C130J just a strat aircraft?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

A certain senior officer in recent times made the comment:

"The C130J is just a strat aircraft and therefore needs no self protect / ASE" ... or words to that effect..

Comments? Votes?

[Art Field]

Not that it history repeating itself but I recall being told by a V Sen Off that Tankers will never need to night prod, do not need good nav kit because they will never operate outside the North Sea environment, don't need NVG compatable lighting, don't need selcal, need I go on. Will the 130J only be Strat?, will the Pope marry?.

[Devildawg]

Might as well be a Strat aircraft; the only people with any balls operating them are the SF flt. Anyone not convinced of this explain to me why RAF C-130s and C-17s are so scared of flying into certain airfields in Afghan regularly used by their US counterparts? Even Russian civvy contractors will happily go where our brave boys in blue dare not tread!

[Mike RO'Channel]

If the rumours from Lyneham are true, then its not even a strat ac and another leap backwards for the RAF!

Sure, it has teething problems but it can't go as far, carry as much, as far as the K - primarily as the J is heavier, has a lower MTOW, no external tanks and a shorter crew duty day (oh but think of the money it saves by having no engineer and nav)!

Furthermore, its arrival in AFG/PAK theatre was widely heralded only for it to break down on national TV! However, I gather this very common because of sand clogging its new engines. They fly about one sortie a night (compared to 4-5 done by the K Model) and have to be baled out by the K based elsewhere in theatre helping out with the tasking. I'm sure the crews are working hard flying their thoroughbred pilots'-play-thing but a friend of mine based in theatre says the K was a much better workhorse - crews were better drinkers too!

As for the Tac side - foget it! 2 pilots (one permently heads down) at low level just doesn't work and is just dangerous no matter how good the software is. The workload trials have been delayed, AAR is a way off and dropping trials are on hold! Even tho' it is only a pipe-dream at the moment, the A400M is earmarked as the next Tac/SF ac so the J will stay strat, as will the C17 - mainly cos 2 gp Staff Officers don't understand tac. Now as far as AAR is concerned - that is the way ahead - where the J might actually have a role a la the USMC helo-refuellers.

As for the slur that the crews don't have any balls - that is @rse! RAF C130s have been operating into AFG/PAK in unprotected ac since before Christmas, this despite pleas to buy it. USAF and SF (and now the J) ac are as fully protected as you can get. Furthermore, if the USAF DAS breaks, they don't go. Whereas the RAF K herc crews have soldiered on incredibly bravely whilst being shot at and having several near misses with SAM and AAA. Also, Airliners look like airliners and as such are not as good a target as mil ac. Whereas RAF Hercs look just like USAF gunships! Guess which one Osamas cronies target!? If you fancy flying an unprotected ac into a high threat environment, ask the Tristar boys who've done the same - but only once until they realised the dangers - also brave chaps. So sod orf DD!

[Sam Vimes]

Thought the "J" was supposed to be "More, further, faster, cheaper." At least that was what all the ads from Mr Lockheed said.

So, how much are we getting back in compensation then?

[Mike RO'Channel]

Yeah and we all believed them - bugg...r!

[RoboAlbert]

So who is this well informed Senior Officer, RAF or RAAF?

[RoboAlbert]

Sorry, just to clarify I was using an oxymoron in my last post.

[DutchRoll]

Ah yes! Here we go again!
It's very interesting to witness discussions on the C-130J. I'll try & pitch my reply to those who may have:
A. never flown a C-130J or
B. never flown a C-130 in the tactical role, or
C. both of the above.
Just for the record, I fortuitously fall into none of the above categories, having done well over half my military flying time of 4000 odd transport hours in the tactical role on aircraft (including the C130E/H) with & without flight engineers/navs.

The senior officer to whom you refer, who stated that 'the C130J is just a strat aircraft & needs no self protection' is what I would call...............let me think about this...............an idiot. Yes I know you're as surprised as I am that such a senior officer could exist, but it's true.

The C130J MTOW is nominally 155,000 pounds, which is precisely the same as any other Herc I've ever flown. It also has exactly the same overload capacity as any other Herc I've ever flown, so I'm not sure where Mike RO'Channel's theory originates. Maybe I've been reading the limits wrong for all those years. I can't speak for the stubby J, but the stretched version does indeed suffer a weight penalty. Funnily enough it's mostly due to all that extra fuselage they plugged into it (damn, I thought they were going to make it out of paper mache but they made it out of metal, silly fools). It doesn't really fall into my definition of 'significant'. The range issue is more complex than meets the eye, and very much depends on what you are doing with it. Sure, it has no external tanks (although these can always be fitted as it has all the necessary plumbing, software, etc), which makes its total fuel capacity significantly less than older hercs. But it can climb higher to start with and enjoy the benefits of reduced fuel flow earlier. It also travels quite a bit faster, thus providing more beer drinking time at the other end - the greatest benefit one could bestow on any transport aircraft in my opinion. In some circumstances it may have less range than an H or E due to the lack of external tanks, but whichever way you look at it, it depends on that ancient trash-hauling balancing act between payload, fuel, mission requirements, etc. It is certainly not always a limiting problem, especially if we're talking about a tactical role.

Interesting statement that two pilots at low level just doesn't work. I guess Lockheed must be working on a Joint Strike Fighter with a Nav and a Flight Engineer, and perhaps my time flying two pilot fixed-wing tactical transport missions at low level was a figment of my imagination (not to mention all the chopper pilots out there you've just insulted).;)

Seriously though, while the J has had its fair share of teething problems (show me a glass cockpit aeroplane which hasn't and I will hand-stand naked on top of the statue of liberty), I can see little or no impediment, apart from people afraid of losing their jobs or who have very limited experience flying different types of aircraft, to flying the C130J on low level tactical transport ops. When it inevitably does, it would be foolish not to equip it with self protection, especially as it already has the built-in capacity for a very capable system.

The RAAF probably won't do it however, as the concepts of:
a. built-in capacity
b. highly capable systems
c. easy retro-fitting
are all beyond the understanding of those in charge of policy and materiel acquisition.

[Mike RO'Channel]

I'm sorry i inferrred that 2 pilots in any ac at LL wouldn't work - I apologise to to single seat/helo chaps but 2 pilots in a Herc won't work. For the following reasons
It is quite a fast ac and can maintain a good and constant 250-150 ft msd (thats why FJ normally whizz over the top without seeing us ) but the ac is quite cumbersome, especially at heavy weights, and is relatively diificult to trim. Therefore, the P1 spends most of his time just flying the ac! The P2 will spend a majority of his time heads down (map reading (K) or button pressing (J)) - neither looking out properly . From my time at LL, it is a well accepted fact that the Air Eng is the one who always spots the wires, masts, other ac etc. Add to that comao, DZ, comms, EW threats and counters and leading a formattion etc. The J guys always tell me how busy they are in the route phase so goodness knows so busy they will be at LL despite any software. Nope, sorry I can't see it working.

As for weight, payload, speed distance problems - I can only base this on present performance. The truth is, at the moment, in the present theatre on present leg times/routes etc, the end customer (Loggies) gets a better service from the K model - FACT! The 155, 000 is the limit for the J but for non SF Ks it is 160,000 lbs - FACT.
Also, Herc K CDT - 16 hrs, J - 14 hrs roughly a 25 pc reduction but the J is only 10 pc faster - work it out!)


However, bringing stuff out of AFG will be slightly safer as the J will be better able to climb over the mountains, esp in the prsent temps

I have no particular axe to grind and i have friends on both fleets - I just get the impression that both sets of crews have rose tinted spectacles. On balance however, as an impartial observer, I think the J is white elephant and crews are trying to run before they can walk. I just hope they don't push too far.

[The Brown Bottle]

Devilmongrel. (Ahem.) C17s and C130s scared eh? Well ****** me, all those night approaches on NVGs must have been a drunken dream. Both types have been flying their bits off supporting the op. How come you didnt notice? Been asleep at night have we?

[DutchRoll]

I simply disagree on the two pilot thing, MikeRO.

The workload is not high in the route phase. It puzzles me that the RAF guys would say this and I can only assume that it is something to do with the way they are operating. The workload is only as high as you make it (I'm sure I could make myself work flat-out doing relatively pointless, semi-useful, or anally retentive stuff during a 2 or 6 hour route flight if I wanted to).

