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
RAF C130J Freight Bay. Why?
Hi,
Does anyone out there know why the freight bay on RAF C130J's differs from every other operating nation?
For those not familiar with the type, the RAF J model has a freight bay which is more or less a copy of the H model design (AFAIK). Where as all other operating nations have a 'C-17' style freight bay arrangement with flip roller and electronic locks etc.
I've heard various rumours as to why this is the case:
MoD felt the design was 'too complicated' and hard to maintain.
Simple cost saving by having an older system fitted.
Movers wanting standardisation across the AT fleet. E.g. The roller and guidance system common to both the K and VC10 (this obviously makes less sense).
The aircraft were flown before the cargo floor was fitted and this 'bent' and unable to accept the standard floor (even more dubious).
If anyone out there could shed light on this I would be most interested.
Does anyone out there know why the freight bay on RAF C130J's differs from every other operating nation?
For those not familiar with the type, the RAF J model has a freight bay which is more or less a copy of the H model design (AFAIK). Where as all other operating nations have a 'C-17' style freight bay arrangement with flip roller and electronic locks etc.
I've heard various rumours as to why this is the case:
MoD felt the design was 'too complicated' and hard to maintain.
Simple cost saving by having an older system fitted.
Movers wanting standardisation across the AT fleet. E.g. The roller and guidance system common to both the K and VC10 (this obviously makes less sense).
The aircraft were flown before the cargo floor was fitted and this 'bent' and unable to accept the standard floor (even more dubious).
If anyone out there could shed light on this I would be most interested.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Where Alberts are Fixed
Age: 62
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear,
Did you really need to ask this. It was to keep the floor and hence the ground equipment the same as the C130K. Our Js are unique because of the floor and that's why we can't really take any more off the production line (like we can with C-17) and have a common J fleet. Most of the other J operators have the ECHS (Enhaced Cargo Handling System) floor whereas ours DON'T. ECHS allows the ALM to control cargo loading and air drop amongst other things. Having seen the system at first hand on a Danish aircraft it is the dogs doo dahs.
Mac
Did you really need to ask this. It was to keep the floor and hence the ground equipment the same as the C130K. Our Js are unique because of the floor and that's why we can't really take any more off the production line (like we can with C-17) and have a common J fleet. Most of the other J operators have the ECHS (Enhaced Cargo Handling System) floor whereas ours DON'T. ECHS allows the ALM to control cargo loading and air drop amongst other things. Having seen the system at first hand on a Danish aircraft it is the dogs doo dahs.
Mac
Oh dear, you have to wonder who thought that was a good idea, maybe they should have chosen to keep the same engine type as well to maintain compatibility with the old fleet 
I seem to recall one of the brochure selling points was the rapidity of re-role using ECHS
I seem to recall one of the brochure selling points was the rapidity of re-role using ECHS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mover input, It's only since after the J came in that both ALM's and Movers have had any input to requirements down the back. A400 should be back end friendly
Danish aircraft also has a fitted winch and the ADS arms do not need to be undone to allow the ramp to be grounded.
As always it comes down to the pennies.
Danish aircraft also has a fitted winch and the ADS arms do not need to be undone to allow the ramp to be grounded.
As always it comes down to the pennies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-Krantanamo Bay Inmate
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mac,
Not really sure how the C130J and K floors could be described as common as they are chalk and cheese. Unless you are referring to the actual floor loading limits etc.
The K role is a nightmare meccano set of bits, pins and manual spigots, although able to take pallets in F or C fit. Where as the J is just large sections of roller conveyor and a fixed F fit -4 side guidance system.
Not really sure how the C130J and K floors could be described as common as they are chalk and cheese. Unless you are referring to the actual floor loading limits etc.
The K role is a nightmare meccano set of bits, pins and manual spigots, although able to take pallets in F or C fit. Where as the J is just large sections of roller conveyor and a fixed F fit -4 side guidance system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ex-Krantanamo Bay Inmate
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks NFT, but even without 'user' input, was it still cheaper to have them built differently? With most things in life, if you want to go away from the 'standard spec' i.e. ECHS it will cost you an arm and a leg to be different.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont forget we were the launch customer for the J, always room for improvement afterward. The J initially was slow for other nations to purchase, USMC were the only ones who initially followed us
Champagne anyone...?
What JTO said above.... I think the ECHS existed only as a concept when we purchased the aircraft. I think I'm right in saying the Australians and Italians also have the -4A back end as do the USMC.
The hope of incorporating USAF airdrop systems also failed to consider the RAF/MoD's inability to just buy something off the shelf without first getting QinetiQ to reduce said proven system to it's constituent atoms, reassembling it slightly incorrectly with most functionality removed and then paying double for the privilege.
Slight thread drift but just imagine if we could actually just buy things off the shelf.....
The hope of incorporating USAF airdrop systems also failed to consider the RAF/MoD's inability to just buy something off the shelf without first getting QinetiQ to reduce said proven system to it's constituent atoms, reassembling it slightly incorrectly with most functionality removed and then paying double for the privilege.
