C-130J: Someone else's take a kicking....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jacko - please dont get mad if you cant get answers to your questions from this forum. although im sure you have a wide appreciation of what the military does, and is equipped with, you do not know the whole story. if you can find info in open sources, ie. janes, then go ahead and write it up. please do not look for confirmation on these pages though. people on here who rely on certain info being secret quite rightly get upset when 1. it gets talked about in the first place, and 2. people who ask the initial question dont back off when the inevitable first reply comes back telling them to mind there own business.
cheers
cheers
Thread Starter
I was rather hoping that someone would have had access to open sources would have said (say):
"According to the RAF Yearbook, the C.Mk 4 has ....." or
"In the RAF Lyneham families day brochure it said that....." or
"Don't you read JDW, Jacko? I read that....." or
"Didn't you think of the RAF equipment fact sheets? They seem to indicate...."
Given sufficient time to go through contracts bulletins and the like, this stuff can be found, and therefore cannot be something that anyone should be nervous about. I would be cautious about saying how many aircraft are fitted with particular bits of kit, or where they are deployed, or details of the performance or parametrics of particular equipment items, and would not ask those sorts of question here. I was surprised at some of the information that is available.
The suggestion that I would ask Corporate Comms for anything to assist me with anything that is to be published this year is naive. Slow doesn't do their procedures justice. And also it was after 1530.....
"According to the RAF Yearbook, the C.Mk 4 has ....." or
"In the RAF Lyneham families day brochure it said that....." or
"Don't you read JDW, Jacko? I read that....." or
"Didn't you think of the RAF equipment fact sheets? They seem to indicate...."
Given sufficient time to go through contracts bulletins and the like, this stuff can be found, and therefore cannot be something that anyone should be nervous about. I would be cautious about saying how many aircraft are fitted with particular bits of kit, or where they are deployed, or details of the performance or parametrics of particular equipment items, and would not ask those sorts of question here. I was surprised at some of the information that is available.
The suggestion that I would ask Corporate Comms for anything to assist me with anything that is to be published this year is naive. Slow doesn't do their procedures justice. And also it was after 1530.....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JackoNicko.
You're not very perceptive are you.
Do you not get the distinct impression that those persons who have been posting replies to your little enquiries might have an acute personal interest in not having this info splashed around.
I don't care what you may glean from various public sources, we'd still rather not see you do the bad guys' job for them by cross-referencing this stuff and producing some sort of vaguely accurate, 'intelligence product', which is subsequently published in one of the less-reputable newspapers (which is most of them).
(Last line deleted)
You're not very perceptive are you.
Do you not get the distinct impression that those persons who have been posting replies to your little enquiries might have an acute personal interest in not having this info splashed around.
I don't care what you may glean from various public sources, we'd still rather not see you do the bad guys' job for them by cross-referencing this stuff and producing some sort of vaguely accurate, 'intelligence product', which is subsequently published in one of the less-reputable newspapers (which is most of them).
(Last line deleted)
Last edited by Father Jack Hackett; 4th Nov 2004 at 19:43.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Oggin.
Didn't mean to cause general offense.
I am just quite annoyed that JN and his ilk don't realise how irresponsible it can be to highlight certain technical capabilites that are all about protecting pink bodies.
Anyway, you must expect the odd spot of Tourette's from a Father Jack!
Didn't mean to cause general offense.
I am just quite annoyed that JN and his ilk don't realise how irresponsible it can be to highlight certain technical capabilites that are all about protecting pink bodies.
Anyway, you must expect the odd spot of Tourette's from a Father Jack!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apology accepted. There is no need for that type of language nor insinuation here.
Although JN and I disagree on certain issues (SHAR/CVF/HNS etc) he does post objectively and I think is the type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate. He could have waited a day and got the info he required, as he said he was just bored (at the end of the day) and tried to save some time.
Although I do think sometimes people post things here that they should not, things that could potentially compromise security. We must all be cognisant of that.
Right, mature hat off - I think the pics of the CVF on the other thread are cool.
Oggin
Although JN and I disagree on certain issues (SHAR/CVF/HNS etc) he does post objectively and I think is the type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate. He could have waited a day and got the info he required, as he said he was just bored (at the end of the day) and tried to save some time.
Although I do think sometimes people post things here that they should not, things that could potentially compromise security. We must all be cognisant of that.
Right, mature hat off - I think the pics of the CVF on the other thread are cool.
