C-130J: Someone else's take a kicking....
Thread Starter
C-130J: Someone else's take a kicking....
"DoD Inspector General: C-130J Does Not Meet Operational Requirements
The DoD's Inspector General (IG) has determined that the C-130J transport aircraft produced by Lockheed Martin [LMT] does not meet operational requirements, leveling serious criticism at one of the Pentagon's largest programs.
"The Air Force conditionally accepted 50 C-130J aircraft at a cost of $2.6 billion even though none of the aircraft met commercial contract specifications or operational requirements," the IG said in the executive summary of its study. "The Air Force also paid Lockheed Martin more than 99 percent of the C-130J aircraft's contracted price for the delivered aircraft. As a result, the government fielded C-130J aircraft that cannot perform their intended mission, which forces the users to incur additional operations and maintenance costs to operate and maintain older C-130 mission-capable aircraft because the C-130J aircraft can only be used for training."
The IG recommends that Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur "refrain from contracting for additional block upgrades until Lockheed Martin can design, develop, and deliver a contract compliant aircraft." The IG also recommends that future modifications should take into account Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 that requires contractor's pricing, cost and profit data.
The IG's third recommendation calls for the Air Force to increase amounts withheld to motivate Lockheed Martin to deliver an aircraft that meets contractual requirements. The IG also recommends negotiating a firm schedule for completion of known outstanding retrofits of fielded aircraft within six months.
Lockheed Martin was awarded a 60-aircraft C-130J multiyear procurement (MYP) award from the Navy worth $4.1 billion in 2003 (Defense Daily, March 17, 2003). As part of the deal, Lockheed Martin will deliver 40 J-model transports to the Air Force and 20 KC-130J tankers to the Marine Corps.
The report casts a critical eye on the Air Force's management of the program. "Since 1996, the Air Force issued three, consecutive, firm-fixed-price contracts for the C-130J aircraft even though Lockheed Martin continued to show little progress in delivering contract-compliant aircraft." The IG report also considers the MYP award a "poor decision" given that the aircraft was not performing or had passed operational testing.
The Air Force did not agree with the initial recommendation, noting that Lockheed Martin is already delivering C-130Js that are compliant with contract specification. The Air Force also did not concur with the second recommendation, stating that Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation met the requirements given the commercial nature of the C- 130J. Future upgrades would be contracted under Part 15 given that they would be government-financed initiatives.
Nor did the Air Force concur with the third recommendation, given that withholds are consistent with the terms of the contract and are based on government analysis of the price of noncompliant items. The Air Force did not concur with the final recommendation, noting that all outstanding retrofits have been either scheduled or completed.
Lockheed Martin backed the Air Force.
"Lockheed Martin is in full agreement with the Air Force's assessment of the DoD Inspector General's report," the company said in a statement. "In its comments regarding the report, the U.S. Air Force clearly states that it does not concur with any of the findings or recommendations in the report. The Air Force, ultimately the end user who is flying the aircraft, also says that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule, contract and regulatory commitments. The Air Force says, without qualification, that it fully endorses the C-130J program, that is it one of Air Mobility Command's top priorities, and that the aircraft meets the current contract specification. In addition, the Air Force notes that there is a disciplined plan in place to enhance the aircraft."
Lockheed Martin also pointed out the C-130J is in use with Italy, Australia and Britain in those countries' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And how are ours? Any truth in the rumours of multiple aircraft sitting there waiting for black boxes to be mended because of a shortage of LRUs? Of aircraft parked up sans engine? Of short J-models that have to be part-fuelled, loaded with pax, then fully fuelled due to CofG concerns? Of a cargo handling system that buckles?
The DoD's Inspector General (IG) has determined that the C-130J transport aircraft produced by Lockheed Martin [LMT] does not meet operational requirements, leveling serious criticism at one of the Pentagon's largest programs.
"The Air Force conditionally accepted 50 C-130J aircraft at a cost of $2.6 billion even though none of the aircraft met commercial contract specifications or operational requirements," the IG said in the executive summary of its study. "The Air Force also paid Lockheed Martin more than 99 percent of the C-130J aircraft's contracted price for the delivered aircraft. As a result, the government fielded C-130J aircraft that cannot perform their intended mission, which forces the users to incur additional operations and maintenance costs to operate and maintain older C-130 mission-capable aircraft because the C-130J aircraft can only be used for training."
