C-130J: Someone else's take a kicking....

[Jackonicko]

"DoD Inspector General: C-130J Does Not Meet Operational Requirements

The DoD's Inspector General (IG) has determined that the C-130J transport aircraft produced by Lockheed Martin [LMT] does not meet operational requirements, leveling serious criticism at one of the Pentagon's largest programs.

"The Air Force conditionally accepted 50 C-130J aircraft at a cost of $2.6 billion even though none of the aircraft met commercial contract specifications or operational requirements," the IG said in the executive summary of its study. "The Air Force also paid Lockheed Martin more than 99 percent of the C-130J aircraft's contracted price for the delivered aircraft. As a result, the government fielded C-130J aircraft that cannot perform their intended mission, which forces the users to incur additional operations and maintenance costs to operate and maintain older C-130 mission-capable aircraft because the C-130J aircraft can only be used for training."

The IG recommends that Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur "refrain from contracting for additional block upgrades until Lockheed Martin can design, develop, and deliver a contract compliant aircraft." The IG also recommends that future modifications should take into account Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 that requires contractor's pricing, cost and profit data.

The IG's third recommendation calls for the Air Force to increase amounts withheld to motivate Lockheed Martin to deliver an aircraft that meets contractual requirements. The IG also recommends negotiating a firm schedule for completion of known outstanding retrofits of fielded aircraft within six months.

Lockheed Martin was awarded a 60-aircraft C-130J multiyear procurement (MYP) award from the Navy worth $4.1 billion in 2003 (Defense Daily, March 17, 2003). As part of the deal, Lockheed Martin will deliver 40 J-model transports to the Air Force and 20 KC-130J tankers to the Marine Corps.

The report casts a critical eye on the Air Force's management of the program. "Since 1996, the Air Force issued three, consecutive, firm-fixed-price contracts for the C-130J aircraft even though Lockheed Martin continued to show little progress in delivering contract-compliant aircraft." The IG report also considers the MYP award a "poor decision" given that the aircraft was not performing or had passed operational testing.

The Air Force did not agree with the initial recommendation, noting that Lockheed Martin is already delivering C-130Js that are compliant with contract specification. The Air Force also did not concur with the second recommendation, stating that Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation met the requirements given the commercial nature of the C- 130J. Future upgrades would be contracted under Part 15 given that they would be government-financed initiatives.

Nor did the Air Force concur with the third recommendation, given that withholds are consistent with the terms of the contract and are based on government analysis of the price of noncompliant items. The Air Force did not concur with the final recommendation, noting that all outstanding retrofits have been either scheduled or completed.

Lockheed Martin backed the Air Force.

"Lockheed Martin is in full agreement with the Air Force's assessment of the DoD Inspector General's report," the company said in a statement. "In its comments regarding the report, the U.S. Air Force clearly states that it does not concur with any of the findings or recommendations in the report. The Air Force, ultimately the end user who is flying the aircraft, also says that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule, contract and regulatory commitments. The Air Force says, without qualification, that it fully endorses the C-130J program, that is it one of Air Mobility Command's top priorities, and that the aircraft meets the current contract specification. In addition, the Air Force notes that there is a disciplined plan in place to enhance the aircraft."

Lockheed Martin also pointed out the C-130J is in use with Italy, Australia and Britain in those countries' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And how are ours? Any truth in the rumours of multiple aircraft sitting there waiting for black boxes to be mended because of a shortage of LRUs? Of aircraft parked up sans engine? Of short J-models that have to be part-fuelled, loaded with pax, then fully fuelled due to CofG concerns? Of a cargo handling system that buckles?

[Blakey875]

Jacko,

I told you so......


Blakey875
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
posted 4th May 2003 16:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mk5 C130J

ZH - No truth in the rumour then that if it's empty of freight it will sit on it's bum with more than 12 tons of fuel in tanks? So.... if there's no backload it's a long long taxy home?



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 38 | From: Close to ABIW | Registered: May 2003 | Status: Online! | IP: Logged

[StopStart]

That wouldn't be the C130J taking a kicking from someone that seemingly knows cock all about it would it? Quelle surprise :rolleyes:

Just to get this clear in my own head - the operators of the aircraft say all is well thank you very much but Chief blunty who doesn't work with the aircraft says it's all dreadful? Suspect that policy has been taken from these very pages....