Slight thread drift but just imagine if we could actually just buy things off the shelf.....
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Former Home of the Hercules, Wilts
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jus like we could have had the under floor winch but instead some clowns decided that we ought to adapt the Blackburn winch to fit to save money. Of course it did not work and we had no which apart from the movers manual Tirfor winch. No we have reconditioned Starlifter winches. The cargo hold on the J has been a complete cluster from the moment it was delivered with no palletisation system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,076
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
It's the RAF way, why change what we do best, if it is compatible we would never buy it..
, I was reading about the Neptunes when they came into service, they had pencil holders, ashtrays and clocks in the cockpit, the RAF removed the lot saying they don't need clocks as we provide the crew with watches.
, I was reading about the Neptunes when they came into service, they had pencil holders, ashtrays and clocks in the cockpit, the RAF removed the lot saying they don't need clocks as we provide the crew with watches.
First off ECHS was rejected as it was too expensive (and at time untested). There was going to be a version of Skydel CHS so that the J could carry and drop the existing inventory of UK heavy drop platforms. This was built and test fitted but Lockheed wouldn't back its fitting and use so it was dropped. Too late to retrofit the ECHS the UK went for what the (deluded) movers wanted all along - Dash 4a. When the 4a beams arrived for fitting at Lyneham the holes in the beams didn't line up with the holes in the aircraft so the beams were filed out to fit, thereby ruining them as they are classed as primary structure. The reason the holes didn't line up was simple. Being the lead customer for the J the UKs aircraft were built using the jigs that had built every other Herc and these jigs were worn out (Part of the offset from the UK buy of the J was the supply of new jigs, but these didn't get to Marrietta until our 25 aircraft had been built).
So that is how the RAF J Hercs have the heap of rubbish that Dash 4a is instead of a tarted up version of Skydel.
Before anyone steps in and says the 4a system is modern and Skydel isn't I'll have to be forced to dig out the NATO report that called for a cargo restraint rail system. The Yanks went for Dash 4 and the UK went for Skydel that fitted its fleet of Transport aircraft, the VC10, Argosey, Andover and Hercules (the reason the K floor is different to any other Herc).
So that is how the RAF J Hercs have the heap of rubbish that Dash 4a is instead of a tarted up version of Skydel.
Before anyone steps in and says the 4a system is modern and Skydel isn't I'll have to be forced to dig out the NATO report that called for a cargo restraint rail system. The Yanks went for Dash 4 and the UK went for Skydel that fitted its fleet of Transport aircraft, the VC10, Argosey, Andover and Hercules (the reason the K floor is different to any other Herc).
When we bought the C130K (basically an E model with the uprated H engines- a mixed blessing !) it was decided to fit certain items of UK kit into it to provide work for UK firms. Some of it was Avionics the other was in the cargo handling/airdrop roles. The result was as has already been mentioned, the RAF used the Skydel system both for cargo handling and airdrop. The UK pallets and airdrop platforms were unique to the RAF . The UK used stressed platforms for airdrop, the US unstressed platforms. Both systems had advantages and disadvantages. So the decision to so equip the our Herc was understandable at the time despite the fact that the cargo floor was now unique to the RAF. What was probably not sensible was to keep in service the already dated winch from the now defunct Beverley. It would have been far cheaper in the long run to have sourced a new winch. But as we all know MOD does not do 'the long run'. Of the J I know nothing as I was out by the time it was in.
Just picking up on VX 275 and the 'deluded movers' remark. When we used to go on Nato exercise with our new 'K's the host nation would turn up with -463L pallets aready loaded for a quick turn round. Unfortunately they could not be secured into the RAF Skydel system at that time. No quick turnround as everything had to be txferred to the RAF pallets.. Several years later adaptors were made so as to allow RAF Hercs to carry these. So if it was the 'movers ' who wanted the Brookes and Perkins -4 for the J it is perhaps understandable. They can hardly be blamed for Lockheed's poor workmanship once the much delayed J had arrived at Lyneham .
I think the real moving force behind the -4 selection would most likely to have been a 'beancounter' somewhere in MOD. And no I was not a mover, I just try to keep an open mind.
I think the real moving force behind the -4 selection would most likely to have been a 'beancounter' somewhere in MOD. And no I was not a mover, I just try to keep an open mind.
ECHS should have been fitted to the J from the off, including the underfloor winch but the beancounters won.
The stressed platform concept was/is due for a make over to fit 108 inch width, but considering the MSP has been around since 1950 and was originally sized to fit the C-82 and C-119, the UK has had its monies worth. Any replacement should match/beat the MSP/HSP capability, the Type 5 platform doesn't, simples.
Incidently, the original specification for the A400M CHS included an underfloor winch, it was removed early on by the beancounters.
The stressed platform concept was/is due for a make over to fit 108 inch width, but considering the MSP has been around since 1950 and was originally sized to fit the C-82 and C-119, the UK has had its monies worth. Any replacement should match/beat the MSP/HSP capability, the Type 5 platform doesn't, simples.