As far as TAC workload goes, it certainly can get busy, and this is no secret. Software improvements have significantly helped (Lockheed Martin has taken quite a few left jabs to the chin over this, and have responded slowly, although like many big aerospace contractors, they've practically had to have the feedback kicked into them). As far as the DZ, comms, defensive systems, etc, etc, go, there is no doubt that one pilot will be head down most of the time, and that he will be quite busy. But the aeroplane is very easy to fly on the HUD, and the S/A from this and the head down displays (map included) is twenty times what you get in an E or H or any other model for that matter.

The big problem with the J that I see and have experienced, is trying to operate it like it is an E or H or K or whatever. If your organisation tries to do this, they will unfortunately encounter a lot of trauma. It basically flies the same, but requires a fairly fundamental change in operating philosophy (to put it simply, you have to cut out the crap.....which is a very refreshing feeling I can tell you) - something which doesn't come easy when your organisation has been flying Hercs for decades.

Let's not kid ourselves - the concept of a fast, low flying aeroplane being flown by one pilot with only one other cockpit crew member doing everything else is not a new one and is common to this day. But to apply it to the C-130J is going to take a bit more forward thinking (a rare phenomenon in the military) and a bit of help from the manufacturer in the way of systems design, etc.

[unclebuckhead]

Chaps, you're all way off the mark. The workload of a C130-J crew during a tactical mission is less than that of a K. Either take my word for it or read the reports from the tactical workload trials, which were successfully completed last year.

[Arty]

Unclebuckhead has it spot on - MikeRO you are barking up the wrong tree. The strat workload on the J is also MUCH lower than the K and I haven't heard any J guys say otherwise.

As for payloads in theatre, check out the hot/high performance of the J compared with the K and then tell me which can carry more freight.

You are also wrong about the J crew duty day.

[DutchRoll]

Thankyou Arty & unclebuckhead! I thought I was going to get no backup there for a while!

unclebuckhead............hmmm.............that pseudonym brings back memories..............and some memory blackouts!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I wonder if MikeRo is one of those whose lively hood is being threatened by this techno advance? More importantly where does he get all his mis-info from.

If a Percy or a Wokka can flash around at 50' and 140kts with only a very basic gps and a competant rhs guy with a 1/4 mil as it's sole nav aids please explain why a J with state of the art avionics, HUD, moving map display etc can't manage it at 250' As regards lookout it would appear that us "trolly dolly's" are going to have a much more involved role "up front" which is great news for us and as we cost much less than the two other sources of white noise on the K HMG will no doubt be happy as well.

Yes it can't use all it's seats because of vibration however I can only think of a couple of occasions during my one K tour when we even got close to a full seat fit so this is a bit of a red herring as well.

We flew back last night/this morning from kebab land in 6hrs 50, 20 tons of fuel at 24-28k and during this time discussed just about every subject you can imagine. The suggestion that pilots spend their entire time time fevereshly pushing buttond is c..p. Guys new to the a/c do find themselves stuck in the "green tunnel" for long periods of time however soon discover the wonders of the black magic box and end up almost as bored as your average classic crew as the workload is not that high.

Sorry MRO but your wrong. The beast is extremly capable and you will not find anyone currently operating it, bearing in mind we are all ex K operators, who will tell you any differant. Yes it has it's problems as do all a/c, we left a "k" today issuing F34 onto the dispersal quicker than the bowser could pump so the assertion that the classic is somehow more reliable is tosh.

anyway after being up for almost 24 hours it's time for bed said..........what was his name?

any spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced.

[Mike RO'Channel]

I am only repeating what J guys and others tell me! Tho', perhaps you are right - like the rest of the AT world, they have turned flying in a straight line into an art form!
As for the Tac workload trials - correct me if I'm wrong, but these were carried out by very experienced ex SF/Tac AT pilots on the JOEU, as a singleton, in China Lake or somewhere equally blessed with glorious sunshine, with no other ac to speak of and few obstructions and sharply defined big valleys.
Please try to imagine less able crews in the UK clag, leading a 4/6 ship amongst the shark-infested custard of the UKLFS while trying to run a Comao secenario with FRA/threats to contend with Spade. Oh, and don't forget to call X Approach for deconfliction - "oops watch out for the pylons, yikes was that a microlight or a c152 (obviously not squawking) - oh ******, fogot to call the DZ - dummy run"! When the JOEU can clear the scenario above, I might feel happier that my pals might just get from LFA 14 to LFA 2 without killing themselves. As it is they can't drop anything worthwhile yet anyway but the clearances should come in the next 10 yrs!

Sorry, its just not on for a long while yet. It doesn't mean it won't happen but IMHO there needs to be a third pilot/AEOp/WSO in the cockpit for such tasks - all Euro countries want such a bod in A400M - why do we think we are so smart when our trg system is so **** (a different thread, methinks)?
Is it a coincidence that half the crews crashed themselves in the sim while working up for Afghanistan - route flying with a steep approach at the end and nothing very complicated!?

[propulike]

Bit arrogant aren't you Mikero? "If I'm not on board how on earth can 'they' be expected to cope??!!??!"

As for your top gen on clearances, workload trial results etc etc, you haven't been talking that much to your mates on the J!

By the way, 16hrs to 14hrs is a 12.5% reduction not 25%, and the aircraft flies about 11% faster. Do your sums again. As for range vs the classic, how about Canada flag Hannover for UK with the ability for round trip fuel, with a full load but without your precious external drag makers?

As for route flying being difficult.............

(And I'd just like to make clear that the reason I didn't crash the sim was because I wasn't trying hard enough ;) )

[unclebuckhead]

Mike RO, just a few questions regarding you last post because I think you may have been badly briefed!

1. Why do you think that the workload trials were held in China Lake?
2. Why do you think that the missions were singletons?
3. Why do you think that there were no threats?
4. Why do you think there were no masts/birds/other traffic?
5. Why do you think that the weather was not a factor?
6. Why do you think that full operational comms were not used?

Also, apart from threats, TOT (time on target) changes, DZ changes, run in to DZ changes and refrags to include SAR the crews were given technical malfunctions that would disable flight deck displays. All TOT’s were accomplished within 10 seconds apart from one which was 12s. But this is the best bit, it was accomplished easily with, you've guessed it, just 2 pilots.

[Mike RO'Channel]

It appears (maybe) that I have been poorly briefed but am only repeating what i have heard from Lyneham J and K - I will recheck my source(s) tho'. If, however, the ac is so clever, why is it not training crews in Tac AT skills then?
ABIW - if you are up on the flt deck, who's looking after the trunk space behind 245 crammed with 80 odd troops from p-40?
As I have said, I am genuinely intrested as I have many pals on the ac and am only concerned that things are being overlooked or rushed as is often thecase with new ac whose snr offs are politically motivated. My apologies for caring!

[Bassett]

Mike RO

I have flown many 1000s of hours on the old K, most in the TAC AT role, and more recently accrued nearly a 1000 in the J. Most of the misinformed comments about the J seem to come from the BZN Antiques Roadshow mates so I have not bothered to reply.

I dont think you can be serious, the K difficult to fly and trim at low level? Its a babe. I have been fortunate to fly the J in its early stages of TAC AT development, and believe me it is even better. One example being its better rate of climb during weather penetrations. As for the workload issue, the pilot non flying spends little time heads in, trained crews can quickly manipulate the kit if required, and re-routes are more quickly sorted. The workload for both pilots is much less than on a K. Furthermore, the ac is showing excellent NVG potential. However, it is acknowledged that for a small number of mission profiles, such as SF high level of difficulty, then a 3rd pilot may be carried.

As for the MTOW issue, the J is limited to a max normal of 155 000lbs, as are all other C130s except the K. The 160 000 lbs clearance for normal ops was never endorsed by Lockheed. However, there is work being done to clear the J to a normal MTOW of 167 000lbs.

I have also trained many pilots on the J and I have yet to find one that would return to the K. Take a ride in one and see.

[Vortexadminman]

I think its just the new model pickfords van with fancy new engines

[getout773]

I flew in a J the other day and I have been converted, I was v. impressed, it's just a shame no one bothered to spend any time thinking about aft of 245. After all it is a cargo ac.

Whatever the J's short commings are at the moment they will have to be sorted out as too much money has been put into it already and the k is starting to knock on.

