New Cracks Found in RAF C-130 Fleet
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
New Cracks Found in RAF C-130 Fleet
Looks like even more problems in running on the K fleet till the A-400M arrives. Mind you, that 200 ton payload is impressive.....
Torygraph: Cracks found in Hercules wings threaten to scupper vital military training exercises The RAF has launched an investigation following the discovery of cracks in the wings of its ageing Hercules C130 transport aircraft.
Up to five of the planes – more than a 10th of the fleet – have developed the potentially dangerous defect, according to documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The report adds that with a further five C130s being retired from service this summer, the future for military training exercises is "bleak".
It is understood that the faults were found last month during routine maintenance at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, where the majority of the aircraft are based........
The document, marked restricted and dated April, states: "A number of wing cracks found on certain C130s recently has resulted in a reduction in current and forthcoming allocations for a number of exercises. Those major exercises deemed vital ground for the maintenance of Herrick and Telic operations [the RAF names for duties in Afghanistan and Iraq] capability should continue to be supported, but smaller exercises are now at risk. Exercise Marble Tor 1 is the first to be seriously affected by this and efforts are under way to salvage some form of airlift for this exercise. With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer, the future is bleak for C130 support to exercises."
The RAF workload has soared enormously since 2003. The brunt of the transport effort is being met by the C130, which first entered service with the RAF in the Sixties. Such is the shortage of transport aircraft that the loss of just one C130 will have a direct impact on operations and exercises. Each carries up to 130 passengers or more than 200 tons of equipment.
Three years ago an RAF Hercules with 10 SAS members on board was shot down in Iraq while on a mission close to Baghdad. It later emerged that the plane had not been fitted with explosive-suppressant foam, which extinguishes fires and could have saved the aircraft. Last year another C130 was destroyed after it struck an improvised explosive device which had been laid on an airstrip in Maysan Province in Iraq. One officer was seriously wounded in the attack. In 2006, a third Hercules was lost after landing at Lashkar Gar in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, when it struck a land mine. No one on board was injured but the aircraft was destroyed.
Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander and Tory MP, said: "Our battle-winning equipment is being flogged to death. We simply do not have the resources to fight two wars on two fronts and the Government seems to be in denial about it."......
Last night a spokesman for the RAF said: "We don't comment on leaked documents." But he added: "All aircraft will have cracks due to such things as fatigue damage: the C130 is no exception. There is a comprehensive inspection regime in place and all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations to ensure that no crack becomes critical for the continued safe operation of the aircraft.".......
Torygraph: Cracks found in Hercules wings threaten to scupper vital military training exercises The RAF has launched an investigation following the discovery of cracks in the wings of its ageing Hercules C130 transport aircraft.
Up to five of the planes – more than a 10th of the fleet – have developed the potentially dangerous defect, according to documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph. The report adds that with a further five C130s being retired from service this summer, the future for military training exercises is "bleak".
It is understood that the faults were found last month during routine maintenance at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, where the majority of the aircraft are based........
The document, marked restricted and dated April, states: "A number of wing cracks found on certain C130s recently has resulted in a reduction in current and forthcoming allocations for a number of exercises. Those major exercises deemed vital ground for the maintenance of Herrick and Telic operations [the RAF names for duties in Afghanistan and Iraq] capability should continue to be supported, but smaller exercises are now at risk. Exercise Marble Tor 1 is the first to be seriously affected by this and efforts are under way to salvage some form of airlift for this exercise. With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer, the future is bleak for C130 support to exercises."
The RAF workload has soared enormously since 2003. The brunt of the transport effort is being met by the C130, which first entered service with the RAF in the Sixties. Such is the shortage of transport aircraft that the loss of just one C130 will have a direct impact on operations and exercises. Each carries up to 130 passengers or more than 200 tons of equipment.
Three years ago an RAF Hercules with 10 SAS members on board was shot down in Iraq while on a mission close to Baghdad. It later emerged that the plane had not been fitted with explosive-suppressant foam, which extinguishes fires and could have saved the aircraft. Last year another C130 was destroyed after it struck an improvised explosive device which had been laid on an airstrip in Maysan Province in Iraq. One officer was seriously wounded in the attack. In 2006, a third Hercules was lost after landing at Lashkar Gar in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, when it struck a land mine. No one on board was injured but the aircraft was destroyed.
Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander and Tory MP, said: "Our battle-winning equipment is being flogged to death. We simply do not have the resources to fight two wars on two fronts and the Government seems to be in denial about it."......
Last night a spokesman for the RAF said: "We don't comment on leaked documents." But he added: "All aircraft will have cracks due to such things as fatigue damage: the C130 is no exception. There is a comprehensive inspection regime in place and all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations to ensure that no crack becomes critical for the continued safe operation of the aircraft.".......
all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations to ensure that no crack becomes critical for the continued safe operation of the aircraft
“all aircraft are maintained according to approved military airworthiness regulations”
Well, given they were NOT when the Nimrod BoI report was issued and at the time of Browne’s statement in December 2007, and the QC’s inquiry which is meant to report on the implementation (or otherwise) of these regs hasn’t properly convened yet, I’d say this is an astonishingly naïve statement. In fact, it’s utter bo##ocks.
Given implementation of the applicable procedures and processes began rundown on a very specific date almost 20 years ago, leading to the almost complete loss of necessary experience and corporate memory (and personal memory judging by the Hercules inquest), for this statement to be true half the Defence budget must have been invested over the last few months on, for example, resurrecting and stabilising the build standard of every aircraft type, including equipment, ground equipment, trainers etc. Even if the funding were available, the MoD simply doesn’t have enough knowledgeable staff left to work out what to say in the Invitations to Tender, never mind deliver and implement the output. (Hint to MoD – look at the mandated procedures you so blithely cite – they tell you how to do this quickly and consistently. Oops, sorry, you no longer have a copy. Do you really think it was a good idea to announce 14 years ago they were to be cancelled, with no replacement?).
I have no doubt this cracking problem is being dealt with efficiently, but that is not the same as adhering to “approved” airworthiness regs. Which, by the way, infers there are “unapproved” regs. That would be the historical rulings that implementing the regs is optional.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a number of years Marshall Aerospace ran a fatigue test rig, on behalf of the MoD for the c130K wing, at the time of switch off, this was at aprox double that, at the time, of the forecast requirement. (aprox 4 years ago if I recall correctly) Marshall was then tasked with fatigue testing the C130K fuselage, alongside the wing of a C130J, I belive these tests are up and running running. Question could be asked why the C130K wing test was stopped, when the aircraft still had 10 years remaining service
http://www.marshalltestservices.co.uk/default.asp
http://www.marshalltestservices.co.uk/default.asp
Last edited by mary_hinge; 4th May 2008 at 13:02. Reason: "wordage" and spelling
Mary - the wing test would have completed as it proved / reached a set objective, the the sake of argument a set number of hours of fatigue life - i.e. if the reqt was e.g. 20,000 hrs* and the rig did that, then in simplistic terms that would give confidence in the fleet to that number of hours. A fleet could only be at say 10,000 hours at a time of having already flown for 20 years, hence 20 more years (at same usage rates of course#) is available upto the proven 20,000 hours tested. It is not uncommon for these rigs to stop operations well before the end of an aircraft types life - can't remember the exact dates but I think the Concorde one for example stopped in 1994ish, nearly 10 years before the end of Concorde ops, and even then the reason it stopped ops was not related to having run out of fatigue life.
It is usual for test rigs to be well ahead of the fleet - indeed thats the whole point - cracks etc. appear on the rig, fixes are developed and go into the fleet which is thousands of hours behind and hence will not have developed the same cracks yet. It is possible the cracks reported above were seen on the rig 6-7 years ago with fixes developed. It is also possible the failures/cracks are not easy or economic to fix. It all depends - the key point is the problems are seen on the rig before the fleet and can be safely handled either through fixes (which will have also been tested in the rig) or other action (e.g. scrapping).
The only reason I can think of for the fuselage still being on-going is that it is infact well behind the wing tests in hours and is now on the critical path for extending the life (i.e. fuselage only upto say 13,000 hours, so tests need to be continued to get to 20,000, i.e. same as the wing).