Incidently, the original specification for the A400M CHS included an underfloor winch, it was removed early on by the beancounters.
Ancientaviator62:
It was a good deal more than that originally, AA. The main UK proposal was to hang RR Tynes on them in place of the Allison T56's. It was only after the Lockheed Reps managed to stop their hysterical laughter and pick themselves up from the floor that other ways of "investing" in the project came about:-
1. Increased sized Flight Deck Escape Hatch incorporating an Astrodome for the Force Commander to review his formation. This was put back into its crates when it was found on initial delivery that it tended to crack when pressurised.
2. Downwards Looking Periscope for Nav to use when supply dropping. This was put back into its crates when it was found that the purpose built windows at floor level allowed him to CARP far more conveniently (as the USAF had been doing since the Model A).
3. "Some of it was avionics" included the Decca Area Nav System that told you where you were on a weirdly distorted roller map, as long as you kept channelling the appropriate keys in a revolver chamber type selector and reset the stylus to where it should be so that it could tell you where it thought you to be! Other avionics included triple radios where doubles would have sufficed.
4. The crowning glory was the Smiths Auto Pilot. Once connected to the American wiring looms it went into a deep sulk which meant that its supply circuit breakers had to be collared off permanently (well for a year at least). The result was that the aircraft had to be hand flown on legs of up to 14 hours on the CENTO route to Singapore. All aspiring pilots within the crew lent a hand over the ogg!
All this so that Harold Wilson, our beloved leader at the time, could tell the HoC that he was pleased to announce that half the cost of these new aircraft would be in Pounds Sterling.
"Here Here"
Rustling of order papers.
"Hurumph Hurumph".
"I didn't get a hurumph from that member!".
Give the Prime Minister a Hurumph!".
"Hurumph".
When we bought the C130K (basically an E model with the uprated H engines- a mixed blessing !) it was decided to fit certain items of UK kit into it to provide work for UK firms. Some of it was Avionics the other was in the cargo handling/airdrop roles
1. Increased sized Flight Deck Escape Hatch incorporating an Astrodome for the Force Commander to review his formation. This was put back into its crates when it was found on initial delivery that it tended to crack when pressurised.
2. Downwards Looking Periscope for Nav to use when supply dropping. This was put back into its crates when it was found that the purpose built windows at floor level allowed him to CARP far more conveniently (as the USAF had been doing since the Model A).
3. "Some of it was avionics" included the Decca Area Nav System that told you where you were on a weirdly distorted roller map, as long as you kept channelling the appropriate keys in a revolver chamber type selector and reset the stylus to where it should be so that it could tell you where it thought you to be! Other avionics included triple radios where doubles would have sufficed.
4. The crowning glory was the Smiths Auto Pilot. Once connected to the American wiring looms it went into a deep sulk which meant that its supply circuit breakers had to be collared off permanently (well for a year at least). The result was that the aircraft had to be hand flown on legs of up to 14 hours on the CENTO route to Singapore. All aspiring pilots within the crew lent a hand over the ogg!
All this so that Harold Wilson, our beloved leader at the time, could tell the HoC that he was pleased to announce that half the cost of these new aircraft would be in Pounds Sterling.
"Here Here"
Rustling of order papers.
"Hurumph Hurumph".
"I didn't get a hurumph from that member!".
Give the Prime Minister a Hurumph!".
"Hurumph".
Chugalug,
I did not wish to muddy the waters ref the RR Tyne proposal. Good engine though the Tyne undoubtedly is it would have ruined the Herc. Of course the Spey WAS shoehorned into the Phantom But this would entail 'thread drift'. Ah yes the observation dome. A lot ended up in crewrooms as receptacles for various liquids and nervous crewmembers could use the top bunk and sleep in peace . And the Smith's autopilot problem at least got our crew duty day reduced from 19 hrs to 16 hrs.
Once did a blind drop trial through cloud using the Decca. The troops landed miles away from the DZ.
I did not wish to muddy the waters ref the RR Tyne proposal. Good engine though the Tyne undoubtedly is it would have ruined the Herc. Of course the Spey WAS shoehorned into the Phantom But this would entail 'thread drift'. Ah yes the observation dome. A lot ended up in crewrooms as receptacles for various liquids and nervous crewmembers could use the top bunk and sleep in peace . And the Smith's autopilot problem at least got our crew duty day reduced from 19 hrs to 16 hrs.
Once did a blind drop trial through cloud using the Decca. The troops landed miles away from the DZ.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: lyneham, wilts, Uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old same old
As with all military mass buys the initial costs were kept down as the people in the job at the time were told to do (no doubt). As a result the Ac was brought with the basics required to get kit from a to b, little or no thought was put into the amount of diverse roles we might ask it to undertake in the future. As a result we are now at the mercy of civilian companies who will produce what you ask for but at a cost far and above what it would have cost some 15 years ago when we originally put the tender for the replacement for the K. The system will never change until the military changes the way it sources its equipment