had to be txferred to the RAF pallets.. Several years later adaptors were made so as to allow RAF Hercs to carry these. So if it was the 'movers ' who wanted the Brookes and Perkins -4 for the J it is perhaps understandable. They can hardly be blamed for Lockheed's poor workmanship once the much delayed J had arrived at Lyneham .
I think the real moving force behind the -4 selection would most likely to have been a 'beancounter' somewhere in MOD. And no I was not a mover, I just try to keep an open mind.

[VX275]

ECHS should have been fitted to the J from the off, including the underfloor winch but the beancounters won.
The stressed platform concept was/is due for a make over to fit 108 inch width, but considering the MSP has been around since 1950 and was originally sized to fit the C-82 and C-119, the UK has had its monies worth. Any replacement should match/beat the MSP/HSP capability, the Type 5 platform doesn't, simples.
Incidently, the original specification for the A400M CHS included an underfloor winch, it was removed early on by the beancounters.

[TBM-Legend]

Don't mention the special fit astrodome in the C-130K....

[Chugalug2]

Ancientaviator62:
When we bought the C130K (basically an E model with the uprated H engines- a mixed blessing !) it was decided to fit certain items of UK kit into it to provide work for UK firms. Some of it was Avionics the other was in the cargo handling/airdrop roles
It was a good deal more than that originally, AA. The main UK proposal was to hang RR Tynes on them in place of the Allison T56's. It was only after the Lockheed Reps managed to stop their hysterical laughter and pick themselves up from the floor that other ways of "investing" in the project came about:-
1. Increased sized Flight Deck Escape Hatch incorporating an Astrodome for the Force Commander to review his formation. This was put back into its crates when it was found on initial delivery that it tended to crack when pressurised.
2. Downwards Looking Periscope for Nav to use when supply dropping. This was put back into its crates when it was found that the purpose built windows at floor level allowed him to CARP far more conveniently (as the USAF had been doing since the Model A).
3. "Some of it was avionics" included the Decca Area Nav System that told you where you were on a weirdly distorted roller map, as long as you kept channelling the appropriate keys in a revolver chamber type selector and reset the stylus to where it should be so that it could tell you where it thought you to be! Other avionics included triple radios where doubles would have sufficed.
4. The crowning glory was the Smiths Auto Pilot. Once connected to the American wiring looms it went into a deep sulk which meant that its supply circuit breakers had to be collared off permanently (well for a year at least). The result was that the aircraft had to be hand flown on legs of up to 14 hours on the CENTO route to Singapore. All aspiring pilots within the crew lent a hand over the ogg!
All this so that Harold Wilson, our beloved leader at the time, could tell the HoC that he was pleased to announce that half the cost of these new aircraft would be in Pounds Sterling.
"Here Here"
Rustling of order papers.
"Hurumph Hurumph".
"I didn't get a hurumph from that member!".
Give the Prime Minister a Hurumph!".
"Hurumph".

[ancientaviator62]

Chugalug,
I did not wish to muddy the waters ref the RR Tyne proposal. Good engine though the Tyne undoubtedly is it would have ruined the Herc. Of course the Spey WAS shoehorned into the Phantom But this would entail 'thread drift'. Ah yes the observation dome. A lot ended up in crewrooms as receptacles for various liquids and nervous crewmembers could use the top bunk and sleep in peace . And the Smith's autopilot problem at least got our crew duty day reduced from 19 hrs to 16 hrs.
Once did a blind drop trial through cloud using the Decca. The troops landed miles away from the DZ.

[ukcds]

As with all military mass buys the initial costs were kept down as the people in the job at the time were told to do (no doubt). As a result the Ac was brought with the basics required to get kit from a to b, little or no thought was put into the amount of diverse roles we might ask it to undertake in the future. As a result we are now at the mercy of civilian companies who will produce what you ask for but at a cost far and above what it would have cost some 15 years ago when we originally put the tender for the replacement for the K. The system will never change until the military changes the way it sources its equipment

[ALM In Waiting]

Thanks for all the interesting replies. Does anyone have any direct experience of using the ECHS on the J model? I have only used the system on the C-17 which I have found to be very user friendly. However I have heard the ECHS requires quite a lot of cleaning and maintenance compared to the UK J floors (which could merely do with some :}).

[collbar]

The C-17 cargo rail cleaning cycle was introduced early in it RAF service as it was clogging up with sand and dust from Kabul later Iraq. Monthly instead of 4 monthly cleans, amazing how much dust can accumulate or fall off vehicles and pallets. With the cleaner Bastion pans this could probably be reassessed! A great bit of pre emptive maintenance by the guys!

[WE992]

There were some very short sighted money saving ideas with the J. The RAF chose not to buy any chains, tensioners and strops as part of the basic J buy. (In my opinion the british designed stuff on the K was better anyway) However as part of the 'buy back' of the K's that went back to the states the aircraft had to have a full set of restraint equipment which the RAF did not have. Rather than trucking the new American made equipment from its place of manufacture in the states to where the aircraft ended up in the states (Suffolk, County, Delaware?), the new equipment was airfreighted to the UK by American Airlines to London, road moved by DHL to Marshalls at Cambridge, loaded to the J's as they were delivered from Cambridge to Lyneham, stored in TFD and then loaded to the freight bay of the K's as they were flown back to states still in the manufacturers original packing crates!!!!!!!

[US Herk]

I was made to understand that a provision of the buy-back K-models was a re-conversion to the -4 floor. Any substance to this rumour?

I had heard RAF wanted J kitted out with the same floor as K and Mr. Lockheed laughed at them. Said the most they would "antiquate" the floor down the back was the -4.