Blakey, you're right: there is no truth in the rumour......

Jacko, the loading issues with the Mk5 have been done to death on these pages. In fact, the whole J model thang has been done to death :zzz:

[Jackonicko]

Done to death? Does that mean they're true or not then?

And how about the engines? Procurement of LRUs? Serviceability?

I'm losing the will to
l
i
v
e

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

We live in hope:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[highveldtdrifter]

Stopstart is right, operators love the J and get fed up of people who have no knowledge of the ac slagging it off. I have worked with USAF J mates who also are more than pleased with it.

As for the Mk 5, there is nothing wrong with it that was not wrong with the Mk 1 before the probe was fitted. The trim issues only occur with no load and full fuel. Stick the crew bags and GEs toolset up the front and the problem goes away. We should have the option of fitting the probe soon anyway.

I hope the luddite winging will stop soon as the ac is performing extremely well now with good servicability rates (better than other similar types).

[Pontius Navigator]

I'm going off jackinoko as he hasn't checked his mail box this month.

[betty_boo_x]

The US Military flatly refused the option to take C130J as a launch customer which is why we,the Italians and the Aussies got such a good deal.
It should have been as good as it is now at launch, and this argument would not be happening and the K would be fishing weights.
The US Mil have kinda given up on the J as it is being traded for any available E/H model with Guard/Reserve units ,to fuel the Talon 2 (and a half) programme. The refurb/add on programme is so prohibitively expensive as to proclude almost every other option.
The C130J is a very capable machine but the gucci bolt ons are pricing it out of the market.
The "short" J is not quite the same as the short K (regards trim) as it(K) could happilly fly empty (sans probe) with 55000lbs of fuel before trimming was a consideration.
This whole thing boils down to money and we have none.
This is not a Hercules bitchfest but a money issue.
Given unlimited cash we would have a dream Air Force.
C130J is now ok,the people are happy,its doing a good job.
So is everyone else. We have no cash.
There is rumoured to be yet another costing review to get the machine forward, but we have no money.
Buy 20 C17's and bolt on star wars lasers,then I remembered - we have no money

[Now a 'J' Bloke!!]

Hi Gang;

Casting back to my K days..with a probe and a muttering E and smelly N...(all that weight up front!!!). The CMk1 would be trim critical around about 46,000lb of HMs finest F34. In new money around 21T. :confused:

I have personally done a Cmk5 trip from Kebab Land to the Secret Airbase completely empty bar the 3 crew plus bags....and the operators know that to get home, we fill it till it leaks. Because it was warm, I think we got 20.4T in it and the MAC was within limits.:ok:

Points, questions, comments???:mad:

Get a life, doubters!!!:*

Regards to Most;
SFS :E

[betty_boo_x]

I personally have no doubt .
I have as much doubt as we (collectively) have money.
Hand the arguments to the bean-counters and see what happens with FSTA,Eurofighter,C-17,MR4A,C130 upgrade,RAF Reg oh just wait a minute the news from last week is on.
We have no money is my point,lets take it from there,which bit of that do you doubt.

[Good Mickey]

Just a quickie...the CMK5 dosen't have a f***ing trim problem!!

[Blakey875]

Mickey,

Unless you are carrying pax and want to palletise the bags...

[Muppet Leader]

And the vibration area ?

[DutchRoll]

Ah, yet another J windup I see. And I fell for it.....

I just spoke to someone the other day who's recently paxed in both a J and an H, and he said he couldn't see what all the fuss was about (re vibration area in the J, yes I know it has one, but jeepers, have you ever travelled in an H?). I second, third, and fourth what StopStart said. The whole 'J' thing has really been done to death. The most vociferous complaints about the J come from those who wouldn't recognise one if it hit them on the head.

Spares, LRUs, etc - entirely a bean-counter problem! If you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, what do you expect?

It's not perfect (nor is any aeroplane that I know of), but it's a damn sight better to fly and operate than its older brethren.

[Jackonicko]

Ok, OK.

Naturally the airframe's good. We know the engine's good. Unless you're landing on graded coral strips we know the props are good, too. We know the performance is good. I'd guessed that avionics integration and other teething problems had been overcome.

