C-130J Upgrade Programme
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see the J getting some useful updates!!! Useful for all that route flying around the world they are doing - oh my mistake!! What about spending money on a decent DAS so we can rest the tired C130Ks.
I wouldn't want an improved TCAS/FMS over DIRCM/LAIRCM/RWR etc etc...
Spend the money on the kit we need to protect our crews while we support these pointless operations!!
I wouldn't want an improved TCAS/FMS over DIRCM/LAIRCM/RWR etc etc...
Spend the money on the kit we need to protect our crews while we support these pointless operations!!
C130J
Not wishing to get involved in the J/K argument I was a member of the Hercules Airworthiness Review Team before I retired from the RAF. This was to review the K as the J was already behind schedule for service entry and the frames were piling up at Marshalls. One aspect of our TORs was to visit the J procurement mafia at Abbey Wood and ask about aspects of the J that had caused concern on the K . One of these was cargo compartment noise. (There were many others ). After much prevarication they eventually admitted that the noise level would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than on the K but were unable to provide us with figures. Nor could they provide an in service date for the J. We predicted in the report that the K was likely to have to run on longer than anticipated and this would have an airworthiness impact unless urgent steps were taken, mainly in the provision of spares. I suspect there was no provision for funding this, but the current problems with the K can, I believe, but directly traced to the fact that the J was over 2 years late entering RAF service.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when you think you have heard it all
All the current problems with the K are a direct consequence of the J being 2 years late into service..............what utter utter tosh
Are you seriously teling us it has nothing at all to do with the previous 39 years worth of attrition we have put this venerable beast through. Lyneham is about to celebrate 40 years of the C130 and in that time we have flogged the thing to death during the Falklands conflict, GW1 and 2 plus numerous other theatres, excercises etc etc and to suggest it's now broken because the J was later into service than planned just beggars belief
No it's not a J K issue just me pointing out how ridiculous the last post was
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
All the current problems with the K are a direct consequence of the J being 2 years late into service..............what utter utter tosh
Are you seriously teling us it has nothing at all to do with the previous 39 years worth of attrition we have put this venerable beast through. Lyneham is about to celebrate 40 years of the C130 and in that time we have flogged the thing to death during the Falklands conflict, GW1 and 2 plus numerous other theatres, excercises etc etc and to suggest it's now broken because the J was later into service than planned just beggars belief
No it's not a J K issue just me pointing out how ridiculous the last post was
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it was pointless.
If the J had arrived on time and fully ready, then the K would have been retired and the current problems wouldn't have cropped up surely?
It's not the fault of any of the operators, or the ground crews that we are where we are. It is, as usual, the tiny pot of money not being able to provide what was needed, when it was needed.
If the J had arrived on time and fully ready, then the K would have been retired and the current problems wouldn't have cropped up surely?
It's not the fault of any of the operators, or the ground crews that we are where we are. It is, as usual, the tiny pot of money not being able to provide what was needed, when it was needed.
1. You suspect - Where is any FACTUAL evidence to support your theory?.
2. You believe.... - again lack of any FACTUAL material.
The J model was brought in to replace SOME of the K fleet, and the FACT is ALL of the K's that were due to be replaced by the J's HAVE BEEN replaced. Therefore, as all affected airframes have been retired from service, I put it to you that you are talking out of your 'Tony Blair'.
For once I agree with ABIW.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Have to second ABIW's comments - the J was only meant to replace half the Ks - the 'short term fleet' as they were known. The remaining Ks were always meant to soldier on until finally replaced by the A400M starting around 2010. The problems with availabilty on the K fleet are not in any measure due to the late arrival of the J.
Long term life of the J fleet might well be affected by their current over usage due to the inability of the K to shoulder any of the burden.....
Long term life of the J fleet might well be affected by their current over usage due to the inability of the K to shoulder any of the burden.....
Hmmm....
Faded old notes of mine made in 1996 indicate that there was a requirement for 25 'FLA' aircraft to replace half the C130K fleet - and that In Service Date (i.e. 50% in use) was to be....2004.
Also 9 C-17s.
Also a need for 36 'MRTT' aircraft to replace the VC10, VC10K and TriStar fleet. Assumed then to be the A310MRTT.....
10 years later? Well, the RAF has its C130Js. The C130Ks are being caned by high operational tempos, the 'MRTT' is nowhere in sight - and even if the TriStars are not replaced, with a mere 9 A330MRTTs in use, that makes for a total future jet transport force of.....23 aircraft? 5 C-17, 9 A330, 9 TriStar?
Faded old notes of mine made in 1996 indicate that there was a requirement for 25 'FLA' aircraft to replace half the C130K fleet - and that In Service Date (i.e. 50% in use) was to be....2004.
Also 9 C-17s.
Also a need for 36 'MRTT' aircraft to replace the VC10, VC10K and TriStar fleet. Assumed then to be the A310MRTT.....
10 years later? Well, the RAF has its C130Js. The C130Ks are being caned by high operational tempos, the 'MRTT' is nowhere in sight - and even if the TriStars are not replaced, with a mere 9 A330MRTTs in use, that makes for a total future jet transport force of.....23 aircraft? 5 C-17, 9 A330, 9 TriStar?
Isn't it even worse than that BEagle? I thought that the 9 a/c A330 fleet (14 in emergencies and dire need, like now?) was intended to replace the Tristars as well.
Leaving a jet transport fleet of 5 C17 and 9 (14 when were in trouble) A330, a total of 14 or 19?
In addition this fleet will have to meet 100% of the RAF AAR need.
Leaving a jet transport fleet of 5 C17 and 9 (14 when were in trouble) A330, a total of 14 or 19?