The one thing I really liked about the J is that it's not started, it's booted up... fantastic. :confused

As for Devildawg comments about our lack of balls all I can say is that he is a complete and utter - begins with W and sounds like anker.:mad::

[Mike RO'Channel]

Bassett
Thank you for such a candid reply - I can just about feel the weight of your sincerity!

As I said, over the past years I have heard all kinds of talk in the bars from Brize and Lyn to Akronelli and beyond. My feeling is that for a lot of the time J guys talk the a/c up while the K crews talk it down (to be expected). Almost everyone on the J has always sung its praises (also expected) but 'in their cups' some have expressed reservations about the 2 - person flt deck, especially at LL and that sets my alarm bells ringing.

If you are someone with some influence, I hope that you have noticed it too and are in a position to check some people's apparent mad rush - more haste less speed and get the Tac training right first time with the right people.
I am a cautious old soul who believes the adage of 'old/bold etc' and I may now be an old-ish fart, but experience counts for a lot - i guess thats why we have spec aircrew (not this PA-bollox).

If it means anything, I think the J is potentially brilliant but it is not yet the b-all and end-all with lots of work to. Not least, the tactical awareness of J crews is below that of the K crews (47 mainly). However, the J is not alone in this and I could level this at every AT/AAR ac type - it takes a long time to do that on any ac and 2 Gp have so many 'route-queens' - the K included!

Also, and unfortunately, the J is still a Herc airframe and when operating at MTOW - it only carries as much as a K, albeit off a shorter runway!
(167,000 lbs would be something but having seen the ******ed K airframes post Gulf and also after the latest 'war', I think you would do well to stay clear of that part of the envelope!)

I also wish people (esp snr bods) would be honest and stand up and be counted - we seem to have bred a generation of bullsh.tters, so no-one is sure what the problems really are!

The big question is - can the J get it right before the next generation of Tac Airlifter comes along with all the clearances already in place for its ISD in 2008 (allegedly)?

God speed but please don't run before you can walk - Be careful out there in AFG/PAK.

[Good Mickey]

Fascinating thread boys, but is the 'J' really a 2 person flight deck or is it a 3 man crew with the ALM having a greater role?

[Mike RO'Channel]

My point exactly! The ALM should be looking after the trunk space - esp if carrying pax - and/or having their eyes out of the windows and not playing at computers or EW. Some countries carry 2 ALMs just for the lookout option! So, once again, who is extra pair of eyes/EW systems operator at the front - that all other countries want for Tac AT ac? Even the FSTA is rumoured to have a third chap/chapess for trails and war-like tanking up close to the FEBA!

[charliesbar]

Why bother with all this Herc ****? The C17 is already proven at low level, NVG carrying at least 80T of freight with DAS blah blah 2 pilots etc.......Why try and make an issue of something that can already be done? There is no doubt that the J's cockpit is as good if not better then the C17s, the J will be able to do the job. The K really is history and it seems to me that those at Lyenham still flying it should accept this and move forward or are you all so ***** that the thought of change and being knocked off your ****ing perches scares you that much? CR(A) - ****.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Is MrO really just Admin Guru or that other pest WEB Fanatic! in disguise?

Or is he/she one of the FEW AR@!S left from circa Carterton who rather blinkerdly believes that anything aft of the flight deck door is only fit for making tea or coffee and doing up lap straps. Whilst only true sky gods sit in the cockpit, a location rather aptly named for the likes of MrO!

GM to answer your question the J is completely a 2 man flight deck. The guys are taught from the outset that us tea boys are not going to be available so they have to react to all flight deck occurances as a two man crew. More importantly when we are available we restrict ourselves to merely following the drill from the FRC's or book 3 and SHOULD only pipe up if we felt something untoward was occuring. Our "tech" is reasonable but no way near as in depth as our pilots, although some would no doubt dissagree with me there.

However apart from producing the odd hot drink and halumi lounza roll with our all singing and dancing micro waves us ALM's have proved and are continuing to prove that we have a lot more to offer in the way of flight deck help. We can, when asked and not as the norm!!!, talk to artichoke, pass departure messages, copy down and more importantly fully understand taf's and actuals, liase with mil and civil op's regards A/C and pax requirments, balance the fuel panel and crossfeed as required. And as part of our pilot incapacitation drills we need to be able to monitor VSI and bank angles via HUD or head down diplays, understand approach plates etc and assist if required with air traffic calls bt with the "automatics" working any capt or co worth his salt can manage all this quite happily on his own.

However as I said this help is simply offered, fairly regularly practiced BUT IS NOT EXPECTED. And I am led to believe that even more skills will be taught as part of the Tac package again to assist only and not to replace.

Bearing in mind my earlier post stating that if a Puma/Chinook can rattle around at 140 kts at 50' with a pilot and a nav whose only nav aids are gps and a quarter mil then why can't a J with it's HUD, moving map display,GCAS, F16 radar!!! etc etc manage it at 150' -250' with 2 pilots. The simple answer..............IT CAN!!

However MrO I can only speculate that the various CRM packages introduced over recent years were to counter the neanderthal attitude of those like your self. I, and I am sure many of my colleagues will find your assertion that ALM's "play" at anything extremely insulting. We are all proffesional aircrew doing our utmost to offer the very best service we can and the idea that we would be best placed aft of 245 for the entire flight watching the walking freight sleep or making sure the palletised freight is secure is not only ludicrous but a complete waste of a valuable asset, which thankfully the vast majority of the J front enders completely aggree with. ;)

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Good Mickey]

charliesbar,

totally agree that the K is dead and the future is J/C17, but I think there are still some unanswered questions with the J - esp the prop issue.

[Fine Pitch]

Thanks for that well-informed comment about Tac Hercs, Charlie. Does that mean that RAF C17s will also be going Tac when the pilots have perfected the art of landings that you can walk away from?? :) :)

[L J R]

Bassett - I'd love to have a ride but Air Transport Taskers never give us anything!!

Ryanair or Easy Jet it is then.

[Mike RO'Channel]

ABIW
Unfortunately, you are still missing the point but I will not enter into abusive and personal slanging matches.

As captain ( I was on the K), I am totally dependent on the rest of my crew and they on the highly(?) paid stick monkeys in the front. But I would do everything to ensure the whole lot of us stay alive.

I am not suggesting by any means that ALMs are glorified trolley dollies (which is a total insult and I am dismayed you think that is what I have implied). But when AAA, small arms and/or MANPADs are flying about, the place for ALMs is looking out of the windows - 'cos DAS is not a cloaking device and its not 100 pc reliable! If the ALM(s) are not looking out during approach/landing and T/O/departure, they should be busy with the paras/other chaps or CVRT/WIMIX/Loads etc.
Which means that there is b.gger all redundancy in the front for doing the WSO/AEOp type of things that need doing - not getting f...g weathers for Akronelli! However, I know ALMs are capable of doing the things you mention, its just not appropriate when in bandit country - you are more use saving the crews @rses!

Sadly, my thousands of hours of experience is falling on deaf ears - but of course, I'd forgotten, the J is a new aircraft and all previous knowledge is worthless. Have fun with your new toy - don't break it and come back in one piece.

[RoboAlbert]

Mike
With all due respect I think you’ll find that your thousands of hours of K experience are matched by a great number of people on the J fleet. Far from disregarding any past experiences I’d hope we’d tried to take what was good and relevant onto the new aircraft. The people now developing the tac course are not what you might term inexperienced as either K or J operators. What they say would place them at odds with you on a number of issues, particularly workload. Are you so arrogant as to think you know more than these people who have operated both ac types? Your posts have grown less strident through this thread, but sorry, the early ones suggest you clearly are that arrogant.

[Good Mickey]

Brit J's are good, its such a shame though that they didn't buy the fully spammed up version. Now that is a seriously gucci piece of kit.

[Mike RO'Channel]

RoboA

I am not so arrogant to admit that I might be wrong! In fact I have checked out a few sources and well.........****** and sorry - that's rumour for you!! However, not all of my comments are off the mark - my comments on ALMs and lookout still stands as does the fact that Ks have been better 'trucks' in AFG than the J is at present - of course that may change and its only a matter of perspective and rose-tinted Oakleys on both sides, I suspect. Strangely, there doesn't seem to be much comment from the southside of Lyn on this thread but lots of rattled cages on the northside - does that say something? I suppose it might?