I don't care whether the problems are inherent in the aeroplane, but I am curious as to whether the Spares, LRU bean-counter problem still exists! I can see that if you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, there will be problems, but I'm curious as to whether they're still manifesting themselves.

I'm also curious to know how the two-crew cockpit is working out in practise, especially in anything approaching a tactical role. I note with interest the recent conversion of the six 3As.......

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

You promised you were losing the will to live.................can you hurry up:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcoho induced

[Jackonicko]

Sorry, but getting on your tit$ is having a marvellously restorative effect......

[DutchRoll]

Unfortunately I think the bean-counter problem is always going to be there in the military and we're always going to struggle with it. It was there in the dim dark past, and it still is now. The two pilot crew is working fine and dandy including Tac, SAR, and so on. They said it would never work, but it is (and without any difficulty).

They said the workload would always be too high, and it isn't. It was proven during workload studies (ours at least) where they threw multiple emergencies at a two pilot crew during simulated Tac missions......and I could go on forever. Can I stop now?;)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Damn,

The oxygen thief lives on:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jackonicko]

Darn,

The fun police/humour hoover tendency are over-active tonight......

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Oh well I will just have to live in hope...............maybe there is a god:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jackonicko]

There must be. He exiled you to Swindon-shire......:p

[betty_boo_x]

Jacko why do you rise to the bait?
There are some v.v.v sensitive souls around who it seems just want a pointless shout/rant/dig at anyone daring to hold a differing opinion.
I have been mildly pleased at the educated/considered/thoughtful points that have appeared on these pages lately. It has been refreshing.
Back to the point - the C130J is a fantastic aeroplane populated by fantastic (mostly) people, like every other aeroplane we have.
To take it forward we need a boat-load of cash- we haven't got any.
Speak to the people who are proud of the achievement of bringing an EMPTY a/c home from Cyprus in one hop.

[average pilot]

Enjoyed time on the K (STOP) Enjoyed time on the J (STOP) Sad to see slagging and sniping still going on (STOP) Please please please please (STOP):ok:

[propulike]

I'd be very proud of bringing an empty aircraft back from Cyprus.

Anyone who can keep the indulgence cars off deserves a medal.

[Echo 5]

propulike,

"Anyone who can keep the indulgence cars off deserves a medal."

Similar subject was ranted about a few weeks ago on another thread. Please do not bring yourself down to the level of the "shiny people". It is most unbecoming of an Albert driver.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what trash you haul as long as everyone gets home safe. I'll shut up now.

Regards to all,

E5.:D

[propulike]

It was intended as a way of avoiding a 'my aircraft can carry more than your aircraft argument' regarding payloads from LCRA.

Nice to see you spotted that :hmm:.

As reassurance, my opinion is that an empty freight bay is a waste of fuel and I always try to keep mine as full as possible on the direct flight back to UK. Better?

[Jackonicko]

OK:

The LM spec says the J has the following bits of kit. Which are applicable to the RAF aircraft?

BAE Systems Integrated Defense Solutions (formerly Tracor) AN/ALE-47 countermeasures system with chaff cartridges, infrared flares and POET and GEN-X active expendable decoys.

Lockheed Martin AN/ALR-56M superheterodyne 2-20GHz radar warning receiver with low-band antenna and four high-band quadrant antennae are installed near the nose section below the second window of the cockpit and in the tail cone.

ATK AN/AAR-47 missile warning system with electro-optic sensors below the second cockpit window and in the tail cone.

Lockheed Martin AN/ALQ-157 frequency-agile infrared countermeasures system with infrared transmitter surface mounted at the aft end of the main undercarriage bay fairing.

Northrop Grumman Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system - based on the AN/AAQ-24(V) NEMESIS: Selected by the USAF, not on or intended for RAF Js?

[ZH875]

Some of them, maybe all of them, and if the bean counters had their way, none of them.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Based on the premis that no bad guys read this forum, the J only goes to benign places and in response to the journo...................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ .......:rolleyes:


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[StopStart]

It's all public domain stuff chaps, we might as well as 'fess up to what we've got. It's only sporting to give whirling dervishes out in the sand half a chance.

At great expense the J has been equipped with the following defensive aids:

Basic Armour
Very thick paint. In places.
Extra thick cushions for the pilots.
Dark sunglasses. Very dark.

