Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Your Airline does WHAT??

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Your Airline does WHAT??

Old 7th Feb 2004, 17:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SWINDON
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Danger Future of C130Ks



Just to clear a few things up guys - I am a returning PPRuNer with fingers in many pies My contacts tell me that only C130Ks are allowed into Iraq at the moment because the rest of the AT fleet (including the wonderful C130J) don't have a good enough DAS. Aren't these systems the same ones everyone was using over Afghanistan? Oops!

Heard that many Ks have overflown expected fatigue extensions and have problems with centre spar box sections which will result in them being retired unless rewinged.

Still best rumour is the upgrade of C130Ks with super H flight decks and an extension of service until 2020! (and the 30 year old role equipment still works for every sortie)
ROLAND PITCH is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2004, 18:36
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
funny i'm sitting looking at a pic of a C130J I took at Basrah international airport.
NURSE is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2004, 19:14
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,442
Received 62 Likes on 29 Posts
When was the picture taken?
Biggus is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2004, 19:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
not so sure that discussion on which aircraft are flying to which destination with what equipment fit is entirely suitable for these pages. im sure people are interested for genuine reasons but there are those out there who are not, and we dont want to give them any more information than is already available. sound fair?
juliet is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2004, 23:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Juliet - Perhaps just a little paranoid? I am all forsecurity but surely any self respecting opposition is going to rely on first hand sight and sound and not what he/she may read here?
WorkingHard is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2004, 23:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
juliet

Here here
charliesbar is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 00:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
workinghard - not paranoid at all, i just happen to like my ten toes and ten fingers all being attached to my person! the less operational info made available to those without a need to know the better. anyway, who said the opposition was self respecting when it came to getting info.
juliet is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 00:43
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: location location
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Roland Pitch has made a couple of posts since he (re?)joined Pprune - yesterday.

Namely

This thread as post one

A post here looking for a bite

and now this thread as post three.

He may be a returning Ppruner, but his 'contacts' don't even know what the telly broadcasts and if his fingers are in any pies they aren't ones to do with the RAF.

It sounds far more likely that he's just after information he has no access to otherwise (media, commercial, bad guy, you guess). Whatever the reason, this just doesn't smell right.

Juliet, I agree.
propulike is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 00:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Juliet is right, I can't see any constructive reason for posting operational information that can be viewed by anyone - even if the info is available thru other means.

However ROLAND appears to be an irksome little troublemaker who posts start with ''My friend told me... or I heard that...''. Don't rise to his bait. All his gen on C130s, both K and J has been utter drivel so far.
Arty is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 02:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
There are obvious reasons for not talking about certain types of equipment fit (DAS, etc.) especially in conjunction with operations in particular theatres.

BUT

The apparent unsuitability of the 'short' C-130J (C5) for its originally stated purpose is politically rather than militarily sensitive, as would be questions as to the ability of the remaining C-130Ks to reach their OSD. If the C-130K won't last until the A400M (sorry....) reaches the frontline then there has been a procurement f*ck up, and keeping quiet about it can only protect the guilty!

Asking questions about an upgrade of the remaining Ks is similarly 'harmless' but may be interesting for the light it might shed on expectations as to the ISD of the A400M.

Similarly, asking questions about the suitability of stretched C3s to operate from short strips, and about the availability (and remaining FI) of C1s would probably be aimed at uncovering questions of competence among the IPT and desk officers, rather than at uncovering information which might be legitimately sensitive.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 04:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wherever will have me
Posts: 748
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the moment I can't really imagine a J looking at home anywhere but at Lyneham with them big holes in its wings!! Let alone actually being flown anywhere!
whowhenwhy is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 04:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: location location
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The question being asked by RP is specifically which aircraft can go where, and what capabilities will be lost if one type is sold early or another retired early. That information is more than I would like to define here.

As to political or commercial sensitivity, I'll worry about that bit if I ever get a real job!


W3
Nice constructive post.
propulike is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 06:18
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
I can see good military reasons why one shouldn't necessarily detail "specifically which aircraft can go where" though there may be pressing reasons why the taxpayer should know that, if limitations are the result of poor procurement.

As to which "capabilities will be lost if one type is sold early or another retired early" then witholding the information can only make it easier for politicians to take easy and expedient courses of action, secure in the knowledge that the implications of those actions will not be picked up by the electorate or the opposition.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 08:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Fellers....a very nice Boeing 747 flew into Baghdad over Christmas...and all sorts of aircraft are operating into Iraq with the Stars and Bars on them....your piddily little fleet of aircraft are not going to make that big a difference in the tactics used by the Oppo's. With all the cuts in yer budget...the argument should really be along the lines of if you will have an air force at all. You have got warehouses full of Apaches but have only begun lately to train crews...the management of your forces needs some improvement and that would be more an issue than which mark of Herc goes where.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 16:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know there was a few problems with the J on the para dropping side has any resolution of thease been reached?