The IG recommends that Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur "refrain from contracting for additional block upgrades until Lockheed Martin can design, develop, and deliver a contract compliant aircraft." The IG also recommends that future modifications should take into account Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15 that requires contractor's pricing, cost and profit data.
The IG's third recommendation calls for the Air Force to increase amounts withheld to motivate Lockheed Martin to deliver an aircraft that meets contractual requirements. The IG also recommends negotiating a firm schedule for completion of known outstanding retrofits of fielded aircraft within six months.
Lockheed Martin was awarded a 60-aircraft C-130J multiyear procurement (MYP) award from the Navy worth $4.1 billion in 2003 (Defense Daily, March 17, 2003). As part of the deal, Lockheed Martin will deliver 40 J-model transports to the Air Force and 20 KC-130J tankers to the Marine Corps.
The report casts a critical eye on the Air Force's management of the program. "Since 1996, the Air Force issued three, consecutive, firm-fixed-price contracts for the C-130J aircraft even though Lockheed Martin continued to show little progress in delivering contract-compliant aircraft." The IG report also considers the MYP award a "poor decision" given that the aircraft was not performing or had passed operational testing.
The Air Force did not agree with the initial recommendation, noting that Lockheed Martin is already delivering C-130Js that are compliant with contract specification. The Air Force also did not concur with the second recommendation, stating that Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation met the requirements given the commercial nature of the C- 130J. Future upgrades would be contracted under Part 15 given that they would be government-financed initiatives.
Nor did the Air Force concur with the third recommendation, given that withholds are consistent with the terms of the contract and are based on government analysis of the price of noncompliant items. The Air Force did not concur with the final recommendation, noting that all outstanding retrofits have been either scheduled or completed.
Lockheed Martin backed the Air Force.
"Lockheed Martin is in full agreement with the Air Force's assessment of the DoD Inspector General's report," the company said in a statement. "In its comments regarding the report, the U.S. Air Force clearly states that it does not concur with any of the findings or recommendations in the report. The Air Force, ultimately the end user who is flying the aircraft, also says that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule, contract and regulatory commitments. The Air Force says, without qualification, that it fully endorses the C-130J program, that is it one of Air Mobility Command's top priorities, and that the aircraft meets the current contract specification. In addition, the Air Force notes that there is a disciplined plan in place to enhance the aircraft."
Lockheed Martin also pointed out the C-130J is in use with Italy, Australia and Britain in those countries' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And how are ours? Any truth in the rumours of multiple aircraft sitting there waiting for black boxes to be mended because of a shortage of LRUs? Of aircraft parked up sans engine? Of short J-models that have to be part-fuelled, loaded with pax, then fully fuelled due to CofG concerns? Of a cargo handling system that buckles?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Close to ABIW
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I told you so......
Blakey875
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
posted 4th May 2003 16:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mk5 C130J
ZH - No truth in the rumour then that if it's empty of freight it will sit on it's bum with more than 12 tons of fuel in tanks? So.... if there's no backload it's a long long taxy home?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 38 | From: Close to ABIW | Registered: May 2003 | Status: Online! | IP: Logged
I told you so......
Blakey875
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
posted 4th May 2003 16:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mk5 C130J
ZH - No truth in the rumour then that if it's empty of freight it will sit on it's bum with more than 12 tons of fuel in tanks? So.... if there's no backload it's a long long taxy home?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 38 | From: Close to ABIW | Registered: May 2003 | Status: Online! | IP: Logged
Champagne anyone...?
That wouldn't be the C130J taking a kicking from someone that seemingly knows cock all about it would it? Quelle surprise 
Just to get this clear in my own head - the operators of the aircraft say all is well thank you very much but Chief blunty who doesn't work with the aircraft says it's all dreadful? Suspect that policy has been taken from these very pages....
Blakey, you're right: there is no truth in the rumour......
