C130J Hercules 10th Anniversary
Well done the J. Many more hopefully.
You can say what you like about the J, but it's in service. Unlike the A400, which is big on artists impressions of what it will eventually look like in service.
Thanks for all the 'lifts' back and forth to BSN.
You can say what you like about the J, but it's in service. Unlike the A400, which is big on artists impressions of what it will eventually look like in service.
Thanks for all the 'lifts' back and forth to BSN.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A thread about an aircraft reaching it's 10th aniversary of RAF service and all some have posted was to slate it. Let go of the old - the J isn't going to be taken out of service now, they and their gucci 2 man flight deck are here to stay.
From the original post I wouldn't care what type it is (the fact it's 'J'Albert has made me post though), well done boys, girls and Mr Lockheed - keep it flying safely for the next decade and beyond.
From the original post I wouldn't care what type it is (the fact it's 'J'Albert has made me post though), well done boys, girls and Mr Lockheed - keep it flying safely for the next decade and beyond.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Origin of the 'dung' comment. But I'm glad it now does 'what it says on the can'.
I was talking with the pilots testing the aircraft initially at Boscombe and it was very much their impression too.
The other comments allude to the fact it's still noisy, vibrates like a bastard and is slow.
Kinda reminds you of some helicopters that can't be used too. But they're not 10 years old yet.
Still - happy birthday.
Standing by for a deluge of bruised teddies.
The inspector general's (of the USAF) report, issued last July, found deficiencies in the aircraft that, if left uncorrected, could "cause death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems." The report concluded that "Lockheed Martin has been unable to design, develop or produce a C-130J aircraft that meets contract specifications in the eight years since production began."
The Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Thomas Christie, reported in January that the C-130J was "neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable"' and has "failed to meet operational requirements."
The Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Thomas Christie, reported in January that the C-130J was "neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable"' and has "failed to meet operational requirements."
The other comments allude to the fact it's still noisy, vibrates like a bastard and is slow.
Kinda reminds you of some helicopters that can't be used too. But they're not 10 years old yet.
Still - happy birthday.
Standing by for a deluge of bruised teddies.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD,
they're a sharp bunch at Boscombe then......
It's a turboprob; what do they expect?! remind them it lacks turbofans then!
I know the TPs at Boscombe aren't in agreement with that view; current (and past) ops would seem to back up the fact that it's a highly capable platform.
DD, get over yourself. You're amplifying your lack of currency by your comments and not doing yourself any favours.
they're a sharp bunch at Boscombe then......
The other comments allude to the fact it's still noisy, vibrates like a bastard and is slow.
neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable
DD, get over yourself. You're amplifying your lack of currency by your comments and not doing yourself any favours.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: deepest darkest Wiltshire
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable"....
2 main points here DD that you seem to had missed/confused/ignored:
- this report is from the US - who's C130J programme is nowhere near as advanced as some. The RAF, as lead nation, has used its fleet very operationally for many years now (and I know as I was there - were you?) there therefore are more advanced.
- secondly, and most importantly, if it is that bad, shouldn't we demand that they all come home from the many Ops that they are on?????
Yes you are right it is noisey - maybe we should retro fit some turbo fans, and it is slow - so maybe we should retro fit swept wings, and yes it can't carry some of the 'outsized' loads - maybe we could make it a bit bigger.....
..... oh hang on a minute that is a C17!!!!! maybe we should just buy a few more of them
but on the other hand it can't get into a tiny weeney TLZ the size of a football pitch or air drop 16 tonnes of stores into a courtyard the size of a postage stamp - maybe we could retro fit some rotors and call it a helicopter!
Maybe it fits somewhere in between...... as it is the same size and shape as a K, maybe it could do a TacAT role ferrying kit, troops, vehicles, ammunition, around theatre and air dropping vital supplies of food water and ammunition to forward deployed troops.
But then you are obviously the expert sat in you check list office harking back to the good old days
. Why doesn't everyone support our troops and emphasize the positive bits rather than just start another slanging match in the name of 'banter' and belittle everything that has, and is being, achieved with what is a great tactical transporter which has become the backbone of deployed ops.
2 main points here DD that you seem to had missed/confused/ignored:
- this report is from the US - who's C130J programme is nowhere near as advanced as some. The RAF, as lead nation, has used its fleet very operationally for many years now (and I know as I was there - were you?) there therefore are more advanced.
- secondly, and most importantly, if it is that bad, shouldn't we demand that they all come home from the many Ops that they are on?????
