RAF C130J Freight Bay. Why?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-Krantanamo Bay Inmate
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the interesting replies. Does anyone have any direct experience of using the ECHS on the J model? I have only used the system on the C-17 which I have found to be very user friendly. However I have heard the ECHS requires quite a lot of cleaning and maintenance compared to the UK J floors (which could merely do with some 
).
).
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C-17 cargo rail cleaning cycle was introduced early in it RAF service as it was clogging up with sand and dust from Kabul later Iraq. Monthly instead of 4 monthly cleans, amazing how much dust can accumulate or fall off vehicles and pallets. With the cleaner Bastion pans this could probably be reassessed! A great bit of pre emptive maintenance by the guys!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Former Home of the Hercules, Wilts
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There were some very short sighted money saving ideas with the J. The RAF chose not to buy any chains, tensioners and strops as part of the basic J buy. (In my opinion the british designed stuff on the K was better anyway) However as part of the 'buy back' of the K's that went back to the states the aircraft had to have a full set of restraint equipment which the RAF did not have. Rather than trucking the new American made equipment from its place of manufacture in the states to where the aircraft ended up in the states (Suffolk, County, Delaware?), the new equipment was airfreighted to the UK by American Airlines to London, road moved by DHL to Marshalls at Cambridge, loaded to the J's as they were delivered from Cambridge to Lyneham, stored in TFD and then loaded to the freight bay of the K's as they were flown back to states still in the manufacturers original packing crates!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was made to understand that a provision of the buy-back K-models was a re-conversion to the -4 floor. Any substance to this rumour?
I had heard RAF wanted J kitted out with the same floor as K and Mr. Lockheed laughed at them. Said the most they would "antiquate" the floor down the back was the -4.
You may slag off the -4 floor, but you can pallet on/off with the correct MHE in minutes vs the far more versatile, yet insanely more labour-intensive skydel kit fitted to the K. With C17 in the inventory and more NATO ops, this makes a fair bit of sense. I think the -4 floor is an improvement.
To my knowledge, the J-model ECHS is not quite as automated as the C17s version.
-4 works well, is simple, reliable, rugged, and parts are readily available due to the literally thousands of them out there...
I had heard RAF wanted J kitted out with the same floor as K and Mr. Lockheed laughed at them. Said the most they would "antiquate" the floor down the back was the -4.
You may slag off the -4 floor, but you can pallet on/off with the correct MHE in minutes vs the far more versatile, yet insanely more labour-intensive skydel kit fitted to the K. With C17 in the inventory and more NATO ops, this makes a fair bit of sense. I think the -4 floor is an improvement.
To my knowledge, the J-model ECHS is not quite as automated as the C17s version.
-4 works well, is simple, reliable, rugged, and parts are readily available due to the literally thousands of them out there...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -4 is light years ahead of the Skydel meccano set and it ws only the Luddite mentality of a few that thought any bloody differant, sadly that cost us big bucks and time lost re inventing the back end 
Just to add that in my recollection the main 'driver' for the use of Skydel in the K Herc was the requirement to airdrop all of the platforms etc then in the UK inventory. The system could not easily and quickly be adapted for use with the -4 dual rail system. It is oft forgoten just how important a role airdrop was in those days. One of the drawbacks with the Brookes and Perkins system as I understand it is the increased maintenance it requires over the Skydel system as anyone who has used the -4 (and it's predecessor) in dusty/sandy conditions will no doubt testify.
Champagne anyone...?
Airdrop is still an important and oft used capability today - be it people or stuff. Unfortunately the greatest minds available to British engineering have, as yet, been unable to construct a working heavy drop stressed platform that works. No idea how the rest of the world copes but I suspect we know best - just look at how we reinvented CDS; an enormously simple, rapidly deployable system, in use since the 1950s, converted into the usual cake and arse party by Messrs Heath & Robinson (Purveyors of Nonsense to Her Majesty's Armed Forces).