But I must repeat that I am only stating what I have heard from around the houses/bars. Also, I must repeat that I have no axe to grind either way - I am just interested in reality and not supposition. Furthermore, I have many friends at Lyn - both J, K and ground branches. Some have a lot more experience than myself on the Herc but a significant number of people have concerns that things are not all sweetness and light on the J. All that 'people' want from the J is a sensible progression to full Op status (which will surely come) - but not a headlong rush into oblivion. No-one wants a week or more of funerals - been there done that - not again thanks!

I sincerely apologise if I come across as arrogant but I am only taking the lead from the attitude of some (but not all) senior offs on the J side of things (at Lyn and 2 Gp) who have blatantly shunned their oppos on the K.

As i have said before - be careful out there. The J is an impressive beast. However, I am more than convinced that it will bite very hard - likle any a/c - and let's face it, most of us who have ended up on multis are not the 'sharpest knives in the drawer' - by definition. It is those who think they are, that are the arrogant ones.

[rivetjoint]

Without breaking the rules of the secret squirrel club, how does the workload on an RAF -K or -J on a tac mission compare to the MC-130 when its down in the dirt? Do their goodies help?

[Good Mickey]

rivetjoint,

cannot answer that question, mainly because I'm not sure that the J has done any low level at night, which would be the real test of workload.

[Arty]

Mike

The fact that you are prepared to post such vague rumours here, most of which are complete tosh, shows to me a good dose of either arrogance, ignorance or stupidity. Instead of listening to your K mates, of which the sideways-seating fraternity are willing the aircraft to fail, why don't you go over to the J side, talk to the guys and hear it from the horses' mouths - there are even plenty of trips if you so desire, but watch out - you might end up in AFG! ;)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I have to say I am astounded by the continued assertions from MrO that somehow he seems to know best. Why is he completly ignoring the statements of fact offered by Uncle Buck, Robo, Arty, Prop, Bassett and Dutch Roll.

But what I find most puzzeling is the following from his last post:

But I must repeat that I am only stating what I have heard from around the houses/bars. Also, I must repeat that I have no axe to grind either way - I am just interested in reality and not supposition

His whole argument is based on based on supposition without an ounce of reality to it.

MrO Arty has offered you some sound advice. If your concerns are genuine get your ar@e over here and come see things first hand instead of listening and believing the views of the inebriated few.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[flipster]

I can't bear it any longer - this is my first post (probably last, too) but MikeR has got my goat!

As a current K bloke, it pains me to back up the J types on this thread .......but Mike R is spouting rubbish!

The J is a new ac, but its doing fine in theatre, thank you very much (barring a few tech-snags that are being quickly sorted). They are bound to be making mistakes like the K did but they are learning as quickly as well.

The crews are well protected, well trained and highly keen. Most of them are top guys/gals - some of whom worked as opsos for the K crews at the height of the ops out there and many are experienced K guys with lots of hours like you Mike! - they are not 'rushing in headlong'! As for route-queens - they get everywhere I agree, but even they start to get 'tactical' when people start shooting at them!

I, for one, am very glad the J is 'out there', cos the K crews were on our knees and we are very glad of the respite the J deployment has brought - thanks guys and keep it up! Just give us a USA route or 2?

Mike - furthermore, the JOEU have very experienced chaps doing the tac workload trials - and are a lot more thorough than you insinuate, so back off!

The truth is that from now on in, the J will get all the money and back-up while the K will fall into a gradual decline (no change there, I hear you say). The J tac clearances will come and it will get most of the kit it needs. It's a shame that the K crews are not seen as worth spending money on - as the K apparently has a very short time left in service (yeah right - about 10 years!!!!) and it is not seen as a 'good investment' - makes my blood that one - but that's a different story!

I know that all J crews would agree with me that the K has done a sterling job recently and the crews have been exceedingly brave - day and night and in the finest traditions of the Service - of course with little publicity and acclaim! I am very proud to have served alongside the chaps.

I hope the J has such a successful time 'at war' and that the crews earn their spurs! Fly safe!

MikeR - I know this is a rumour network ....but a little more research next time? Suggest you take up the offer of finding out first hand about the J - I would if I could but I suspect I've missed the boat!

:cool: :cool:

[Grimweasel]

Well....if its so good why have all air drop trials for the next year been canx due to lack of funds?
I guess it will remain a route queen for some time yet!!

[rudekid]

For all you experienced J model types out there:

Does the different position of the refuel probe cause any issues in the turn at low level?

It looks like its slightly lower down the fuselage than the k model probe,so wonder if it gets in the way?

Likewise how is the cross cockpit visibility?

From my experience, NVG ops at low level in marginal weather and mountainous terrain require two pilots to be looking out, especially in the turn, so wonder how you would cope with entering re-routes etc.

For all you helo/fast jet NVG operators, the herc cockpit is so wide that you can't physically see where you are turning towards, which requires considerable trust in the non handling pilot!

Heard lots of good things about the J model, just hope it gets the right kit thrown at it.

[Bassett]

Good Mikey

You are quite correct we should have got the fully spammed J, but its called smart procurement. We will of course eventually get the extras, if Ext Tanks can be called an extra. Most of the add ons are provided for and will be easy to reto-fit, at a huge cost of course.

As for night ops, a first look trial in the sim has produced good results with the HUD being particularly good when combined with NVGs. The sybology can reduce the Pilot Flying workload to less than that in a K, particularly in the approach or airdrop phase.

The comments of others reference the ALM participation is interesting. Most missions will be capable of being flown by a 2 pilot crew, including night LL. Some specialist roles may require an additional pilot. Of course the ALMs primary duties will be in the frt bay. However, when he is not required there why not use him in the front as another pair of eyes etc. On the K we sometimes used ALM and GEs in secondary roles.

[Good Mickey]

rudekid,

your quite right, the probe does obscure the view slightly, in a left hand turn at low level. However, contrary to popular belief, the PNF (pilot not flying) is not constantly heads down during low level and you would be pleasantly surprised at how much more relaxed and quiet a J model flight deck is at low level compared to a K flight deck.

Bassett,

I couldn't agree more! Why not get the most out of ALM's, they are a much underated asset and are more than capable of fullfilling certain flight deck duties. Again, I agree with you when you say their primary role is 'down the back' but J model ALM's have learnt to develop their work cycle such that they are in the right place at the right time ie. down the back for a drop (p-40 etc.) and up the front for other 2hrs of the mission. Makes no sense to allow them to fall asleep during the low level phase which is what most K ALM's do.

[Good Mickey]

Any news on the impending Tactical Military Aircraft Release? I've heard that it isn't very promising! Could that be anything to do with QinetiQ?

[RoboAlbert]

An interesting point.
The aircraft went through an exhaustive flight test program run jointly with Lockheed, USAF, RAAF and RAF test crews prior to its arrival into RAF service. This was intended to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in.
Why then are we now undergoing another set of trials and all the associated delays and additional costs.
In the past there had always been a very close working relationship between the RAF and MOD PE. However, I think it would wise to re-evaluate our relationship with QinetiQ. What concerns me is that QinetiQ have, in addition to ensuring that the aircraft do what they are supposed to do, an interest in remaining financially viable.
Are we paying twice? I’m sure the joint Lockheed/USAF/RAAF/RAF test program cost us money and now we are covering much of the same ground (with some of the same people being involved) with QinetiQ. Why do QinetiQ find fault with so much of the original joint test program?

[Bassett]

Robo well said.

There are of course a lot of good lads down at Boscombe, civies and military. However, how long must the RAF put up with this drawn out and costly way of doing business. Legally we must use QinetiQ to get MAR advice, but this could be obtained more efficiently if the system was streamilned by using more Service expertise. Why for instance do they need their own airfield, they could send the boffins/TPs to the trials aircraft base and conduct work there. Also, do we still need the anachronistic idea of using non-specialsit TPs conducting trials on aircraft types they have never flown before. We just end up re-inventing the wheel later on. Still maybe they will go bankrupt and the system will have to change.

Quote from another thread "the C17 has had the most successful introduction to service of any aircraft". There's a b****y good reason for that!

[BEagle]

I'm sure that there are indeed some good people down at Boscombe - but the KwintyKwoo nonsense is making things quite ridiculous. People are going to great lengths to find let out ways of bypassing the KwintyKwoo system in order to get the job done.