Yes you are right it is noisey - maybe we should retro fit some turbo fans, and it is slow - so maybe we should retro fit swept wings, and yes it can't carry some of the 'outsized' loads - maybe we could make it a bit bigger.....
..... oh hang on a minute that is a C17!!!!! maybe we should just buy a few more of them
but on the other hand it can't get into a tiny weeney TLZ the size of a football pitch or air drop 16 tonnes of stores into a courtyard the size of a postage stamp - maybe we could retro fit some rotors and call it a helicopter!
Maybe it fits somewhere in between...... as it is the same size and shape as a K, maybe it could do a TacAT role ferrying kit, troops, vehicles, ammunition, around theatre and air dropping vital supplies of food water and ammunition to forward deployed troops.
But then you are obviously the expert sat in you check list office harking back to the good old days
. Why doesn't everyone support our troops and emphasize the positive bits rather than just start another slanging match in the name of 'banter' and belittle everything that has, and is being, achieved with what is a great tactical transporter which has become the backbone of deployed ops.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tea White Zero
While I am not disagreeing with most of your above post, surely you will know that a C130 has already been designed to land in the space of a football pitch, and take off again from said pitch
In fact the design was so radical, that unlike RAF Hercs, it even had self changing wings
Here here for the RAF's C130's, and hoping they fly safe for many years to come. Maybe we might even get some of the 'fat' C130's if they are ever produced.
While I am not disagreeing with most of your above post, surely you will know that a C130 has already been designed to land in the space of a football pitch, and take off again from said pitch
In fact the design was so radical, that unlike RAF Hercs, it even had self changing wings
Here here for the RAF's C130's, and hoping they fly safe for many years to come. Maybe we might even get some of the 'fat' C130's if they are ever produced.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just 15 more years and then the C130J can be painted in a gaudy paint scheme and flown to Marietta for a week long shindig!!
Last edited by Jumping_Jack; 8th Nov 2009 at 17:54. Reason: Forgot that it was 25th Anniversary shindig not 20th!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dengue_Dude...
Could you provide a link or source information for that article... just so we know when it was written, who wrote it, and what their qualifications/conflict-of-interest are?
Just asking.
Could you provide a link or source information for that article... just so we know when it was written, who wrote it, and what their qualifications/conflict-of-interest are?
Just asking.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: an invisible moon
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report is an old one (July 2004) and was from the US Defense Department, which at the time was having an internal conflict over the introduction of the new aircraft and had strong political involvement on both sides due to regional job implications.
A fairly typical review from the time is here : NY Times . I especially like the bit about the engines being so powerful they were flattening the propellor blades on take off making the aircraft vulnerable to stall. Clearly, this wasn't just a case of grabbing any available argument.
When the Defense Dept report was published in July 2004, it was about the same time as our Boscombe Down luvvies were insisting that a trim runaway warning system was retrofitted to our aircraft because they hadn't mishandled it. Thank heavens that didn't last.
A fairly typical review from the time is here : NY Times . I especially like the bit about the engines being so powerful they were flattening the propellor blades on take off making the aircraft vulnerable to stall. Clearly, this wasn't just a case of grabbing any available argument.
When the Defense Dept report was published in July 2004, it was about the same time as our Boscombe Down luvvies were insisting that a trim runaway warning system was retrofitted to our aircraft because they hadn't mishandled it. Thank heavens that didn't last.
As the recent Haddon-Cave report demonstrates there is an incredible degree of pressure in the flight test world to give the IPT the required answer in order to meet slipping time and budget constraints. Enevitably decisions and recommendations are raised that do not meet with universal approval and indeed are often subject to heated debate in the testing world. A balance has to be struck between pragmatism and ensuring that a half-baked system is not delivered to the front-line that Sqn crews will spend years having to work around.
UK Flight Test is moving on with the Test Squadrons and OEUs combined under the AWC. I suspect the issue raised regarding the Trim Incident would be handled quite differently today.
Regards
UK Flight Test is moving on with the Test Squadrons and OEUs combined under the AWC. I suspect the issue raised regarding the Trim Incident would be handled quite differently today.
Regards
Champagne anyone...?
DD - we were obviously all reeled by your fabulous fishing expedition 
nice one. That said, a simple admission that you didn't actually have any direct knowledge or experience of this subject would've been more impressive. Do please keep lobbing your thunderflashes into the lake though - we await your next haul. 35 years of flying is all well and good but if you are unable to accept informed opinion and actual experience then it’s all for naught and you must be, I'm afraid, just another dinosaur.