You may slag off the -4 floor, but you can pallet on/off with the correct MHE in minutes vs the far more versatile, yet insanely more labour-intensive skydel kit fitted to the K. With C17 in the inventory and more NATO ops, this makes a fair bit of sense. I think the -4 floor is an improvement.

To my knowledge, the J-model ECHS is not quite as automated as the C17s version.

-4 works well, is simple, reliable, rugged, and parts are readily available due to the literally thousands of them out there...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The -4 is light years ahead of the Skydel meccano set and it ws only the Luddite mentality of a few that thought any bloody differant, sadly that cost us big bucks and time lost re inventing the back end :ugh:

[ancientaviator62]

Just to add that in my recollection the main 'driver' for the use of Skydel in the K Herc was the requirement to airdrop all of the platforms etc then in the UK inventory. The system could not easily and quickly be adapted for use with the -4 dual rail system. It is oft forgoten just how important a role airdrop was in those days. One of the drawbacks with the Brookes and Perkins system as I understand it is the increased maintenance it requires over the Skydel system as anyone who has used the -4 (and it's predecessor) in dusty/sandy conditions will no doubt testify.

[StopStart]

Airdrop is still an important and oft used capability today - be it people or stuff. Unfortunately the greatest minds available to British engineering have, as yet, been unable to construct a working heavy drop stressed platform that works. No idea how the rest of the world copes but I suspect we know best - just look at how we reinvented CDS; an enormously simple, rapidly deployable system, in use since the 1950s, converted into the usual cake and arse party by Messrs Heath & Robinson (Purveyors of Nonsense to Her Majesty's Armed Forces).
:rolleyes:

[ancientaviator62]

Stopstart,
I am a bit confused as to why you say that 'we are unable to construct a heavy drop stressed platform that works'. You may of course be solely referring to the J of which I have no knowledge but the system certainly worked during my 29 years on the K especially once we went over to the reefed mains system. As I said in a previous post the UK uses stressed platforms, the US unstressed platforms. So in theory the UK system could drop your car ( with suitable preparation ) with the prospect of it still being driveable off the DZ. The US system either requires specialised airdroppable vehicles or radically modified 'normal' ones. Just two different philosphies each with their advantages and disadvantages.

[US Herk]

One of the drawbacks with the Brookes and Perkins system as I understand it is the increased maintenance it requires over the Skydel system as anyone who has used the -4 (and it's predecessor) in dusty/sandy conditions will no doubt testify.
I think you'll find the dash-4 has been used near continuously for, oh, 10+ years in dusty, sandy conditions without much issue.

So in theory the UK system could drop your car ( with suitable preparation ) with the prospect of it still being driveable off the DZ. The US system either requires specialised airdroppable vehicles or radically modified 'normal' ones.

I believe your understanding of the US airdrop system being unable to drop a car and have it survive is a bit skewed as well. It can drop anything that will fit onto the pallets going so far as to marry up pallets for longer items exceeding the length of a single pallet without damage or excessive preparation.

If you're speaking of roll-over damage, the airdrop system releases the chutes after certain parameters are met (weight off chutes, chutes beyond 45*, etc) and largely prevents this type of occurrence. There will always be some small percentage of loads that are damaged - merely a function of throwing things out of an airplane from several hundred feet whilst scooting along at 75 yards/sec. But the standard US-spec Heavy Equipment airdrop system is far simpler than the MSP, reliable and well-proven.

It is oft forgoten just how important a role airdrop was in those days.
As for importance 'then' or now, I think you'll find there's probably more airdrop being conducted today than at any time in the past. I think it's safe to say it is vitally important given current operations.

[StopStart]

AA62 - sorry, yes I was referring to the J. I know the K has/had all manner of systems that work/ed just fine. The different width of the Skydel vs -4 meant that K systems didn't transfer across to the J.

[VX275]

Just to fuel the debate. Airdrop using Dash 4a CHS and extractor retarder parachutes systems HAS killed aircrew through problems with the CHS and/or misunderstandings between pilots and loadmaster. The MSP system with reefed mains extraction (from skydel) has resulted in no lost aircraft (OK there may have been a few damaged but non lost) and the only fatality I know of was a cow that JATE managed to land an MSP on.
For the RAF to replace the MSP with Type 5 platforms will mean that twice the number of aircraft will be needed to drop the same amount of kit and the minimum drop height will more than double.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Of course you could also argue how many MSP's have been dropped in anger over the last goodness knows how many years :ok:

[ancientaviator62]

USHerc, I was trying to keep it simple for the benefit of the originator of this thread who may not be au fait with the differing airdrop systems. I did not mean to imply that the US system was not capable of airdropping vehicles. I was once part of a team that looked into the interoperabilty of the differing systems (at Pope AFB) which is mainly where my slim knowledge of the -4 system comes from. The trial concluded that there were too many variables to make it viable And yes the UK system has disconnects for the parachutes. As I recall the UK MSP system is dropped from a lower height that the US equivalent which it is argued improves accuracy. In my experience it was reliable and well proven although like any airdrop there have been 'moments'. Certainly on the last 'Rodeo' I attended the UK MSP drop was very accurate (I have the pic somewhere !)
. I fear we may be in danger 'drifting' away from the original question.

[Kengineer-130]

The simple answer is that if the RAF wanted a dog, they would buy a cat and give it surgery :ugh:

[nivsy]

No - they would produce a Business Case for the Dog....the powers to be would say it is a luxury - finance would be allocated for a cat (ageing one) - the procurement people would be given a half baked spec for which to contract for and agree a price....oh and the delivery would be expected yesterday - Industry would say you cannot have your ageing cat but a mouse - and the mouse would be procured.....delivered late for various reasons and die 2 days after in service date.