Perhaps those mainstream service pilots qualified to conduct Full Air Tests should be given clearance to fly trials personnel on equipment trials which have no bearing on aircraft or systems handling? All that should be needed is a day's briefing on how to cope with daft boffins and their weird ways and some basic trials procedures briefing?

Once upon a time, a new piece of kit was installed in a Vickers Funbus. True to form, DERA had to provide the 'trials crew', but on the contracted day, their captain was sick and the only other available pilot was insuffciently experienced on the ac to act as captain. The contractors were ready, the other players were ready, the sqn had several pilots sitting around who could help out. So some very high level elephant mating took place and finally agreement was reached for me to fly as captain in the RHS with the DERA crew. But technically I had to be 'loaned' to DERA for the flight to keep the political feathers smoothed! Hence the trial took place, the kit worked and I learned about the inept ways of boffins. NOTHING in that trial required the so-called 'expertise' that KwintyKwoo think that they provide; the sooner this sacred cow is put out to grass the better!

[Good Mickey]

There seems to be a consesus of opinion here - a rare bird indeed! It might just indicate that perhaps QinetiQ is a complete waste of time and money and that any development/trials should be conducted by the real experts ie. those aircrew who are current on type and who understand modern requirements. However, we wouldn't want to hijack this thread by using it to slag off QinetiQ now would we?

[BEagle]

Why not? They deserve it!

Another 2 examples:

1. It took a KwintyKwoo crew to take a Vickers Funbus over to the USA - just to do the C130J receiver trials. Fair enough for a TP or 2 on the C130J crew to be there to conduct handling assessments - but why in the tanker, for foxtrot's sake?

2. Boeing wanted to borrow back a 767 from BA to do fighter proximity trials as part of the FSTA programme. But then they needed some FJs to manoeuvre behind the 767. KwintyKwoo wanted to charge the earth to requalify les girls de Boscum to prod off a tanker (even though there was no prodding involved), to put their precious TPs on the 767 and to run the trial. Boeing and BA, quite reasonably, told them to $od off. So the jet was flown over to Pax River, the USN did the various trials and the tanker perspective was overseen by an experienced RAF AAR captain - at vastly less cost than KwintyKwoo had wanted to charge!

PS - Can't remember whether it was still DEARer then, or whether they'd become KwintyKwoo - but the rip-off principle was just the same!

Back to the thread - following that expensive trial, how often is the 130J doing AAR receiver work nowadays?

[RoboAlbert]

I think the icon says it all :D

[Good Mickey]

Beagle,

none, since they had a major trim runaway when the J was astern the tanker. The trim runaway is also the reason why TMAR phase 1 has given a clearance to fly low level not below 2000'!!?

[Fast Albert]

I am impelled to say that I have not heard so much B*ll*cks coming from one ill informed person , Mike RO, in a long time!..... and I've heard a lot of B*ll*cks in my time!!!!!

Mike - please get a life and stop slagging off what you clearly don't understand.

The boys are doing a good job at finding their feet in this new environment and it would be nice for people to show a little support rather that just slag them off.

please get your facts right and atleast speak to the boys (and girls - sorry!) whom are doing the lifts each night.

.... and as for the comment that "the K mates are better drinkers" I wish to draw your attention to the excellent recent bikini party in the TaliBar where everyone in the DOB had a great time. I would like to think that we could drink WITH the 'K boys' and have a good time together as truckies rather than squabbling about "my plane's better than your plane!"

Who needs Taliban and AQ when we have colleagues like you? I thought we were all on the same side?

Sorry everybody - rant over

Fast Albert

Happiness is 4 props, a HUD and a Hob-Nob!
:p

[lightningmate]

The criticism of QinetiQ and the MOD Boscombe Down organisation in previous posts raises some 'old chestnuts' that have been debated for decades, and probably even longer, about relevant experience when carrying out flight assessments. The tps are assessing whatever against the capabilities of the 'average' pilot'. Hence, it would be unwise to use specialist pilots who are very experienced in the role/task as they would be likely to cope with a difficult task without much problem. Whereas 'joe average' may struggle or even get into trouble.

However, many of the perceived faults with the system raised by previous posters are down to the requirements of the flying regulatory system under which the MOD Boscombe Down organisation operates. Namely, that of Director of Flying DPA and not the usual 'Service Regulated' flying environment that regulates 'normal' military flying. The D/Fg system allows aircraft to be operated beyond current MAR/RTS limitations, which must happen to provide the assessment results to extend the current limitations/approvals. Sensibly, such events are carefully supervised and all risks fully assessed. The rules and procedures developed over many years of practical test/assessment flying may appear restrictive at first sight but they have passed the test of time. Hence, within the test/assessment flying environment many of the options raised by previous posters are not readily usable even when common sense indicates relaxing a rule/procedure in a particular situation could be beneficial.

The question of costs etc that accrue from QQs commercial status is a different subject but government policy produced the beast and the situation is not far removed from the full cost accounting processes rapidly taking over all military activity.

lm

[BEagle]

Ba££$! Why does it need a KwintyKwoo bunch to trail the centre-line hose of a VC10K in front of a C130J when the latter is the only ac involved in the 'trial'?

Back when the VC10K3 was entering service, it only had clearance to refuel Nimrods and F4s. Other trials had been successfully completed, but, as ever, Les Girls de Boscum were months behind with the paperwork.

One day we were involved in acting as tanker (in a K3) to another K3 as Les Girls were doing yet another trial. Funny old thing - we were allowed to fly the 'trials' tanker - presumably because the trial was taking place over Devon and not the USA!!

Trial completed - along comes a Boscum Buccaneer after some fuel. "Err - we're not qualified to act as tanker" quoth Les Girls, "Can you give the Bucc some fuel?".

Whereupon I had great pleasure in replying "We know that a Buccaneer can refuel safely from a K3 and we don't doubt that its pilot is properly qualified. But despite the time which has passed since the trial took place, regrettably A Certain Trials Organisation still hasn't progressed the paperwork to give us the appropriate release to service, so sorry, but no we won't!"

Funny old thing - within a day or two the clearance was received. Boss thought it was hilarious!!

[sycamore]

So,Beagle will you now please tell us all what this "trial" was.I presume you now want "tp" after your name,and obviously you are capable of running trials after a days brief and sorting a few boffins out.Actually there are perhaps very few "boffins" at A&AEE,most used to reside in the RAE.Notwithstanding that "there`s nothin` like a good boffin`," and I would suggest that you might be in line for one -from a trials "J" if you don`t wash your mouth out! There are lots of flight test engineers and test pilots who are doing the best the can to provide you and everyone else who wears HM uniform-the system they operate under may not be the best now,but I can only judge from afar,but it certainly provided aircraft for your "average" pilot that would not fail and could be used fully.Now ,if as it seems you can do it all better/cheaper/etc,put -up or.....It would be much better if you were ever to be involved in any future to speak to the TP`s at BD,NICELY ,and try to work as a team.It is the Service you are working for,not against..Go to the chippy`s shop and reshape your shoulders!And I used to think we used to get a good tanker service from"somewhere near"..:mad:

[BEagle]

Whilst I've always got on very well with the TPs I've converted onto type (except for the one who wanted to do his own unbriefed handling assessment during a routine conversion flight!), we also agreed that much of the system itself was a complete feat of ar$e. Trials which weren't, time wasted on jollies when the job could easily have been completed in a fraction of the time....

Another example. New paint scheme required a thermal load trial. So where did they go? Nellis, funny old thing. A couple of weeks at HM's expense when any meteorologist could have warned them that the temp wasn't going to be particularly extreme in that part of the world at that time of year. However, it would have been in Oman - but they declined the offer.....

But I have to say that some of the weird boffins I've met are simply barking.......

KwintyKwoo has its place - but it is currently seen as an expensive irrelevance by many. Much of its work most certainly does NOT require a TP! Nice chaps though they might be.....

[RoboAlbert]

Pay no attention to Beagle's name calling Sycamore.

The issue isn't the test crews involved but rather the system that sees to have us running identical trials on an ac that has already undergone a fairly rigorous test program. Are we not paying twice in an effort to get an ac into service? If the first trials where deemed so unsatisfactory why was this not hammered out then with Lockheed. After all our blokes were actually sat there with the Lockheed guys during the initial certification.

Fast Albert - don't let them catch you eating the NCOs biscuits!