Can't be used? I missed that memo. Do elaborate. There are loads of the bloody things out here in Afghanistan from at least 5 different nations. Guess they should've checked with you first before sending them out. On the plus side though, if they “can’t be used” then I guess my crew and I get the night off tonight?
GK121 - the article is from 2005 or thereabouts. A google search will also throw up articles from 2005 from the head of AMC praising the Js operational 98.9% mission achievement rate, the effectiveness of the KC130J, WC130J & EC130J, large J orders for the USAF and plans for the MC130J, HC130J and AC130J. Dung indeed.
Ladies, I'm not "biting", being "reeled in" nor am I abusing my teddy (all good, solid internet staples from those unable to accept their own errors or failings). I just find myself, once again, defending an aircraft that I know quite a lot about from people that know absolutely nothing about it. If certain corners of the MoD & the RAF had been able to see the aircraft for what it is (although to be fair, they were wilfully misled at times by agenda carrying “senior” officers) then we’d be a lot further down the line to delivering an even better service to the troops on the ground, which ultimately is what we’re here for.
PS. Trim guards? A classic piece of mongery. Akin to restricting the use of the control column as it has the potential to damage the aircraft if misused
nice one. That said, a simple admission that you didn't actually have any direct knowledge or experience of this subject would've been more impressive. Do please keep lobbing your thunderflashes into the lake though - we await your next haul. 35 years of flying is all well and good but if you are unable to accept informed opinion and actual experience then it’s all for naught and you must be, I'm afraid, just another dinosaur.
Kinda reminds you of some helicopters that can't be used too.
GK121 - the article is from 2005 or thereabouts. A google search will also throw up articles from 2005 from the head of AMC praising the Js operational 98.9% mission achievement rate, the effectiveness of the KC130J, WC130J & EC130J, large J orders for the USAF and plans for the MC130J, HC130J and AC130J. Dung indeed.
Ladies, I'm not "biting", being "reeled in" nor am I abusing my teddy (all good, solid internet staples from those unable to accept their own errors or failings). I just find myself, once again, defending an aircraft that I know quite a lot about from people that know absolutely nothing about it. If certain corners of the MoD & the RAF had been able to see the aircraft for what it is (although to be fair, they were wilfully misled at times by agenda carrying “senior” officers) then we’d be a lot further down the line to delivering an even better service to the troops on the ground, which ultimately is what we’re here for.
PS. Trim guards? A classic piece of mongery. Akin to restricting the use of the control column as it has the potential to damage the aircraft if misused
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said - a deluge of bruised teddies.
Yes it was an old article and was gleaned by typing 'C130J problems' into Google and trawling the results.
The fact IS, I wasn't particularly trying to piss anyone off (overmuch), but the facts remain that the aircraft was not fit for purpose when first acquired.
An immense amount of time and effort went in subsequently for this 'bought and paid for' asset was worth its salt. Which indeed, from talking to current operators that I know, it is now.
I popped back around 2000 to fly with the Auxiliaries at LYE and the impression there (AT THE TIME) was that the aircraft (in some of its roles) was a great disappointment. When you consider the ability of its predecessors, it is very surprising that such a dog was produced then was subject to so much R & D after acquisition.
To the others who've been SOo upset by me impugning their beloved platform, I would say it's a lot less effort to glance at my profile than to make the effort to respond - it's been the same for several years. Humour like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but get a grip guys. . .
As for 'flamed' et al, I've been insulted by experts, nothing on here bothers me in the slightest - so feel free. Not as if it's terminal is it?
As I said (and it's quite sincere - take it or leave it), is 'fly safe' when you can and 'cannily' when you can't.
Yes it was an old article and was gleaned by typing 'C130J problems' into Google and trawling the results.
The fact IS, I wasn't particularly trying to piss anyone off (overmuch), but the facts remain that the aircraft was not fit for purpose when first acquired.
An immense amount of time and effort went in subsequently for this 'bought and paid for' asset was worth its salt. Which indeed, from talking to current operators that I know, it is now.
I popped back around 2000 to fly with the Auxiliaries at LYE and the impression there (AT THE TIME) was that the aircraft (in some of its roles) was a great disappointment. When you consider the ability of its predecessors, it is very surprising that such a dog was produced then was subject to so much R & D after acquisition.
To the others who've been SOo upset by me impugning their beloved platform, I would say it's a lot less effort to glance at my profile than to make the effort to respond - it's been the same for several years. Humour like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but get a grip guys. . .
As for 'flamed' et al, I've been insulted by experts, nothing on here bothers me in the slightest - so feel free. Not as if it's terminal is it?