Stopstart,
I am a bit confused as to why you say that 'we are unable to construct a heavy drop stressed platform that works'. You may of course be solely referring to the J of which I have no knowledge but the system certainly worked during my 29 years on the K especially once we went over to the reefed mains system. As I said in a previous post the UK uses stressed platforms, the US unstressed platforms. So in theory the UK system could drop your car ( with suitable preparation ) with the prospect of it still being driveable off the DZ. The US system either requires specialised airdroppable vehicles or radically modified 'normal' ones. Just two different philosphies each with their advantages and disadvantages.
I am a bit confused as to why you say that 'we are unable to construct a heavy drop stressed platform that works'. You may of course be solely referring to the J of which I have no knowledge but the system certainly worked during my 29 years on the K especially once we went over to the reefed mains system. As I said in a previous post the UK uses stressed platforms, the US unstressed platforms. So in theory the UK system could drop your car ( with suitable preparation ) with the prospect of it still being driveable off the DZ. The US system either requires specialised airdroppable vehicles or radically modified 'normal' ones. Just two different philosphies each with their advantages and disadvantages.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ancientaviator62
One of the drawbacks with the Brookes and Perkins system as I understand it is the increased maintenance it requires over the Skydel system as anyone who has used the -4 (and it's predecessor) in dusty/sandy conditions will no doubt testify.
Originally Posted by ancientaviator62
So in theory the UK system could drop your car ( with suitable preparation ) with the prospect of it still being driveable off the DZ. The US system either requires specialised airdroppable vehicles or radically modified 'normal' ones.
If you're speaking of roll-over damage, the airdrop system releases the chutes after certain parameters are met (weight off chutes, chutes beyond 45*, etc) and largely prevents this type of occurrence. There will always be some small percentage of loads that are damaged - merely a function of throwing things out of an airplane from several hundred feet whilst scooting along at 75 yards/sec. But the standard US-spec Heavy Equipment airdrop system is far simpler than the MSP, reliable and well-proven.
Originally Posted by ancientaviator62
It is oft forgoten just how important a role airdrop was in those days.
Champagne anyone...?
AA62 - sorry, yes I was referring to the J. I know the K has/had all manner of systems that work/ed just fine. The different width of the Skydel vs -4 meant that K systems didn't transfer across to the J.
Just to fuel the debate. Airdrop using Dash 4a CHS and extractor retarder parachutes systems HAS killed aircrew through problems with the CHS and/or misunderstandings between pilots and loadmaster. The MSP system with reefed mains extraction (from skydel) has resulted in no lost aircraft (OK there may have been a few damaged but non lost) and the only fatality I know of was a cow that JATE managed to land an MSP on.
For the RAF to replace the MSP with Type 5 platforms will mean that twice the number of aircraft will be needed to drop the same amount of kit and the minimum drop height will more than double.
For the RAF to replace the MSP with Type 5 platforms will mean that twice the number of aircraft will be needed to drop the same amount of kit and the minimum drop height will more than double.
USHerc, I was trying to keep it simple for the benefit of the originator of this thread who may not be au fait with the differing airdrop systems. I did not mean to imply that the US system was not capable of airdropping vehicles. I was once part of a team that looked into the interoperabilty of the differing systems (at Pope AFB) which is mainly where my slim knowledge of the -4 system comes from. The trial concluded that there were too many variables to make it viable And yes the UK system has disconnects for the parachutes. As I recall the UK MSP system is dropped from a lower height that the US equivalent which it is argued improves accuracy. In my experience it was reliable and well proven although like any airdrop there have been 'moments'. Certainly on the last 'Rodeo' I attended the UK MSP drop was very accurate (I have the pic somewhere !)
. I fear we may be in danger 'drifting' away from the original question.
. I fear we may be in danger 'drifting' away from the original question.
No - they would produce a Business Case for the Dog....the powers to be would say it is a luxury - finance would be allocated for a cat (ageing one) - the procurement people would be given a half baked spec for which to contract for and agree a price....oh and the delivery would be expected yesterday - Industry would say you cannot have your ageing cat but a mouse - and the mouse would be procured.....delivered late for various reasons and die 2 days after in service date.
