RAF seeks improved airdrop system
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
RAF seeks improved airdrop system
After all, the repeated, chat on here about the merits/demerits of the current system, whether we should have the rolling flooor etc etc, what's likely to end up being selected?
Flight International: RAF seeks improved airdrop system for C-130J, A400M
By Craig Hoyle
The UK Ministry of Defence is seeking a new heavy airdrop capability in a move intended to boost the operational effectiveness of its Royal Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130Js and future Airbus Military A400Ms. Citing a need to replace 1950s technology originally developed for the Blackburn Beverley transport, the MoD has invited information on an “innovative solution” to enter service by April 2009.
Candidate systems should be capable of deploying a payload of up to 11,300kg (25,000lb) into drop zones at altitudes of up to 8,000ft (2,440m) above sea level, according to a requirements document issued by the UK Defence Equipment and Support organisation’s Hercules integrated project team on 22 August. This would mark a massive improvement over the C-130J’s current ability to drop individual loads of just 1t under such conditions.
The MoD says the new airdrop system should be compatible with the C-130J’s and A400M’s common 2.7m (9ft)-wide cargo handling system, and be capable of carrying a range of vehicles and equipment. “We considered that merely making the 1950s system compatible with the C-130J and A400M was unlikely to minimise support costs,” it adds. Companies have until 9 October to express interest in the requirement, with formal invitations to tender for the deal – worth between £93,000 and £685,000 ($185,000 and $1.3 million) – to be concluded before year-end.
While the MoD says “the contract has not been raised to reduce the risk of future aircraft losses”, the ability to deploy heavy equipment from the air could bring the advantage of reducing reliance on tactical landing zones, such as those now used during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the RAF’s C-130s have been destroyed on the ground in the countries since the second quarter of last year, with both having detonated anti-tank landmines placed on remote strips.
The air force, which now has a fleet of 24 C-130Js, expects its first A400Ms to meet an in-service date of 2011, with the type to replace its remaining C-130Ks.
Flight International: RAF seeks improved airdrop system for C-130J, A400M
By Craig Hoyle
The UK Ministry of Defence is seeking a new heavy airdrop capability in a move intended to boost the operational effectiveness of its Royal Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130Js and future Airbus Military A400Ms. Citing a need to replace 1950s technology originally developed for the Blackburn Beverley transport, the MoD has invited information on an “innovative solution” to enter service by April 2009.
Candidate systems should be capable of deploying a payload of up to 11,300kg (25,000lb) into drop zones at altitudes of up to 8,000ft (2,440m) above sea level, according to a requirements document issued by the UK Defence Equipment and Support organisation’s Hercules integrated project team on 22 August. This would mark a massive improvement over the C-130J’s current ability to drop individual loads of just 1t under such conditions.
The MoD says the new airdrop system should be compatible with the C-130J’s and A400M’s common 2.7m (9ft)-wide cargo handling system, and be capable of carrying a range of vehicles and equipment. “We considered that merely making the 1950s system compatible with the C-130J and A400M was unlikely to minimise support costs,” it adds. Companies have until 9 October to express interest in the requirement, with formal invitations to tender for the deal – worth between £93,000 and £685,000 ($185,000 and $1.3 million) – to be concluded before year-end.
While the MoD says “the contract has not been raised to reduce the risk of future aircraft losses”, the ability to deploy heavy equipment from the air could bring the advantage of reducing reliance on tactical landing zones, such as those now used during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two of the RAF’s C-130s have been destroyed on the ground in the countries since the second quarter of last year, with both having detonated anti-tank landmines placed on remote strips.
The air force, which now has a fleet of 24 C-130Js, expects its first A400Ms to meet an in-service date of 2011, with the type to replace its remaining C-130Ks.
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
Two of the RAF’s C-130s have been destroyed on the ground in the countries since the second quarter of last year, with both having detonated anti-tank landmines placed on remote strips.
Yes, C-bert, and it both infuriates and confuses Industry. They don’t get a spec and the MoD customer isn’t allowed to “solutionise”. If they ask for key supporting information, like Interface Control documents or work/studies carried out to date, they are usually told that only the winning bid will get them. (Although favoured contractors or those who did the studies will be given them anyway, and so have an advantage). The resultant bids are difficult to mark, as some will have gone for a staged approach, thus sticking initially to the lower figure; others will “go for it” and bid high. Assessors are never comparing like for like. Prior knowledge is important, so bids from existing suppliers look credible, even if they’re bolleaux.