As I said (and it's quite sincere - take it or leave it), is 'fly safe' when you can and 'cannily' when you can't.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoppers,
It's know sad to see but I suspect that technology having moved on and the subsequent removal of a couple of flight decks because the replacement black boxes were considered way more useful, well it was always going to leave one or two folk more than a little bitter
It's know sad to see but I suspect that technology having moved on and the subsequent removal of a couple of flight decks because the replacement black boxes were considered way more useful, well it was always going to leave one or two folk more than a little bitter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD – I don’t know how much experience you have of a new product coming into service but it is the case with most items that there will inevitably be some pain felt when a new piece of equipment comes into service.
Speaking from the engineering point, when the first J turned up in Nov 99 and subsequently the next 3 to 5 years the aircraft and its crews (airborne and ground) went through the “inception into service” learning curve that may have brought on some comments about its design or capabilities. In those early days we were all fighting for operator knowledge of a new platform (as it was handed over from those with the designers perception) in order to get the aircraft to the position it now serves in. Add into that 3 -5 years the operational tasking, new methods of contractor support , training, software/hardware upgrades and modification…etc and it is easy to see how some comments could be amplified due to a persons bravado trying to coping with an unknown situation or deficiency in knowledge. A lot of the shortcomings of the early days have been overcome, some have not, but as the aircraft goes through its life cycle it too will earn its position as a good worker (as it is now) only to get a bit of a slating as it gets to the end of its life cycle.
It is evident that the A400m is embarking on a similar process of delayed entry into service and probably with limited clearance …and so it starts all over again!
Speaking from the engineering point, when the first J turned up in Nov 99 and subsequently the next 3 to 5 years the aircraft and its crews (airborne and ground) went through the “inception into service” learning curve that may have brought on some comments about its design or capabilities. In those early days we were all fighting for operator knowledge of a new platform (as it was handed over from those with the designers perception) in order to get the aircraft to the position it now serves in. Add into that 3 -5 years the operational tasking, new methods of contractor support , training, software/hardware upgrades and modification…etc and it is easy to see how some comments could be amplified due to a persons bravado trying to coping with an unknown situation or deficiency in knowledge. A lot of the shortcomings of the early days have been overcome, some have not, but as the aircraft goes through its life cycle it too will earn its position as a good worker (as it is now) only to get a bit of a slating as it gets to the end of its life cycle.
It is evident that the A400m is embarking on a similar process of delayed entry into service and probably with limited clearance …and so it starts all over again!
Champagne anyone...?
DD - Not entirely sure what your profile has to do with the price of fish other than it declaring you to be a wind-up merchant and general all round crazy trickster. 
Really? Or was it loads of money and time wasted on proving what Lockheed told them the aircraft would do in the first place? The tail doesn't ice up and fall off, parachutists don't get shredded as they jump, the props don't evaporate when used on gravel strips and it is very easily operated at low level by only two on the flightdeck. The list is endless. The time to get things cleared on the aircraft had nothing to do with the aircraft and everything to do with QQ process and prevarication and general footdragging by the luddites in charge.
I would hazard that were the E or the H introduced into service today they would not get certified iaw current FAA regs....
Keep digging.
SFFP - you're quite right but at least this banal chat whiles away the hours and days out here
An immense amount of time and effort went in subsequently for this 'bought and paid for' asset was worth its salt.
I would hazard that were the E or the H introduced into service today they would not get certified iaw current FAA regs....
Keep digging.
SFFP - you're quite right but at least this banal chat whiles away the hours and days out here
Or was it loads of money and time wasted on proving what Lockheed told them the aircraft would do in the first place?
The order of the test programme and what the MOD subsequently clears the front-line to do rests with the MOD/IPT subject all the time to changing operational requirements.
The alternative is wait until an aircraft has entered service, received the inevitable software/hardware fixes then place your order.
Last edited by 120class; 9th Nov 2009 at 16:12.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD - Not entirely sure what your profile has to do with the price of fish other than it declaring you to be a wind-up merchant and general all round crazy trickster.
I'm sorry if you got wound up, but as you say, it passes the time. Basically, I only reported what was being said (again, AT THE TIME) but parcelled in a provocative package to generate a bit of reaction.
As you well know, if you're lucky, flying can be boring, so the mischievous types (like me) have to think up new ways of torturing my pilots - which is always good sport.
Shame we can't go and discuss it over a few glasses of Kokinelli and kebab. Not all wind ups are bad news, and I did try to leave clues.
Either way, however this is received, fly as safe as you all can.