Jacko, the loading issues with the Mk5 have been done to death on these pages. In fact, the whole J model thang has been done to death
Just to get this clear in my own head - the operators of the aircraft say all is well thank you very much but Chief blunty who doesn't work with the aircraft says it's all dreadful? Suspect that policy has been taken from these very pages....
Blakey, you're right: there is no truth in the rumour......
Jacko, the loading issues with the Mk5 have been done to death on these pages. In fact, the whole J model thang has been done to death
Thread Starter
Done to death? Does that mean they're true or not then?
And how about the engines? Procurement of LRUs? Serviceability?
I'm losing the will to
l
i
v
e
And how about the engines? Procurement of LRUs? Serviceability?
I'm losing the will to
l
i
v
e
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: rourkes drift
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopstart is right, operators love the J and get fed up of people who have no knowledge of the ac slagging it off. I have worked with USAF J mates who also are more than pleased with it.
As for the Mk 5, there is nothing wrong with it that was not wrong with the Mk 1 before the probe was fitted. The trim issues only occur with no load and full fuel. Stick the crew bags and GEs toolset up the front and the problem goes away. We should have the option of fitting the probe soon anyway.
I hope the luddite winging will stop soon as the ac is performing extremely well now with good servicability rates (better than other similar types).
As for the Mk 5, there is nothing wrong with it that was not wrong with the Mk 1 before the probe was fitted. The trim issues only occur with no load and full fuel. Stick the crew bags and GEs toolset up the front and the problem goes away. We should have the option of fitting the probe soon anyway.
I hope the luddite winging will stop soon as the ac is performing extremely well now with good servicability rates (better than other similar types).
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Military flatly refused the option to take C130J as a launch customer which is why we,the Italians and the Aussies got such a good deal.
It should have been as good as it is now at launch, and this argument would not be happening and the K would be fishing weights.
The US Mil have kinda given up on the J as it is being traded for any available E/H model with Guard/Reserve units ,to fuel the Talon 2 (and a half) programme. The refurb/add on programme is so prohibitively expensive as to proclude almost every other option.
The C130J is a very capable machine but the gucci bolt ons are pricing it out of the market.
The "short" J is not quite the same as the short K (regards trim) as it(K) could happilly fly empty (sans probe) with 55000lbs of fuel before trimming was a consideration.
This whole thing boils down to money and we have none.
This is not a Hercules bitchfest but a money issue.
Given unlimited cash we would have a dream Air Force.
C130J is now ok,the people are happy,its doing a good job.
So is everyone else. We have no cash.
There is rumoured to be yet another costing review to get the machine forward, but we have no money.
Buy 20 C17's and bolt on star wars lasers,then I remembered - we have no money
It should have been as good as it is now at launch, and this argument would not be happening and the K would be fishing weights.
The US Mil have kinda given up on the J as it is being traded for any available E/H model with Guard/Reserve units ,to fuel the Talon 2 (and a half) programme. The refurb/add on programme is so prohibitively expensive as to proclude almost every other option.
The C130J is a very capable machine but the gucci bolt ons are pricing it out of the market.
The "short" J is not quite the same as the short K (regards trim) as it(K) could happilly fly empty (sans probe) with 55000lbs of fuel before trimming was a consideration.
This whole thing boils down to money and we have none.
This is not a Hercules bitchfest but a money issue.
Given unlimited cash we would have a dream Air Force.
C130J is now ok,the people are happy,its doing a good job.
So is everyone else. We have no cash.
There is rumoured to be yet another costing review to get the machine forward, but we have no money.
Buy 20 C17's and bolt on star wars lasers,then I remembered - we have no money
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Equidistant
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gang;
Casting back to my K days..with a probe and a muttering E and smelly N...(all that weight up front!!!). The CMk1 would be trim critical around about 46,000lb of HMs finest F34. In new money around 21T.
I have personally done a Cmk5 trip from Kebab Land to the Secret Airbase completely empty bar the 3 crew plus bags....and the operators know that to get home, we fill it till it leaks. Because it was warm, I think we got 20.4T in it and the MAC was within limits.
Points, questions, comments???
Get a life, doubters!!!
Regards to Most;
SFS
Casting back to my K days..with a probe and a muttering E and smelly N...(all that weight up front!!!). The CMk1 would be trim critical around about 46,000lb of HMs finest F34. In new money around 21T.