IR defences
Loadmaster in para-door flicking matches off edge of matchbox
(certain aircraft have been upgraded with the GE doing similar from the other door)
LIRCM - handheld laser pointer. Requires steady hand. And spare batteries.

Radar countermeasures
Foil meal trays flung from escape hatch. Torn up if we get enough notice.


I think I've said enough :hmm:

[Jackonicko]

Always Broken,

I'll look in Jane's and post the answer, shall I, since it's bound to be public domain? I'd just hoped someone would save me the trouble and give me the answer sooner than that.

Stoppers,

I thought that instead of armour you blokes just ate more pies, surrounding your vital organs with a thicker layer of blubber? That's what they do on 51, I understand.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Jacko,

Jane...........Look, post then allow us in the know to giggle:rolleyes:

After all if your "sauces" were up to speed why are you on here nosing around:ok:

Stoppers is scientifically correct however as we have a microwave and therefore do not use foils our RCM capability is pretty limited............but a down route supermarket shop can solve that problem for a few $$$$ :E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Trumpet_trousers]

.........not the first time we've tried to make Abdul's job easy for him, is it Jacko?
If it IS in the public domain, fine....but let Abdul do the legwork, and let's not inadvertently give away more than we THINK is in the public domain..........

....perhaps the old maxim of never confirming nor denying what may, or may not be fitted to Aunty Betty's aircraft would be appropriate here.

[Jackonicko]

Always,

Why am I 'nosing around on here'? Well, it's after office hours and I'm lazy. A deadly combination. I suspect that the answers have been in the bleedin RAF Yearbook, but I can't access anything until tomorrow morning, except the 'net.

I can therefore look at the RAF's official 'aircraft factsheets' that tell me:

"RAF Equipment factsheets

The majority of aircraft are fitted with Defensive Infrared Counter Measure equipment, whilst some aircraft used for special tasks have an additional enhanced defensive aids suite comprising a Skyguardian Radar Warning Receiver, a chaff and infrared flare counter measure dispensing system and a missile approach warning system

Hercules J Model - C Mk 4 / Mk 5
A total of 25 C-130 Mk1 and Mk3 aircraft are being replaced by the C-130J on a one-for-one basis. The C-130J has been modified and upgraded to include new propellers and engine control systems to give it increased take-off thrust and fuel efficiency. It also has a revised flight deck with modern glass-cockpit and Head Up Displays, thus allowing two-pilot flight deck operation, and a separate air loadmaster station in the cargo hold. The aircraft is restricted to an AT role pending clearance for wider use in the tactical TS role. The defensive suite includes a missile warning system linked to the directional infrared counter measure system, a radar warning receiver and a chaff or flare countermeasure dispensing system. The defensive system protects the aircraft against surface-to-air and air-to- air infrared seeking threats that may be encountered during operations."

Hmmm, not bad, but no mention of some features.... I know! I'll have a shufti in Hansard....

It's already told me that 12 Js are being fitted with the 'full defensive aids system' (confirming what Squadron Leader Pearce said in Code One in 2004), and back in 2001 it said:

"22 Nov 2001 : Column: 372W

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air-to-air refuelling probes have been purchased for the C130J; and how many aeroplanes will be operational by 1 January 2002. [15141]

Dr. Moonie: Nineteen air-to-air refuelling probes have been purchased for the C130J fleet. Full operational air-to-air refuelling capability is planned for late 2002. This will be achieved incrementally in accordance with an agreed Flight Clearance programme

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Defensive Aids Suite capabilities on the C130K Hercules aircraft; how it compares with the US equivalent; and what plans he has to install it on the C130J.

Dr. Moonie: The capability of the C130K Defensive Aids Suite was assessed as part of the installation development and acceptance programme, based on system requirements arising from detailed threat and countermeasure evaluation. The C130K Defensive Aids Suite will not be fitted to the C130J as Lockheed Martin is currently working to finalise an installation concept for a higher performance defensive system.