[RoboAlbert]

Good Mickey are you sure?
Perhaps you have enjoyed, as I have, the erudite piece of work by Prof Arnold Spunkmiester, published in a recent edition of the Beano, on the little known clinical disorder ‘Turetts' Syndrome of the thumb’. ;)

[Good Mickey]

RoboAlbert,

yes your probably right. Mine was the official explanation!

As far as ****iCue is concerned, I'm convinced that if we'd have procured real J's and adopted the USAF airdrop system in toto and kept ****iCue at arms length we would have a significant airdrop capability already.

[sycamore]

Good Mickey, I agree with your last ,but then who was it who didn`t want the USAF system? Remember who puts up the goal -posts in the first place- not MOD.PE/QQ,but your own Air Staff. BEagle,you haven`t answered the question yet,or are you still gargling?:p

[BEagle]

Sycamore,

The K3/K3 trial was an extension of the cleared receiving envelope for the K3. Quite reasonably the TP handled the receiver ac. Just as they have been for a more recent envelope extension of a FJ aeroplane. So why did a DEARer crew have to fly the tanker on the 130J receiver trial in the US.....

The other trial was an equipment trial of the VC10 JTIDS. The DEARer pilot, nav and engineer all agreed that the high level help were the only ones causing difficulties; we knew and agreed precisely who would do what. But I certainly learned that boffins need to be watched - one of them turned off a switch on the Air Engineers panel with the corner of a clumsily handled document....

pi$$ taking apart, if I can be trusted to assess the handling of the aircraft on a full post-maintenance air test which includes taking it beyond the envelope cleared for use by routine sqn operation, I can't really see that a straightforward equipment trial really needs TP expertise. Not their fault, of course - just 'the system'!

[Bassett]

Goodmick/Beagle,

For your info the QQ trim runaway in the J during AAR was infact inadvertant trimming by the TP. Aparently it has happened before a few times ay QQ, but no occurences reported by operators. The stick top is a bit crowded and it can take time to learn how to "grip" it without pressing a button.

On the thread of useless trials, on 2 occasions, in two different transport aircraft I had to instruct the TP how to fly the thing before he could conduct the trial. One was a USAF KC135 exchange mate who had to conduct an airdrop trial. He had 4 hrs C130 and had never dropped anything before. Another time, when it came to the trial, in a blatantly non-aerobatic aircraft, I was to be co and we had to get an auth from the chief TP who asked "how many spins were we going to do?"

Also I think experienced operator are more than capable of assessing what new/"average" pilots could cope with.

[unclebuckhead]

It seems that everyone is 'sticking the boot in' on QQ and I can't quite work out how the thrust of the original question on this thread got completely lost!

So, back to the original question... 'C130-J, just a strat ac?' ... ridiculous suggestion, not even worth talking about, now back to slagging off QQ!!

[Low and Slow]

My information is that the C-130J has:

a. Less Ramp clearence than the K (cannot drop some heavy loads, that the K can)

b. Less Ramp load than the K

c. Less floor loading weight thah the K

Considering it's rpimary task is to carry stuff for the Pongo's this is a pretty poor show, IF IT'S TRUE!

Anyone know, or shall we all just revert to quoting opion as fact! :)

[RoboAlbert]

Not really sure I’d have to ask an ALM. However, are these things that debilitating? Does the aircraft’s greatly improved performance, integrated DAS and Nav Kit matter more?

Would the Army prefer an aircraft that can drop blind with enormous accuracy when and where they want it or wait several days for the weather to clear so that they can carry a few more Kgs in the Wedge?

:confused:

[C130KBloke]

Hi Gang;

Some comments

a. Less Ramp clearence than the K (cannot drop some heavy loads, that the K can)

Correct, the drop trials have not yet finished....

b. Less Ramp load than the K

Same limitations...but we can put it on a pallet!!! Easier, quicker loading and all that!

c. Less floor loading weight thah the K

Some restrictions, but the J has a uniform area loading over the whole floor unlike the K so in some respects is better!!!

Regards to Most
SFS


:cool: :cool:

[Good Mickey]

Low and Slow,

I can't believe that you want to start a pissing contest between the K and J over performance. You will never win that one - unless you have a different version of the AM than I have.

Oh, by the way, top notch spolling!!

[Low and Slow]

Thanks for the compliment.

Couldn't care if it's a K or J that does the job. I look at these things from a customer point of view. Something few else here do!

If you can't push a heavy pallet out of the back, why bother. Make all the J's tanker and gunships.

[RoboAlbert]

KBloke seems to have covered the ramp and floor issues. What heavy loads are the problem?
From the Army’s point of view, as I said in a previous post, I would have thought that the ability to drop with enormous accuracy, in almost any weather and as hot and high as you like would be very welcome. Or am I missing the point?
:cool:

[ol_benkenobi]

Face it...there's a new kid on the pans at LYN and the K HAS HAD ITS DAY!
Its a good kite and we can't wait for the Tac LL Flying to start.
All the doubters are the jealous ones who have now realised that they have fouled up by not going 'J' in the first place. As more realise the potential of this frame then so more come across North side.
Like it or lump it J is best!!!!

[StopStart]

Yeah, the J's great. Apart from the b@5t@rd CBT.

And apparently we don't say "stop start" any more. Which is a matter of some great concern for me, obviously.

Er, that's it.

Apologies, I have nothing sensible to add to this lofty debate. :rolleyes:

[RoboAlbert]

Like I said you’re just going to have to change your name to…

'WAHHWAHHWAAH and Flashing yellow master caution lights …’ooeer wots that’…. ‘wots the ACAWS’ ….switch to stop'

Kind of trips of the tongue:p

[EESDL]

SS in a 'J' - it will never happen!!

[Bassett]

Low and Slow

Excellent idea about the Gunships. I believe we came close to getting some when the Bosnia campaign was on, but the airships then realized it would take work away from the FJs. However, Gunships would have been useful in Afg.

About the load issue, there are some differences between the K and J floors. The J has the same floor as all C130s apart from the K which was built to take the Beverley role equipment. Which incidentally, they tried to make the J use until common sense won the day. Both floors have their advantages, but the Js is far more flexible when carrying out a re-role.

The ideal would have been to buy in to the US airdrop system, but the people who ordered it did not of course know much about airdrop. There is always an attitude that our way is best. That is why QQ are taking a tried and tested airdrop system, and re-inventing it - which takes time. Of course if we had the same kit as the US/French/Canadians/Aussies/Kiwis we would be able to drop loads prepared by them during joint ops.

[Good Mickey]

INTEROPERABILITY - seems to be the latest buzz word to be banded about lately. Shame no one has mentioned it to QQ!!

[RoboAlbert]

Personnel view, but maybe the USAF way of doing airdrop isn’t always best. Their method of CDS drops, with ac flying very very slowly with a few degrees of flap to achieve the required deck angle could be construed as downright dangerous. I think I’m right in saying that the US has lost several ac from hitting wake and flick spin......:eek:
Having said that I think we’re going the CDS way too. I can’t see what’s wrong with 50 flap and a nice safe climbing drop for AEs – or better still MEs with a bunch of blokes pushing the thing out!

[Good Mickey]

RoboAlbert,

I'm fairly sure that the standard drop technique for CDS is 50 flap with a 7 degree deck angle. The beauty of the J is that 7 degrees can be nailed every time using HUD symbology. Early CDS trials, I am led to believe, have been fairly encouraging. Foot and Mouth and lack of money have brought it all to a grinding halt. Word of caution - don't be surprised if QQ manage to turn CDS (the worlds most successful and widely used air drop system) into good old fashioned AGE!!

Bring back ME and all is forgiven!

[RoboAlbert]

I'm obviously open to corrections from any American Pprunners but I'm fairly sure that the USAF system does involve flap settings like 6-8 degrees.

7 degrees with 50 flap, even when slow?

[HOOKER]

A bit more on weight limits. Never mind the air drop or how fast it flies, the bitter pill is that the good old K (even a Mk 1) could carry 2 x 4 ton trucks whereas the J can only carry 1 because of the weaker floor fore and aft. There are many variations of K load which are not now feasible.

Has anyone mentioned the vibration problems yet? On a Mk5 I believe you can only manage to sit approx 3 pax forward of TDR 10 (first two fifths of the cargo compartment) due to all the restrictions. After over two years in service the aircraft still doesn't have a winch. Why are the side para doors never opened?