Oggin
Thread Starter
Oggin,
Thanks, chum. Not only am I the "type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate", I'm also the type who wouldn't want to compromise the legitimate security concerns of members of our forces, and I am the type of journo who will sometimes voluntarily not publish information that is already in the public domain, if asked not to, though in such cases I do need to feel that there is good reason (rather than simple over caution) not to repeat information that has already been made public. I'm already minded not to include details of the exact number of aircraft fitted with particular kit, since this snippet, in conjunction with the fact that equipment is fitted to all aircraft in a particular theatre would seem to give a potential foe useful information as to the relative capabilities of aircraft within the fleet.
Father Jack,
There is the world of difference between listing equipment items fitted to an aircraft and detailing the capabilities and performance characteristics of that equipment. Simple details of the equipment supplied are available in MoD contract bulletins, from Lockmart, and from the individual sub-contractors. Repeating the designations of particular equipment items which may or may not be fitted, without talking about parametrics or capabilities cannot really be taken as 'highlighting capabilities' nor can it pose a serious threat to anybody's 'pink body'. If you (or anyone else) thinks that simply repeating a designation (say AN/AAR-47) is potentially harmful, then PM me, explain how, and I'll consider blurring the story in that area.
You may not like the fact that such information is in the public domain, but that's the way it is, and rightly so, since knowledge of how their money has been spent is part and parcel of the openness which taxpayers are entitled to. In an open, free society, keeping taxpayers and journos on side is an unfortunate necessity. Discussing the capabilities of EW and DAS kit is clearly not necessary, however, is not anything that curious journos have any right or need to know, and, in short, cannot be justified.
I haven't got my notes in front of me, but I gather that with software version 5 (?) RAF C-130Js will have provision for the full standard USAF J DAS, as described by LM. I don't think its helpful to repeat the public source information available on exactly how many aircraft are so equipped, nor as to the equipment fit on aircraft deployed in theatre.
I can understand why members of the Forces view my profession with suspicion and hostility, but I'd suggest that it's useful to be able to differentiate between those who are on your side, and those who are not.
Thanks, chum. Not only am I the "type of person that would not want to publish anything that is innaccurate", I'm also the type who wouldn't want to compromise the legitimate security concerns of members of our forces, and I am the type of journo who will sometimes voluntarily not publish information that is already in the public domain, if asked not to, though in such cases I do need to feel that there is good reason (rather than simple over caution) not to repeat information that has already been made public. I'm already minded not to include details of the exact number of aircraft fitted with particular kit, since this snippet, in conjunction with the fact that equipment is fitted to all aircraft in a particular theatre would seem to give a potential foe useful information as to the relative capabilities of aircraft within the fleet.
Father Jack,
There is the world of difference between listing equipment items fitted to an aircraft and detailing the capabilities and performance characteristics of that equipment. Simple details of the equipment supplied are available in MoD contract bulletins, from Lockmart, and from the individual sub-contractors. Repeating the designations of particular equipment items which may or may not be fitted, without talking about parametrics or capabilities cannot really be taken as 'highlighting capabilities' nor can it pose a serious threat to anybody's 'pink body'. If you (or anyone else) thinks that simply repeating a designation (say AN/AAR-47) is potentially harmful, then PM me, explain how, and I'll consider blurring the story in that area.
You may not like the fact that such information is in the public domain, but that's the way it is, and rightly so, since knowledge of how their money has been spent is part and parcel of the openness which taxpayers are entitled to. In an open, free society, keeping taxpayers and journos on side is an unfortunate necessity. Discussing the capabilities of EW and DAS kit is clearly not necessary, however, is not anything that curious journos have any right or need to know, and, in short, cannot be justified.
I haven't got my notes in front of me, but I gather that with software version 5 (?) RAF C-130Js will have provision for the full standard USAF J DAS, as described by LM. I don't think its helpful to repeat the public source information available on exactly how many aircraft are so equipped, nor as to the equipment fit on aircraft deployed in theatre.
I can understand why members of the Forces view my profession with suspicion and hostility, but I'd suggest that it's useful to be able to differentiate between those who are on your side, and those who are not.
There is the world of difference between listing equipment items fitted to an aircraft and detailing the capabilities and performance characteristics of that equipment.
Freedom of Information may be a good thing to keep Journos in a job, but, perhaps if the press had not documented each and every move of all the 'pink bodies' of the Black Watch, and their equipment, and the exact area they are patrolling and protecting, those brave lads may not have been ambushed and killed. Yes, Joe Public has the right to know how their money is being spent, but not necessarily the right to know what it can do or where it is being used. All journos should do a tour in the hot zone reporting all that they want, and if they can handle the incoming hostiles then so be it, but if they can't then they should get out and shut up
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I don't know much about the C130J but There was a C130-J parked at RAAF Richmond from sept 2003 till at least may 2004 without engines and looking very sorry for itself. (Theres a picture of it in the Airforces monthly magazine July 2004 p.73)
Does anyone know if its still there?.