In addition this fleet will have to meet 100% of the RAF AAR need.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gander
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there is a common sense statement....
We need to buy another 2 'J's a year for the next 10 years to cover for the retirement of the 'K'.
(Gawd bless it for all its work in the last 40 years).
Hell, we might even be able to afford it if we dump 20 typhoo..s
And the wait for the A400 (& MRTT etc) will undoubtedly go on!!!
MOG
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
It's even worse than that....the 25 A400Ms intended to replace the Ks will also be, at least some of them, equipped as tankers, to replace the VC10s. FSTA was cancelled due to costs, over £1 billion per frame under the PFI. Not sure what, if anything, will replace the Tristars, I think 13 A330s sounds unlikely. Some new sets of wings for the K mini fleet will aim to keep them going.
At least the whole AT force will comfortably fit into Brize!
At least the whole AT force will comfortably fit into Brize!
"FSTA was cancelled due to costs, over £1 billion per frame under the PFI."
Oh really?
Yes, A400M common standard aircraft does include an AAR capabilty.
Oh really?
Yes, A400M common standard aircraft does include an AAR capabilty.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTTB well said as it is wearing a little thin to say the least. As for MoG I suggest you need to do your homework because the last time I looked ALMs were in fact WSOps and when people talk about needing an extra set of eyes or person and mention WSO/WSOps it covers a multitude of specialisations so don't have a seazure when someone mentions WSO to help on your precious flight deck.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am constantly amazed at the amount of ill informed folk, most of whom have never even been on a J flight deck let alone operated one yet constantly prattle on about an "extra set of eyes" as being something we despearately need
Could I ask if there are any current J operators out there who feel I am missing the blindingly obvious and that we ACTUALLY do need an extra WSO or whatever to improve our lot............is that a deafening silence I can here
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Could I ask if there are any current J operators out there who feel I am missing the blindingly obvious and that we ACTUALLY do need an extra WSO or whatever to improve our lot............is that a deafening silence I can here
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, DO give it a rest ABIW - no-one is interested in turning this into ANOTHER fruitless pissing contest.
You seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of your flight deck for a loadie....shouldn't you be in the boot?
You seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of your flight deck for a loadie....shouldn't you be in the boot?
pr00ne, yes, currently the A330 is supposed to be replacing the TriStar as well as the FunBus as you say.
But I hear that a large amount of money is currently being spent on the TriStar flight deck upgrade and improved DASS. It would be folly of the highest order to throw away such aircraft if they had any remaining life in them - or if no life extension programme had been fully investigated.
14 aircraft to meet the entire UK AAR and jet AT needs...... Heaven help the poor guys in the sand if that's all there will be in future. And will the RAF still be using unsuitable tactical transport aircraft in the strategic passenger role? Troop seating in the A400M (I wonder how they're going to get that through certification?) is only marginally less awful than that in the bowels of Albert. Surely the RAF can do better than that for its passengers?
But I hear that a large amount of money is currently being spent on the TriStar flight deck upgrade and improved DASS. It would be folly of the highest order to throw away such aircraft if they had any remaining life in them - or if no life extension programme had been fully investigated.
14 aircraft to meet the entire UK AAR and jet AT needs...... Heaven help the poor guys in the sand if that's all there will be in future. And will the RAF still be using unsuitable tactical transport aircraft in the strategic passenger role? Troop seating in the A400M (I wonder how they're going to get that through certification?) is only marginally less awful than that in the bowels of Albert. Surely the RAF can do better than that for its passengers?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: location location
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW
We're talking about when the sh*t is hitting the fan, not when you're strat moving water and pax from the Deed to Basrah. When, one day, you actually do a misssion that requires some nouse you might come round, always on leave boy. Until then I guess you'll be a subscriber to the ' we're too good for another bod on the flight deck' possee.
Brainwashed by the frontenders. So sad for one so experienced, aparrently! Can't wait to hear you change your tune sometime soon. It's only a matter of time.
We're talking about when the sh*t is hitting the fan, not when you're strat moving water and pax from the Deed to Basrah. When, one day, you actually do a misssion that requires some nouse you might come round, always on leave boy. Until then I guess you'll be a subscriber to the ' we're too good for another bod on the flight deck' possee.
Brainwashed by the frontenders. So sad for one so experienced, aparrently! Can't wait to hear you change your tune sometime soon. It's only a matter of time.
The A400M will certainly have a 3rd seat on the flight deck, plus MFCU for the occupant. Quite who will use it will be up to the end user, obviously.
I do not endorse any goods or services described in any advertising which may have been included in this post without my agreement.
I do not endorse any goods or services described in any advertising which may have been included in this post without my agreement.
Perhaps one should question why a portion of the DIRCM-equipped C130K fleet fitted under UOR are being upgraded to E-DIRCM so late in their service life and ahead of the C130J?
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
As a current J user, no, I don't see the need for a 'third pair of eyes'. The aircraft was designed for 2 pilot operation, there simply is not enough to do to require a WSOp (or are we really talking about WSOs here?) The Italians carry a third pilot, having spoken to them they said he read the FRCs & did the radios etc, but were a bit vague as to what the PNF did!
If we're talking about actually investing some real money in the J rather than throwing it all at the K, fitting JTIDs etc, then possibly we might need the WSOp(ALM) to put the teapot down & multi-task even more than they already do! This discussion should be about the best way to operate the J, not finding jobs for under employed K WSOs.
If we're talking about actually investing some real money in the J rather than throwing it all at the K, fitting JTIDs etc, then possibly we might need the WSOp(ALM) to put the teapot down & multi-task even more than they already do! This discussion should be about the best way to operate the J, not finding jobs for under employed K WSOs.