The answer? I’m told I’m wrong, but what worked in the past was single tender the Design Authority (which saves 9 months or so on the tendering exercise and, after all, they MUST be a major player to modify and get MAR) and have them run a competition at sub-contract level. Or variations on this theme. Quicker, as they’re not hide-bound by MoD beanies yet their process is still auditable for probity/fairness (which MoD’s isn’t!). You’ve no idea how much time and money is wasted on faffing around determining procurement strategies when the answer is blindingly obvious. ISD 2009? They’ll have to go some. Some would suspect they know the answer but have to put it in the bulletin because of competition dogma. This is common.
Still, it seems we've moved on from the stated assumption in 1986 that, if the C130 can't airdrop to a CVS, it'll just land on board. The guy's boss was an old ALM, and he was in fits of laughter, until over-ruled. Jack, you old dog. Hope France is treating you well.
The answer? I’m told I’m wrong, but what worked in the past was single tender the Design Authority (which saves 9 months or so on the tendering exercise and, after all, they MUST be a major player to modify and get MAR) and have them run a competition at sub-contract level. Or variations on this theme. Quicker, as they’re not hide-bound by MoD beanies yet their process is still auditable for probity/fairness (which MoD’s isn’t!). You’ve no idea how much time and money is wasted on faffing around determining procurement strategies when the answer is blindingly obvious. ISD 2009? They’ll have to go some. Some would suspect they know the answer but have to put it in the bulletin because of competition dogma. This is common.
Still, it seems we've moved on from the stated assumption in 1986 that, if the C130 can't airdrop to a CVS, it'll just land on board. The guy's boss was an old ALM, and he was in fits of laughter, until over-ruled. Jack, you old dog. Hope France is treating you well.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do I recall correctly that there a better system available from Lockheed when the Js were bought and MoD insisted on using the old system? Are the C-17s using a superior system (being originally leased and not butchered into Britishness) and thus the penny has finally dropped?
c-bert - I suspect the range in numbers might have something to do with EU tendering regs - anyone confirm?
c-bert - I suspect the range in numbers might have something to do with EU tendering regs - anyone confirm?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark D we are not talking floors here (and yes the J floor was a cock up - but a decision the Movers liked!!!) What is now on the cards is a replacement for the good old MSP now that sense has prevailed and the equally ancient type 5 platform has been proven to be useless - cheap but useless.
But why is the new system going to be limited to 11.3 tonne when the A400M is being designed for a 16 tonne platform? (Why did they let the union of Air loadmasters kill the HSP?)
Now the C-17 has a good (great) floor but its designed around Yank heavy drop techniques and not the far superior UK method of RME MSP/HSP.
OK I'll admit I'm a bit biased.
But why is the new system going to be limited to 11.3 tonne when the A400M is being designed for a 16 tonne platform? (Why did they let the union of Air loadmasters kill the HSP?)
Now the C-17 has a good (great) floor but its designed around Yank heavy drop techniques and not the far superior UK method of RME MSP/HSP.
OK I'll admit I'm a bit biased.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we learnt nothing from the past, here we go again to try to improve the ADS systems, that are used by the rest of the C130 users around the world.
Proven tested sytems that have performed well in combat, have a proven safety record, and have been tested time and again.
I will bet too that by the time that you get to use this new system, that the costs will have blown out the window, and you will end up with a system that could be incompatable with every other operator.
I also cannot believe that only now that the MOD is thinking what are we going to do about the A400M.
Still what else could we expect from the people who brought us the foam situation.
Have the movers got a say in this too, if so God help us all, wonder they still are not using tape to hold the loads down.
Is there not something more important that needs to be researched for gear that cannot be bought off the shelf.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Proven tested sytems that have performed well in combat, have a proven safety record, and have been tested time and again.
I will bet too that by the time that you get to use this new system, that the costs will have blown out the window, and you will end up with a system that could be incompatable with every other operator.
I also cannot believe that only now that the MOD is thinking what are we going to do about the A400M.
Still what else could we expect from the people who brought us the foam situation.
Have the movers got a say in this too, if so God help us all, wonder they still are not using tape to hold the loads down.
Is there not something more important that needs to be researched for gear that cannot be bought off the shelf.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Airdrop
wz662,
the 'union of Airloadmasters ' did not kill off the HSP anymore than they killed off ULLA. It was decreed from far above that there was no longer a requirement and that only JATE would keep them 'ticking over' on a 'care amd maintenance basis.
the 'union of Airloadmasters ' did not kill off the HSP anymore than they killed off ULLA. It was decreed from far above that there was no longer a requirement and that only JATE would keep them 'ticking over' on a 'care amd maintenance basis.