What is the status of the C130J fleet how poor is it?
NURSE is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 16:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was actually half way through a scathing reply to SASLess last post, but deleted it because I couldn't be bothered to reply to a post that contributed nothing to the debate.

I agree with the latest posts that it is better if movements/types/capabilities are not discussed, more especially if it concerns recent or on-going ops. Intelligence gathering is all about collecting individual pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle for which you don't have a picture to help you finish it. A lot of pieces are not much good in themselves, but eventually you'll manage to fit one to another and another, gradually building up to completion.

And when you have the full picture, you are better placed to inflict damage on your enemy. And if that enemy happens to be us, clearly we must do everything in our power to stop the other side getting hold of individual pieces of OUR puzzle.

It's our men and women who will die - I would not like that on my conscience.

So please let's be very careful what we post with regard to types, capabilities and movements, and that includes confirming rumours.
FJJP is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 17:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Indeed, FJJP!

Which is why a certain thread has recenty disappeared - and if that idiot keeps giving away information about certain V-force activities, the 'Vulcan' thread will also disappear. Which would be a pity.

This site is supposed to be self-moderating; regrettably, some people don't appear to have any idea about 'need to know'.

Journos never 'need' to know - they might 'like to know' as it helps them sell their chipwrappers. But they do NOT 'need' to know......

Have a good day!
BEagle is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 17:43
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Im in two minds about this. Overly oppressive secrecy leads to a mistaken belief that no one else knows what we have which is usually not the case. This is a self defeating concept. Given the nature of the american defense industry with its open disclosure of what equipment is sold and to whom (mandated by congress) it wouldnt be difficult to just go looking through past releases of defense sales information to find the C130j buy were it would list all the equipment sold to us. OTOH there's no reason why people shouldnt be careful.

PS Sasless Apaches are mission obsolete anyway we should never of bought them.
A Civilian is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2004, 18:15
  #19 (permalink)  
smartman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't think this thread would've lasted long pre-6/6/44; nor would one or two of its posters ---------
 
Old 8th Feb 2004, 19:26
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
All too often, secrecy is used to cover up policy and procurement cock-ups. The public, whose taxes are being used to pay for such cock-ups do have a right to know how their money is being spent, and more particularly have a legitimate interest in whether their money is being spent wisely. Moreover, in the long run, it is in the interests of the services to be as transparent as is possible (within the obvious constraints imposed by security relating to ongoing operations) if they are to maintain public support and goodwill.

There is a culture of secrecy which is profoundly unhelpful to the best interests of the forces. The question should not be "what is the absolute minimum that we can reveal to the press/public" but "what NEEDS to be kept secret for military purposes". Preventing the embarrassment of politicians, civil servants or senior officers is not a good reason for secrecy, and indeed helps in the perpetuation of many of the problems which now bedevil the forces. Half the reason that BAE can get away with fkn up in spades on (say) MRA4 is that so many previous disasters (Foxhunter, for example) were swept under the carpet.

I'm not sure which 'vanished thread' you're referring to, BEags, but would say that anything relating to the V-Force (which vanished 22 years ago) or indeed to the nuclear deterrent (already a memory) ought to be something that could (and even should) be talked about. It's simply not necessary to keep the Bouncing Bomb secret into the 1960s, as we did, and nor is it necessary now to have a screaming fit if someone talks about how, when and why we might have used WE177 (say). It's about as relevant as good archery tactics...........

And what would or would not have happened before D-Day is not relevant today. Society has changed, and whether you like it or not, the public demands greater accountability from those who claim to act in its name - whether they be Politicians, Civil Servants, or members of the armed forces. Public consent to be kept in the dark no longer exists, and the public no longer believes that politicians and generals 'know best' nor does it trust them to act without self interest.

Today, unfortunately, the attitude is that "if you want my money for new toys, pay reviews, etc. then you're going to have to tell me what my money's being spent on, you're going to have to prove that it's being spent wisely and I'm going to need convincing that it's not going on equipment programmes whose costs spiral out of control, or which isn't fit for purpose when it arrives, or that equipment that I have bought and paid for isn't being jettisoned prematurely." And you're going to have to live with that, just as the public will have to live with not knowing details about tactics, parametrics of particular weapons systems, etc.
Jackonicko is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.