I have personally done a Cmk5 trip from Kebab Land to the Secret Airbase completely empty bar the 3 crew plus bags....and the operators know that to get home, we fill it till it leaks. Because it was warm, I think we got 20.4T in it and the MAC was within limits.
Points, questions, comments???
Get a life, doubters!!!
Regards to Most;
SFS
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally have no doubt .
I have as much doubt as we (collectively) have money.
Hand the arguments to the bean-counters and see what happens with FSTA,Eurofighter,C-17,MR4A,C130 upgrade,RAF Reg oh just wait a minute the news from last week is on.
We have no money is my point,lets take it from there,which bit of that do you doubt.
I have as much doubt as we (collectively) have money.
Hand the arguments to the bean-counters and see what happens with FSTA,Eurofighter,C-17,MR4A,C130 upgrade,RAF Reg oh just wait a minute the news from last week is on.
We have no money is my point,lets take it from there,which bit of that do you doubt.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, yet another J windup I see. And I fell for it.....
I just spoke to someone the other day who's recently paxed in both a J and an H, and he said he couldn't see what all the fuss was about (re vibration area in the J, yes I know it has one, but jeepers, have you ever travelled in an H?). I second, third, and fourth what StopStart said. The whole 'J' thing has really been done to death. The most vociferous complaints about the J come from those who wouldn't recognise one if it hit them on the head.
Spares, LRUs, etc - entirely a bean-counter problem! If you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, what do you expect?
It's not perfect (nor is any aeroplane that I know of), but it's a damn sight better to fly and operate than its older brethren.
I just spoke to someone the other day who's recently paxed in both a J and an H, and he said he couldn't see what all the fuss was about (re vibration area in the J, yes I know it has one, but jeepers, have you ever travelled in an H?). I second, third, and fourth what StopStart said. The whole 'J' thing has really been done to death. The most vociferous complaints about the J come from those who wouldn't recognise one if it hit them on the head.
Spares, LRUs, etc - entirely a bean-counter problem! If you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, what do you expect?
It's not perfect (nor is any aeroplane that I know of), but it's a damn sight better to fly and operate than its older brethren.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 29th Jul 2004 at 13:46.
Thread Starter
Ok, OK.
Naturally the airframe's good. We know the engine's good. Unless you're landing on graded coral strips we know the props are good, too. We know the performance is good. I'd guessed that avionics integration and other teething problems had been overcome.
I don't care whether the problems are inherent in the aeroplane, but I am curious as to whether the Spares, LRU bean-counter problem still exists! I can see that if you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, there will be problems, but I'm curious as to whether they're still manifesting themselves.
I'm also curious to know how the two-crew cockpit is working out in practise, especially in anything approaching a tactical role. I note with interest the recent conversion of the six 3As.......
Naturally the airframe's good. We know the engine's good. Unless you're landing on graded coral strips we know the props are good, too. We know the performance is good. I'd guessed that avionics integration and other teething problems had been overcome.
I don't care whether the problems are inherent in the aeroplane, but I am curious as to whether the Spares, LRU bean-counter problem still exists! I can see that if you buy a bunch of aeroplanes, irrespective of whether they're brand new, together with half a wheelbarrow of spare parts, there will be problems, but I'm curious as to whether they're still manifesting themselves.
I'm also curious to know how the two-crew cockpit is working out in practise, especially in anything approaching a tactical role. I note with interest the recent conversion of the six 3As.......
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I think the bean-counter problem is always going to be there in the military and we're always going to struggle with it. It was there in the dim dark past, and it still is now. The two pilot crew is working fine and dandy including Tac, SAR, and so on. They said it would never work, but it is (and without any difficulty).
They said the workload would always be too high, and it isn't. It was proven during workload studies (ours at least) where they threw multiple emergencies at a two pilot crew during simulated Tac missions......and I could go on forever. Can I stop now?
They said the workload would always be too high, and it isn't. It was proven during workload studies (ours at least) where they threw multiple emergencies at a two pilot crew during simulated Tac missions......and I could go on forever. Can I stop now?
Last edited by DutchRoll; 30th Jul 2004 at 01:10.