Airdrop
When we bought the original tranche of 66 Hercules the US floor was changed to a UK specific floor to allow the use of the UK roller conveyor and side guidance system (SKYDEL ) , a version of which was used on the VC10, Britannia, and Argosy. Commonality (and UK workshare ) was the rationale. The system was used for cargo and airdrop as appropriate. The US system then in use was the Brooks and Perkins dual rail system. A version of this I understand is fitted to the C130J. The UK airdrop system was not usable in the US fit without extensive modifications. I do not agree that the UK system is intrinsically superior. The US philosophy was to use cheap unstressed platforms and equipment designed especially for airdrop. The UK went for expensive stressed platforms (HSP, MSP, SSP, ULLA ) and 'ordinary ' equipment. Both systems IMHO work well.
This of course is a very simplified version of the facts
This of course is a very simplified version of the facts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but I seem to have missed something here..........the problem with the C130J floor is ?????????
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-Krantanamo Bay Inmate
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just take a look at the C17 floor to see what wrong with the floor of the C130J? The former is an ergonomic delight, easy to use, for example quick to transform from flat floor to rollers etc (they just flip around). The C130J you have to lift the slats out to perform the same job. Much more cumbersome and slow. The Movers I've talked to hate it!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which slats are you referring to on the floor when lifting the roller?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....I think that you will find that the RAF C130J rollers 'clip' to the floor studs provided for the purpose. The RAF C130Js do not have flip-over rollers. When not required, the roller trays are secured to the side rails with strops.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DBL,
"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"
I rest my case
Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused
"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"
I rest my case
Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Fernhurst West Sussex
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C130 dropping trials circa 1967/68
I was fortunate (?) enough to be the flight engineer on the dropping trials held at Boscombe Down to convince their Lordships at MOD that the Beverley system would work on the Herc.
Early trials were carried out on MSPs with perspex sheets placed along the cargo deck sides and the load was festooned with chinagraph pencils which in theory would give a trace of the attitude of the load as it left the aircraft.
I don't still know what it proved but it frightened us f**tless especially when the loads tended to hang up on the lower cargo door prior to exit. I can still see in my mind's eye a certain wee Scottish captain called S***son standing up and pushing the pole forwards as hard as he could when this happened.
Happy days!
Early trials were carried out on MSPs with perspex sheets placed along the cargo deck sides and the load was festooned with chinagraph pencils which in theory would give a trace of the attitude of the load as it left the aircraft.
I don't still know what it proved but it frightened us f**tless especially when the loads tended to hang up on the lower cargo door prior to exit. I can still see in my mind's eye a certain wee Scottish captain called S***son standing up and pushing the pole forwards as hard as he could when this happened.
Happy days!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding, is that you can have the flip over rollers if you have a standard 41FT length cargo compartment. I also believe this is an option at extra cost.
However the stretched C130J was originally not available with flip over rollers. The cost of developement from Lockkeed was high, and so the RAAF did not take up the developement and so we lost out. The RAF I also believe declined to go down this track, which shows a complete lack of understanding by both air forces "high ups", of how dangerous AD operations can be.
Whilst the Brook and Perkins system has a weight penality when it is not being used, most of the offending pieces can be quickly removed, when tasked with non AD requirements, such as para trooping or carrying pneumatic wheeled vehicles.
So because of short sightedness decisions, the aircraft has become somewhat restricted in quick role change.
The decisions should be made by the people who fully understand what AD is all about, and the real dangers involved in extracting loads from an airplane.
The clerks and boffins who drive desks, should invited to butt out.
I can just see the cast of hundreds under the existing system, that will want to put their thumbprint on the procurement.
Ah but just like the tank foam and ESP, they will quitely slink off, when it all goes bad.
Regards
Col Tigwell
However the stretched C130J was originally not available with flip over rollers. The cost of developement from Lockkeed was high, and so the RAAF did not take up the developement and so we lost out. The RAF I also believe declined to go down this track, which shows a complete lack of understanding by both air forces "high ups", of how dangerous AD operations can be.
Whilst the Brook and Perkins system has a weight penality when it is not being used, most of the offending pieces can be quickly removed, when tasked with non AD requirements, such as para trooping or carrying pneumatic wheeled vehicles.
So because of short sightedness decisions, the aircraft has become somewhat restricted in quick role change.
The decisions should be made by the people who fully understand what AD is all about, and the real dangers involved in extracting loads from an airplane.
The clerks and boffins who drive desks, should invited to butt out.
I can just see the cast of hundreds under the existing system, that will want to put their thumbprint on the procurement.
Ah but just like the tank foam and ESP, they will quitely slink off, when it all goes bad.
Regards
Col Tigwell