Cheers
Does anyone know if its still there?.
Cheers
JW
It was there for well over a year before that as well, for once no fault of the aircraft itself, or the procurement, or the ....
It got "attacked" by the storm of all storms and broke it's back. Too big a job to repair at Richmond but unable to fly anywhere else to get fixed. Surprised it wasn't towed away from the line though, and as you say, a very sorry sight from the road.
2P
It was there for well over a year before that as well, for once no fault of the aircraft itself, or the procurement, or the ....
It got "attacked" by the storm of all storms and broke it's back. Too big a job to repair at Richmond but unable to fly anywhere else to get fixed. Surprised it wasn't towed away from the line though, and as you say, a very sorry sight from the road.
2P
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN
I take and accept the points you make about the taxpayers' public interest. We do pay a hell of a lot of tax in this country and it would be nice to know how well that is being spent, and needless to say, more of it could be spent on vital kit for the operators who need it.
Nevertheless, this particular area of interest is extremely sensitive for the crews in theatre and I can assure you that nobody flying around in that environment wants a detailed examination of what kit may or may not be fitted to their aircraft being widely disseminated.
I do not doubt that your basic intentions with this thread are honourable, but I would ask that you are very careful with what you do with the results of your enquiries.
I take and accept the points you make about the taxpayers' public interest. We do pay a hell of a lot of tax in this country and it would be nice to know how well that is being spent, and needless to say, more of it could be spent on vital kit for the operators who need it.
Nevertheless, this particular area of interest is extremely sensitive for the crews in theatre and I can assure you that nobody flying around in that environment wants a detailed examination of what kit may or may not be fitted to their aircraft being widely disseminated.
I do not doubt that your basic intentions with this thread are honourable, but I would ask that you are very careful with what you do with the results of your enquiries.
Herc Fit
Jacko, I have done some research, and found the following may be fitted to the Herc.
RWR - Rearward Warning Rodney, uses the Astrodome or open cargo ramp to view danger area, may also be coupled to Dircm and Laircm.
MWS - Missile Warning SNCO, this is often the GE standing next to the RWR, may use the PA system as a warning if he has lost his voice.
CHAFF - Clouds for Hiding in And Flying in & Flying out of, usually found outside the crew door.
FLARES - Carried in all suitcases for those 60's do's
DIRCM - Directly Installed Remote Compact Mirror, used by the RWR for those hard to see areas.
LAIRCM - Larger Aircraft Installed Remote Compact Mirror, for use by smaller RWRs.
SIDEWINDER -Some aircraft have a key on the outside of each engine, for starting them away from base.
BLOODHOUND - Only carried when way home from pub may be difficult.
There are others, but the technical details will bore you.
Hope this may be of use.
RWR - Rearward Warning Rodney, uses the Astrodome or open cargo ramp to view danger area, may also be coupled to Dircm and Laircm.
MWS - Missile Warning SNCO, this is often the GE standing next to the RWR, may use the PA system as a warning if he has lost his voice.
CHAFF - Clouds for Hiding in And Flying in & Flying out of, usually found outside the crew door.
FLARES - Carried in all suitcases for those 60's do's
DIRCM - Directly Installed Remote Compact Mirror, used by the RWR for those hard to see areas.
LAIRCM - Larger Aircraft Installed Remote Compact Mirror, for use by smaller RWRs.
SIDEWINDER -Some aircraft have a key on the outside of each engine, for starting them away from base.
BLOODHOUND - Only carried when way home from pub may be difficult.
There are others, but the technical details will bore you.
Hope this may be of use.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
ZH875
You forgot:
PARAS - People Able to Run And Shout - dropped in lines astern on flimsy devices made from old M&S knickers. Gives the enemy troops something even slower to aim at instead of the Albert.
You forgot:
PARAS - People Able to Run And Shout - dropped in lines astern on flimsy devices made from old M&S knickers. Gives the enemy troops something even slower to aim at instead of the Albert.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get said Para's to "ave a tab" on the way down and we could be on to some sort of new incredibly cheap and easy to replace self jettisoning IR capability............only a thought
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this today. The USAF, what do they know about tactical Air Lift........
Pentagon Announces Plans to Terminate C-130J Procurement in FY06 Budget.
13/01/2005
In a move that is destined to ruffle political feathers, the Pentagon has announced its intention to terminate the USAF’s C-130J procurement at the end of 2005.