The capabilities of systems operated on US aircraft are a matter for the US authorities.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to acquire a secure communications system for the C130J. [15224]

Dr. Moonie: The operational advantages of secure communications systems are well recognised and the capability is already fitted to some aircraft and others are due to be fitted. As with any defence equipment capability, decisions have to be made about priorities. A secure communications capability is not currently planned to be fitted to the Hercules C130J aircraft as we have higher operational priorities"

There, that'll help "abdul"..... :rolleyes:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

There you go then..........a little bit of research and you have all the facts to produce a piece of pure "journo genius" worthy of sun/mirror/star front page status..........so why exactly are are you sniffing round in here :rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Jackonicko]

I was asking a simple question, and trying to tie together the system description originally given with the description in the RAF factsheet, without jumping to conclusions, and before I can check the facts tomorrow. Not muck-raking, not scandal-sniffing, just fact-checking and detail-filling.

And because one wouldn\'t want to venture into certain areas, and because one wouldn\'t want to highlight information that might really (as opposed to in your heated imagination) be of use to a potential enemy, I\'m quite pointedly not asking about the equipment fit on the C3A....

[OBNO]

Jacko - Why don't you ask the RAF formally for the info. you are asking? Because you know they will probably tell you to piss off, so why do you think anyone here is going to spruke about what kit is on their airframe.

[TAC Queen]

For you information the Mk3A is fitted with 2x R2D2 droids. In the event of an attack they place them selves between the missile and the airframe. They can also be used to fix external problems such as fuel leeks and hyoperdrive problems. (and play chess on long legs)
It also has two small lazer mounts maned by Ewoks placed on both sides of the aircraft to fight of any fighters who come to close.
I hope this is of help.
:ok:

[BEagle]

MoD Plod could well be directed at anyone attempting to confirm a journo's "It says in Jane's....." queries for 'adding credence' to open source reports.

It was always fun getting some "I can neither confirm nor deny" comments from Spams at airshows. We were once parked near an EF-111A 'SparkVark', so sent a carefully briefed girlie Space Cadet across to talk to the RayBan wearing 'look at me I'm cool' aircrew.....

"Hello, what aeroplane is this"
"(Usual Spam party line)"
"Gosh - that sounds fast. But what is it used for?"
"(Usual Spam bull$hit)"
"Really? And what's the effective radiated power of the I-band emitter compared with isotropic?"

:E

[juliet]

jacko - please dont get mad if you cant get answers to your questions from this forum. although im sure you have a wide appreciation of what the military does, and is equipped with, you do not know the whole story. if you can find info in open sources, ie. janes, then go ahead and write it up. please do not look for confirmation on these pages though. people on here who rely on certain info being secret quite rightly get upset when 1. it gets talked about in the first place, and 2. people who ask the initial question dont back off when the inevitable first reply comes back telling them to mind there own business.

cheers

[Jackonicko]

I was rather hoping that someone would have had access to open sources would have said (say):

"According to the RAF Yearbook, the C.Mk 4 has ....." or
"In the RAF Lyneham families day brochure it said that....." or
"Don't you read JDW, Jacko? I read that....." or
"Didn't you think of the RAF equipment fact sheets? They seem to indicate...."

Given sufficient time to go through contracts bulletins and the like, this stuff can be found, and therefore cannot be something that anyone should be nervous about. I would be cautious about saying how many aircraft are fitted with particular bits of kit, or where they are deployed, or details of the performance or parametrics of particular equipment items, and would not ask those sorts of question here. I was surprised at some of the information that is available.

The suggestion that I would ask Corporate Comms for anything to assist me with anything that is to be published this year is naive. Slow doesn't do their procedures justice. And also it was after 1530.....

[Father Jack Hackett]

JackoNicko.

You're not very perceptive are you.

Do you not get the distinct impression that those persons who have been posting replies to your little enquiries might have an acute personal interest in not having this info splashed around.

I don't care what you may glean from various public sources, we'd still rather not see you do the bad guys' job for them by cross-referencing this stuff and producing some sort of vaguely accurate, 'intelligence product', which is subsequently published in one of the less-reputable newspapers (which is most of them).

(Last line deleted)

[Oggin Aviator]

Father Jack that was a bit rude.

[Father Jack Hackett]

Sorry Oggin.

Didn't mean to cause general offense.

I am just quite annoyed that JN and his ilk don't realise how irresponsible it can be to highlight certain technical capabilites that are all about protecting pink bodies.

Anyway, you must expect the odd spot of Tourette's from a Father Jack!

[Oggin Aviator]

Apology accepted. There is no need for that type of language nor insinuation here.