All this said , interoperability should have been introduced years ago. At least NATO tried 3 decades ago to have all pongos use the same calibre weapons...

[lids]

If anyone is interested in how the J performs in theatre they may like to know that it is barely able to fly the milk run on a day to day basis. They may also like to know that it is already going back home to Blighty because it is barely able to do its route job. Guess which aircraft is staying in theatre?
All talk of low level capability is way off the mark. It has hardly covered itself in glory so far never mind what the returning crews might say. I strongly suggest that the J continues to do what it does best..that is break down in America where noone is dependent on it being on time. And by the way all those people so keen to write off the venerable K should wait and see what happens when the next op kicks off.
Final point . Route queens are alive and kicking on the North Side. The J crews just love giving position reports on the AWACS check in frequency.

[Facilitator]

At least the J crews have a SOP that explains how to check in and communicate with AWACS!

[Bassett]

Lids

The Js are indeed comming back from theatre...because the job is all but done, most of the the troops are home. A K is staying for one option, for which the J is not cleared. It will be by the end of the year however. I don't know how a K operator can poke fun at an aircraft going U/S.

And Hooker, the prop vibration, at high speed, is a problem but it only effects a couple of seats (those in line with the blades). However, as we normally carry mixed loads it has not caused any major snags. The para doors can now be opened in flight. QQ said that the door weighed too much for one loady to open. However, since they found out that the K door is also above the H&S limit, and fitted a stronger spring, it is cleared for use.

Roboabert, you are right that the US use a different method of achieving the despatch floor angle, and they fly in 2000 ft trail (more wake turb). However, that has nothing to do with the mechanics of CDS. We envisaged using the CDS system, but dropped as an ME/AE at 4000 ft trail. Meanwhile QQ are turning it into son of AE.

[lids]

BASSETT
Funny how the J chaps are so touchy about their unreliable but very modern aircraft. Let me see, one of the strong selling points of the J was its superior servicability rate over the K model. Are we conveniently dropping that benchmark now or would you like to furnish us with some facts to the contrary?

Thank you fot the pointer on the J SOP's I must pick up a copy, apparently there is a chapter on The Art of Route Queening and The Fourteen Hour Day. I hear it explains how to swing a night stop in the States after a 3 1/2 hour leg.I am particularly looking forward to the bit that tells you what to pack in a samsonite when going on ones hols to America. Just how many dresses do you packwhen you have no idea when you are coming home?

I wished I shared your confidence in the likelyhood of the J having that special capability by the end of the year. Trouble is, ask a J mate if he is training below 2000 feet and you will be met by a stony silence and a perceptible glazing of the eye. I suggest it will be an awful long time before the J can do what it was originally supposed to do and we wont mention at what cost.

Oh well back to camping, swatting mozzies and doing a job properly.......How do you cross the Atlantic?

[BEagle]

Like the playful banter, chums, but perhaps just be a wee bit careful about talking about capabilities of assets supporting on-going operations? Else the Thought Police might start taking an interest?

Good luck, Robo, with your efforts to get the 'J up to spec...

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Hooker it would appear that like so many before you............you talk utter and complete bo@@ocks. Bearing in mind I am now, sad tosser I know, sat quoting DIRECT from the 11d

Whilst not sure of the answer how heavy is a 4 ton truck? The axle limitation on a biggun is just under 3 tons fwd of tdr 10 and aft of tdr 27 whilst on a shorty it's just under 3 tons fwd of tdr 5 and aft of tdr 22. So as long as said trucks weigh as advertised why will both not go in?

The vibration problem on both types mean you lose just over 20 seats, sounds a lot but when was the last time you ever saw more than 40 to 50 poor bas@@@ds down the back of a Mk1? However unlike the K we can fit 6 pallets to a shorty and still get down around 20 seats. How many seat available to a Mk1 in 17F with only 5 pallets.....................

The winch is here! nuff said.


Lids.....I assume you sit sideways or are one of LIMA ECHO's cohorts. Because the envy in your meanderings pours as smoothly as the ice cold Peroni, purchased 2 days ago in Goose Bay en route "Rosy Roads" that I am sat hear sipping. One of the best things Mr Lockheed did was to remove the seating for the white noise and replace it with automation, which has a far more pleasant twang, is eminantly more reliable and, unlike Pang and the like, features a hush button!

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Chris Kebab]

Interesting thread this one.

Does anyone in the Albert fleet actually like anybody else.

Captains hate Co's.

Pilots hate everyone.

Loadies hate navs.

K's hate J's.

Air Eng's don't seem to post?!

Surely - you end up on a 5 man crew, you get on with the job. You end up on a 3-man crew , you get on with the job. Is ill feeling towards fellow crew really that bitter? Do you guys do CRM? Doesn't appear so in this (and some other) threads.

The kipper and tanker fleets don't bleat on like this.

[ShutUp and Drive]

What a lot of willie waggling there is going on! I haven't seen so much antipathy since Admin Guru last reared his ugly head...

How many of you J guys slagged off the J right up to the point where you got posted to them...?:D Just a thought.

[flipster]

Guys, guys, guys (sigh)!

Beags, CK and others are right! Please can Herc operators stop being so f-ing negative about everything/anything/eachother on this site. The tone of the posts are giving the impression that we are a bunch of whingers - which we are not - we are just professional perfectionists! Fortunately, those of us who know the truth, know that both 'species' of Albert have done some seriously daft flying in the name of HMQ over the past 9 months and deserve a damn sight more credit than we have got so far(weeing in dark suit analogy!!) - but as truckies we are very unsexy (only in a military sense, of course).
I am biased aginst the K as we have done more, for longer but the J guys have also made the same giant leap in the dark as we did. Furthermore, when things were really 'hot' the K crews owe a big thanks to a load of J guys who came out as OpsOs. The ones I worked with were bl**dy good and I hope they learnt from our mistakes. While the J still has a very long way to go (at least it has time its side), and the K is on its last legs (but will be around for longer than most think), neither bunch of of people deserve to go to war while being sniped at from those at home who don't know (as some obviously don't)!

We should all have the 'noddle' to:

a. Stop undermining the morale of others.

b. Stop whining about each others toys (lets just face it - we are both jealous - Ks cos the J gets all the press, money and shiney new things - and J cos they can't fly their new ac at LL/drop things yet).

c. Refrain from mentioning core capabilities on a public thread (tho' its hardly rocket science).

d. Be big enough to recognise that we can learn things from eachother.

d. Remember that we are all on the same side and should work together to get the job done (a la Bob the Builder)!

Roll on mixed formations!

Here endeth the lesson.

( J Guys - Please don't let the J det don't come home with a 'Its All Over' razzamatazz fanfare/attitude while the K is still flogging the driveways - its not even half-time yet!)

[Arty]

Phew!

Well said flipster. Lets all leave it at that eh?

[flipster]

Er.....um...... of course I meant to say that I am biased 'IN FAVOUR OF the K'........! (B*gger). Typing never was my strong point!!!!!

[WhichWay?]

We know that, at least you didn't send it to the world....bu**er!

WW

[EESDL]

Flipster
Me thinks there will fanfare and 'J' back slapping...indeed, verily, my eyes have witnessed the carping of the leader and the printing of the news RAF!!

PS Atleast the Boeing Body Bags are finally coming home.

[flipster]

I'll get me coat!

[Albert on Tour]

Excerpt from a note in the C130J groundcrew office, Thumrait

Hot Climatic Conditions

8. Do not power up aircraft without cooling trolley operating, if cooling trolley is u/s......


Just an observation

[Grimweasel]

mmm.. Lots of NATO airlift types at a secret base mit bent runway today. I take it that they have all come to see the fab. J model in active service. (ie sitting on the pans rusting away!)
Is there some meet on I may have missed??

[WhichWay?]

European Tactical Airlfit Meet (ETAM), annual competition similar to Rodeo and Bullseye with European nations competing in low-level nav, airdrop, spot landing, shooting and loading competitions. More info here. Shame the image links don't work!http://www.lyneham.raf.mod.uk/etam/etam2.htm

WW

[RoboAlbert]

Surely that’s ‘shouting and loading’……

[Good Mickey]

I think that the last few weeks is proof enough that the J is not only a Strat ac but an outstanding Tac ac also. Early indications are that nothing else in the RAF fixed wing inventory comes anywhere near to the capabilities of the C-130J. I wasn't convinced at first but now I've seen it in action, the J and the 3 crew that operate it, are a bit special.