Despite repeatedly emphasising the C-130J’s tactical utility to Congress, the USAF has always been of the mind that they will make the aircraft work rather than being staunch advocates. Although the aircraft is now deployed to the Gulf, the USAF will look to strengthen its case by citing the J-model's development problems and referring to a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report which determined that the aircraft was not operationally suitable, especially for airdrop missions. The current multiyear C-130J contract provides for 62 aircraft: 42 for the Air Force and 20 for the Marine Corps, at an approximate build rate of 12-per-year from FY05 through FY09. As of Nov 04, the combined USAF, USMC amount obligated on the contract was $1.7 billion. Although the USAF would have to pay almost $440 million in cancellation costs to Lockheed Martin, the move would offer savings of up to $4.2 billion by 2011.
Pentagon Announces Plans to Terminate C-130J Procurement in FY06 Budget.
13/01/2005
In a move that is destined to ruffle political feathers, the Pentagon has announced its intention to terminate the USAF’s C-130J procurement at the end of 2005.
Despite repeatedly emphasising the C-130J’s tactical utility to Congress, the USAF has always been of the mind that they will make the aircraft work rather than being staunch advocates. Although the aircraft is now deployed to the Gulf, the USAF will look to strengthen its case by citing the J-model's development problems and referring to a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report which determined that the aircraft was not operationally suitable, especially for airdrop missions. The current multiyear C-130J contract provides for 62 aircraft: 42 for the Air Force and 20 for the Marine Corps, at an approximate build rate of 12-per-year from FY05 through FY09. As of Nov 04, the combined USAF, USMC amount obligated on the contract was $1.7 billion. Although the USAF would have to pay almost $440 million in cancellation costs to Lockheed Martin, the move would offer savings of up to $4.2 billion by 2011.
Nothing to do with political wrangling to avoid budget cuts fortunately. The Raptors going to get cut too. 
These guys are still working hard though ... C-130J Upgrade
JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Almost a quarter of the U.S. Senate has signed a letter asking President Bush to spare the Georgia.made C-130J Hercules from budget cuts, the state's two senators said Wednesday.
The bipartisan group of signatories includes 15 Republicans and nine Democrats from 15 states, and Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson say those are just the ones they were able to round up in two days. They expect to get more.
It's a show of political power designed to derail the Pentagon's plans to eliminate the Air Force version of the C-130J in the 2006 budget, canceling more than 50 planes. The proposal is a double-whammy for Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., plant because it also calls for a reduction in the F/A-22 Raptor, made there too.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Almost a quarter of the U.S. Senate has signed a letter asking President Bush to spare the Georgia.made C-130J Hercules from budget cuts, the state's two senators said Wednesday.
The bipartisan group of signatories includes 15 Republicans and nine Democrats from 15 states, and Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson say those are just the ones they were able to round up in two days. They expect to get more.
It's a show of political power designed to derail the Pentagon's plans to eliminate the Air Force version of the C-130J in the 2006 budget, canceling more than 50 planes. The proposal is a double-whammy for Lockheed Martin's Marietta, Ga., plant because it also calls for a reduction in the F/A-22 Raptor, made there too.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could combine the "one liners" thread and the comment about "working hard on the upgrade".
Firstly WE HAVE NO MONEY.
Secondly,that shiny press release is from last summer.
I fear that the rumoured "announcement " in late Spring will involve a "funding" announcement for a variety of high priced projects. Please dont resurrect a Lyneham schoolyard screaming match. The C130J has been/is/will continue to be a huge success,due almost entirely to the monumental efforts of half of Lyneham.
Facts of the matter are we are on a cost saving excercise. Why would the accountants spend hundreds of millions of GBP to cover a reasonably short gap until the A400 is in service when for 28p HLS could bodge the K for another 10yrs?
Nervy times for a few. If you have any Technical notes for C130K,VC10 or Tristar I would hang on to them.
Firstly WE HAVE NO MONEY.
Secondly,that shiny press release is from last summer.
I fear that the rumoured "announcement " in late Spring will involve a "funding" announcement for a variety of high priced projects. Please dont resurrect a Lyneham schoolyard screaming match. The C130J has been/is/will continue to be a huge success,due almost entirely to the monumental efforts of half of Lyneham.
Facts of the matter are we are on a cost saving excercise. Why would the accountants spend hundreds of millions of GBP to cover a reasonably short gap until the A400 is in service when for 28p HLS could bodge the K for another 10yrs?
Nervy times for a few. If you have any Technical notes for C130K,VC10 or Tristar I would hang on to them.