Although JN and I disagree on certain issues (SHAR/CVF/HNS etc) he does post objectively and I think is the type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate. He could have waited a day and got the info he required, as he said he was just bored (at the end of the day) and tried to save some time.

Although I do think sometimes people post things here that they should not, things that could potentially compromise security. We must all be cognisant of that.

Right, mature hat off - I think the pics of the CVF on the other thread are cool.

Oggin

[Jackonicko]

Oggin,

Thanks, chum. Not only am I the "type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate", I'm also the type who wouldn't want to compromise the legitimate security concerns of members of our forces, and I am the type of journo who will sometimes voluntarily not publish information that is already in the public domain, if asked not to, though in such cases I do need to feel that there is good reason (rather than simple over caution) not to repeat information that has already been made public. I'm already minded not to include details of the exact number of aircraft fitted with particular kit, since this snippet, in conjunction with the fact that equipment is fitted to all aircraft in a particular theatre would seem to give a potential foe useful information as to the relative capabilities of aircraft within the fleet.

Father Jack,

There is the world of difference between listing equipment items fitted to an aircraft and detailing the capabilities and performance characteristics of that equipment. Simple details of the equipment supplied are available in MoD contract bulletins, from Lockmart, and from the individual sub-contractors. Repeating the designations of particular equipment items which may or may not be fitted, without talking about parametrics or capabilities cannot really be taken as 'highlighting capabilities' nor can it pose a serious threat to anybody's 'pink body'. If you (or anyone else) thinks that simply repeating a designation (say AN/AAR-47) is potentially harmful, then PM me, explain how, and I'll consider blurring the story in that area.

You may not like the fact that such information is in the public domain, but that's the way it is, and rightly so, since knowledge of how their money has been spent is part and parcel of the openness which taxpayers are entitled to. In an open, free society, keeping taxpayers and journos on side is an unfortunate necessity. Discussing the capabilities of EW and DAS kit is clearly not necessary, however, is not anything that curious journos have any right or need to know, and, in short, cannot be justified.

I haven't got my notes in front of me, but I gather that with software version 5 (?) RAF C-130Js will have provision for the full standard USAF J DAS, as described by LM. I don't think its helpful to repeat the public source information available on exactly how many aircraft are so equipped, nor as to the equipment fit on aircraft deployed in theatre.

I can understand why members of the Forces view my profession with suspicion and hostility, but I'd suggest that it's useful to be able to differentiate between those who are on your side, and those who are not.

[ZH875]

There is the world of difference between listing equipment items fitted to an aircraft and detailing the capabilities and performance characteristics of that equipment. NO there is not. Full details of what each equipment can do may be available publically elsewhere, but documenting that it is fitted to any aircraft will expose that aircraft's strengths and weaknesses. Does it matter to Joe Public what offensive or defensive equipment an aircraft has, in a word - NO


Freedom of Information may be a good thing to keep Journos in a job, but, perhaps if the press had not documented each and every move of all the 'pink bodies' of the Black Watch, and their equipment, and the exact area they are patrolling and protecting, those brave lads may not have been ambushed and killed. Yes, Joe Public has the right to know how their money is being spent, but not necessarily the right to know what it can do or where it is being used. All journos should do a tour in the hot zone reporting all that they want, and if they can handle the incoming hostiles then so be it, but if they can't then they should get out and shut up

[jwcook]

Firstly I don't know much about the C130J but There was a C130-J parked at RAAF Richmond from sept 2003 till at least may 2004 without engines and looking very sorry for itself. (Theres a picture of it in the Airforces monthly magazine July 2004 p.73)

Does anyone know if its still there?.

Cheers

[2port]

JW

It was there for well over a year before that as well, for once no fault of the aircraft itself, or the procurement, or the ....
It got "attacked" by the storm of all storms and broke it's back. Too big a job to repair at Richmond but unable to fly anywhere else to get fixed. Surprised it wasn't towed away from the line though, and as you say, a very sorry sight from the road.

2P

[Father Jack Hackett]

JN

I take and accept the points you make about the taxpayers' public interest. We do pay a hell of a lot of tax in this country and it would be nice to know how well that is being spent, and needless to say, more of it could be spent on vital kit for the operators who need it.