[Bassett]

GoodMick,

Good to see a recent reply on this thread, as the ac comes on speed the jurrasics have gone quiet. As you say, the J is exceeding all expectations, including those held by enthusiasts. Important clearances are still being delayed by QQs report writing and project management ability.

I do not know what the problem is with hot weather ops is (as mentioned above). I know people that operated the J at China Lake in the summer (100+F in the shade) with just the APU, that is no cooling trolley/ext pwr. The J had no probs.

[The Brown Bottle]

Out of curiosity, what precisely, is the J so good at that a C17 (if it were allowed to) couldnt do? The yanks seem fairly certain of its capabilities.

[Banggearo]

BB

Don't believe all the hype about the C-17. A very capable aircraft that is excellent at most things but there are still problems with it in the airdrop role, some of which should be fixed others which may not be. Ther is still a role for the C-130/A-400 type ac, I notice the Americans, despite buying more C-17s, are not planning to retire the C-130??

[RoboAlbert]

Brown Bottle

I suppose the J is better at filling less of a Hind's gun sight.

[DummyRun]

BB,

Have put Albert into a few strips that would have taken a lot of work with a chainsaw before you could get a C-17 in besides which a Herk can do a bit of strimming itself if needs be!.

[Bof]

Satisfy my curiosity, providing it's not a Shtum type subject. Do you guys use ATO at all these days? Many moons ago when the 130s were two-tone brown and had perspex domes (that will tell you how many moons) we tried to get the powers that be to buy some bottles from the USAF, but nobody was interested.

[Bof]

Sorry to repeat my question guys, but I guess my last post was the last on the last page and the thread slid into obscurity!

I'd have started a new thread but it didn't seem worth it. So, can anyone tell me if you or the powers that be (PTB) have ever condidered using ATO for TAC missions. Does the J have the 'hooks' to take the bottles?

Maybe it's just not a considered requirement, and of course Boscombe would have to have one for a year to play with!
However, it can sure get you off the ground quickly. As I said in my earlier post, we asked for them in prehistoric days but were met by a deafening silence.

[opso]

As I understand it, there aren't the mounting brackets on the J and given that there was certainly no higher level support for using them on the K, I doubt that any mod would be approved barring a major capability gap being identified and needing plugging urgently - similar in scale and urgency to the prompt that resulted in Herc tankers, I imagine.

[Bof]

Thanks opso. I'll go along with the no requirement envisaged

[RedFlag]

Just heard that the C130J has completed a successful airdrop of 90 troops (Sim 45), Wedge and door bundles. Surely this can't be true, its only a strat aircraft...!! Two pilots will never cope....

[RoboAlbert]

Red Flag how can you?

...no good can ever come from spreading this kind of ridiculous fantasy! :eek:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I seem to remember hearing some loadies talking about some sort of C of G issue with dropping above 64?? anyone clarify?

:confused:

[backpocket.com]

I find the continual C130J vs C130K backstabbing somewhat sad. I have flown K and J aircraft tactically and at the current state of development, each has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages. Most importantly, both models are capable of conducting the tactical mission effectively.

When it comes to provision of military capability, the C130 is a tactical transport aircraft and both J and K models can carry roughly the same mass and size of cargo roughly the same distance in about the same time. As we are in an expeditionary air force and the effective provision of this capability is fairly critical, it would be nice to get a warm feeling that more energy is being expended working towards providing a coherent AT capability using both platforms and using the relative merits of each platform to complement each other.

Unfortunately, I guess that the v senior wheels who allegedly read what is written here get the impression that Lyneham is full of sad, inwards-looking back-stabbers who would rather bitch about each other than contribute towards the Main Effort.

I apologise in advance to those on both sides of the debate who are not small-minded and who are interested in moving forward.

[propulike]

bp.com

Providing coherent AT capability? It's the job.

Working together? Vital.

Not getting the odd prod in when the (very vocal) critics are proved wrong? Impossible!! :p

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Redflag: Are there any online piccy's of the drop?

PAF

[Good Mickey]

RedFlag,

thats excellent news, good to see the J coming online as a tactical aircraft so effectively. I wonder when the last time a sim45 was dropped by a Brit Herc - must have been some 10 years ago?? Was the sim 45 PW with DB dropped in South Africa?

[RedFlag]

PAF
Not sure about the piccies thing, I'll see what I can get hold of...

GM
South Africa it certainly was....

[unclebuckhead]

PAF,

there are no C of G issues when dropping more than 64 troops, in fact there are no C of G issues below 64 either (well, none more than usual on a PW mission).

[SCINHead]

I think that this is a great step forward....
I can stay at home this christmas/new year and let the now highly proven and more capable chaps northside go eastbound in the event of a callout!

Now, how does one obtain oceanic clearance again?........:D

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Just as some common sense was becoming the norm we have white noise breaking through again:p

Some things I don't miss :D


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Chris Kebab]

....hmmm, ABIW, there speaks the most frustrated of frustrated pilots.

Please, please sir, may I sit on your flight deck and push some of your switches and play with your knob..

It's lonely down the back here, I've only got myself to play with......

I don't fly with loadies, engs or AEOs, but I don't bleat on and on and on and on and on and on about them. I like to think that they all get on with the job as professionally as the navs I fly with.

How about a 2003 New Year resolution?!

Interesting stories bouncing around some crew rooms about the Lyneham dodgy video club....allegedly. I have no doubt that all your navigator chums are just breathing a sigh of relief it wasn't one of them!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Chris old chap,
By all means have a pop at me, althought I rather thought the 53 year old lady cleaners tone with me this morning when I spilt coffee in the crew room was far more likely to disturb my sleep patterns than your latest effort:p ........but I checked my latest post a couple of times for accuracy and still can't find any referance to seat position in it:rolleyes:

However what is most offensive, considering this is a PUBLIC forum, is the uninformed and rather juvenile attempt at humour in the last two lines of your post. Suffice to say you have absolutely no idea of either the real facts or the gravity of the situation for this individual and you would do well to let this subject go :mad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Chris Kebab]

ABIW - Never been accused of offending before with regards a PUBLIC forum, after all these are just rumours hundreds of miles away. However even though my old mate down your end says it was in the press days ago it sounds a real mess and I will not mention it again.

I'm gonna let navs battle their own corner in future!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Chris,
Nice one. Not seen the press but it's a subject being avoided down here. The real facts will come out no doubt but hopefully not in here.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Pass-A-Frozo]

any subsequent thoughts after the Iraq experience??

[Grimweasel]

Saw "Gareth" on Sky news with his 'J'. He looked good. Nice plane too. Hell of a rate of climb on the beast. Lets get some more of em and ditch the 'K' for good!!

[Episkopiana]

I've always known that Senior Officers know what they are talking about........Well, from one part of the bottom anyway. You must have a defensive kit fitted, no-matter what the role. Look at the current uses of the C130J in todays world with weirdos and their little missiles (not the mass destruction ones).:E

[average pilot]

I thought his name was "Knobber" and has been since at least FTS at Linton and as for "looking good" !!!

[Blakey875]

Average - I concur.

Latest Gulf experience - Most K and J frames did a stint but why were all those Mk5's left behind?

[ZH875]

The Mk 5 aircraft are used for other things besides kicking up dust. Routes are global, not just Iraq.

[Grimweasel]

There was an certain 'irony' in my lookin' good statement!!
What news of the 'newer modified' Mk3's? Are they good to go or sitting on the pans?

[Banggearo]

Was That the co-pilot formerly known as Knobber!! Last time he appeared on Tv was on a Xcheck when he appeared on US TV, representing the RAF, with a cornflake stuck to the corner of his mouth! Nice

[Blakey875]

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?

[ZH875]

Considering that the fuel is balanced around the aircraft CofG, I would have thought that the aircraft would sit on its tail if any fuel was in the tanks. Maybe if one wing was full and the other is empty it would roll over sideways. I have yet to see a Mk5 taxi home empty. Remember a Mk 5 is comparable to a Mk 1 frame so if the Mk 5 had a problem it would be evident on the klassic as well. Maybe the problem was masked on the K by using the FE baggage as ballast.