The 130J fatigue tests are possibly along way behind just because it is newer. These tests although accelerated, still take a long time as you are trying to simulate 30/40+ years of use in albeit compressed timescales.
* these numbers just picked from the air, not related to any aircraft type.
# more ops means using up hours more quickly which may mean shortening the planned life of an aircraft fleet (i.e. when test rigs & their duration were planned the assumptions may have been different).
It is usual for test rigs to be well ahead of the fleet - indeed thats the whole point - cracks etc. appear on the rig, fixes are developed and go into the fleet which is thousands of hours behind and hence will not have developed the same cracks yet. It is possible the cracks reported above were seen on the rig 6-7 years ago with fixes developed. It is also possible the failures/cracks are not easy or economic to fix. It all depends - the key point is the problems are seen on the rig before the fleet and can be safely handled either through fixes (which will have also been tested in the rig) or other action (e.g. scrapping).
The only reason I can think of for the fuselage still being on-going is that it is infact well behind the wing tests in hours and is now on the critical path for extending the life (i.e. fuselage only upto say 13,000 hours, so tests need to be continued to get to 20,000, i.e. same as the wing).
The 130J fatigue tests are possibly along way behind just because it is newer. These tests although accelerated, still take a long time as you are trying to simulate 30/40+ years of use in albeit compressed timescales.
* these numbers just picked from the air, not related to any aircraft type.
# more ops means using up hours more quickly which may mean shortening the planned life of an aircraft fleet (i.e. when test rigs & their duration were planned the assumptions may have been different).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sortie profiles (perhaps ones unheard of before) will be eating the FI as well I would imagine. When I first saw the thread title I thought Albert was getting hosties!! Silly me
Up to five of the planes – more than a 10th of the fleet – have developed the potentially dangerous defect.....
......With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer.
......With a further five C130s scheduled to be retired from service this summer.
1. Retire the five with defects and
2. Retain the five scheduled to be retired this summer.
Which should solve the problem, or am I being too simplistic?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: where should i be today????
Age: 57
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warmtoast
Unfortunately this is a very simplistic view. If only it were that easy. If the 5 that are due to be retired (due to airframe hours being used up) are not the 5 in question then the fleet is potentially 10 down.
I am no engineer but I am sure that there are one or 2 out there who can put it in more technical terms
Unfortunately this is a very simplistic view. If only it were that easy. If the 5 that are due to be retired (due to airframe hours being used up) are not the 5 in question then the fleet is potentially 10 down.
I am no engineer but I am sure that there are one or 2 out there who can put it in more technical terms
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?
Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.
Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.
Champagne anyone...?
Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?
Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.
Of course we would have to hand over even more beer tokens to marshall's to get them fitted but the frames are badly needed with the current fun and games.
It's a sellers market unfortuately.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Always a Sapper
Is there any chance that some usable wings could be sourced from the scrappy at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the US?
Lockheed do not use airframe hours, instead use equivalent baseline hours (EBH). Sortie details are input into a computer program and a severity factor (SF) is assigned to each portion of the sortie. The flight time for that segment is then multiplied by the SF for that segment to arrive at EBH.
For example, MCT has an average SF of about 3, whilst low-flying has an average SF of closer to 9. There are many variables, of coures, relating to weight, speed, altitude, etc.
Currently, US CWB are restricted at 38K EBH and grounded at 45K EBH. Most of the birds sat in AMARC are somewhere between 38K-45K EBH on them already & would require a new CWB fitted to return to service.
CWB are in short supply as Lockheed can only produce approximately 30-35 per year, of which all current J-model production is pulled and others are sent to the various depots to replace the few acft that are deemed vital with new CWB (AC-130U, MC-130H, HC-130H, etc.) - mainly special mission aircraft.
There are other programmes out there that refurbish CWB vice all out replacement, but they have a limited life compared to replacement.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three years ago an RAF Hercules with 10 SAS members on board was shot down in Iraq while on a mission close to Baghdad.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite dionysius, quite... a pretty poor effort for the Torygraph, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a 'chip wrapper' such as the sun or mirror....