Nevertheless, this particular area of interest is extremely sensitive for the crews in theatre and I can assure you that nobody flying around in that environment wants a detailed examination of what kit may or may not be fitted to their aircraft being widely disseminated.

I do not doubt that your basic intentions with this thread are honourable, but I would ask that you are very careful with what you do with the results of your enquiries.

[ZH875]

Jacko, I have done some research, and found the following may be fitted to the Herc.

RWR - Rearward Warning Rodney, uses the Astrodome or open cargo ramp to view danger area, may also be coupled to Dircm and Laircm.
MWS - Missile Warning SNCO, this is often the GE standing next to the RWR, may use the PA system as a warning if he has lost his voice.
CHAFF - Clouds for Hiding in And Flying in & Flying out of, usually found outside the crew door.
FLARES - Carried in all suitcases for those 60's do's
DIRCM - Directly Installed Remote Compact Mirror, used by the RWR for those hard to see areas.
LAIRCM - Larger Aircraft Installed Remote Compact Mirror, for use by smaller RWRs.
SIDEWINDER -Some aircraft have a key on the outside of each engine, for starting them away from base.
BLOODHOUND - Only carried when way home from pub may be difficult.

There are others, but the technical details will bore you.

Hope this may be of use.

[airborne_artist]

ZH875

You forgot:

PARAS - People Able to Run And Shout - dropped in lines astern on flimsy devices made from old M&S knickers. Gives the enemy troops something even slower to aim at instead of the Albert.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Get said Para's to "ave a tab" on the way down and we could be on to some sort of new incredibly cheap and easy to replace self jettisoning IR capability............only a thought:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[MechGov]

Found this today. The USAF, what do they know about tactical Air Lift........

Pentagon Announces Plans to Terminate C-130J Procurement in FY06 Budget.
13/01/2005

In a move that is destined to ruffle political feathers, the Pentagon has announced its intention to terminate the USAF’s C-130J procurement at the end of 2005.

Despite repeatedly emphasising the C-130J’s tactical utility to Congress, the USAF has always been of the mind that they will make the aircraft work rather than being staunch advocates. Although the aircraft is now deployed to the Gulf, the USAF will look to strengthen its case by citing the J-model's development problems and referring to a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report which determined that the aircraft was not operationally suitable, especially for airdrop missions. The current multiyear C-130J contract provides for 62 aircraft: 42 for the Air Force and 20 for the Marine Corps, at an approximate build rate of 12-per-year from FY05 through FY09. As of Nov 04, the combined USAF, USMC amount obligated on the contract was $1.7 billion. Although the USAF would have to pay almost $440 million in cancellation costs to Lockheed Martin, the move would offer savings of up to $4.2 billion by 2011.

[propulike]

Nothing to do with political wrangling to avoid budget cuts fortunately. The Raptors going to get cut too. ;)

JEFFREY McMURRAY

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Almost a quarter of the U.S. Senate has signed a letter asking President Bush to spare the Georgia.made C-130J Hercules from budget cuts, the state's two senators said Wednesday.

The bipartisan group of signatories includes 15 Republicans and nine Democrats from 15 states, and Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson say those are just the ones they were able to round up in two days. They expect to get more.

It's a show of political power designed to derail the Pentagon's plans to eliminate the Air Force version of the C-130J in the 2006 budget, canceling more than 50 planes. The proposal is a double-whammy for Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., plant because it also calls for a reduction in the F/A-22 Raptor, made there too.


These guys are still working hard though ... C-130J Upgrade (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009548)

[betty_boo_x]

You could combine the "one liners" thread and the comment about "working hard on the upgrade".
Firstly WE HAVE NO MONEY.
Secondly,that shiny press release is from last summer.
I fear that the rumoured "announcement " in late Spring will involve a "funding" announcement for a variety of high priced projects. Please dont resurrect a Lyneham schoolyard screaming match. The C130J has been/is/will continue to be a huge success,due almost entirely to the monumental efforts of half of Lyneham.
Facts of the matter are we are on a cost saving excercise. Why would the accountants spend hundreds of millions of GBP to cover a reasonably short gap until the A400 is in service when for 28p HLS could bodge the K for another 10yrs?
Nervy times for a few. If you have any Technical notes for C130K,VC10 or Tristar I would hang on to them.