Modified UK C-130J Grounded
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Modified UK C-130J Grounded
Shades of the Chinook?
DefenseNews: Clearance Challenges Leave Modified UK C-130 Grounded
LONDON — Problems in obtaining British flight clearances have kept a modified Royal Air Force C-130J Hercules airlifter stuck on the ground at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., facility several months after the planned first flight.
The aircraft was modified to test an extensive avionics upgrade for several international users. The C-130 has been marooned at Marietta so long an annual maintenance program scheduled to be undertaken once the aircraft was back in the UK has had to be carried out by Lockheed in the US.
The avionics update, known as Block 7.0, is the biggest modification of the J model since it entered service following a launch order for the RAF in the 1990s. A new flight management system, integration of a tactical data capability and a new special mission display processor are among the 26 or so capability upgrades incorporated in the Block 7.0 work. Lockheed Martin has undertaken flight trials on the upgrade but the RAF aircraft is meant to debut the national integration trial kit designed for Block 7.0 development partners Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway and the US.
The delay is holding up implementation of individual national programs to update their J fleets. In the case of the British, that also means retaining older special forces-configured C-130Ks in service longer than planned. The RAF aircraft was scheduled to fly in March following a development flight testing phase conducted by Lockheed on a US-owned aircraft. That target date was missed due to technical issues and the failure of the aircraft to receive UK certification.
It’s the latest in a string of problems that has delayed the Block 7.0 program by at least two years.
In March, the British MoD said the first flight could take place by mid-May. That date came and went with no sign the updated aircraft, which is modified to US standards, was close to a maiden flight. A spokesman for the MoD said there is no new target date for the first flight ahead of the machine coming out of its four- to five-week maintenance program. The aircraft also still has to receive the required approvals from the UK’s Military Aviation Authority (MAA) and others, he said.
When the first flight was postponed, industry executives reckoned the British would struggle to get rapid MAA clearance for an upgrade done to US standards.
The aircraft was scheduled to conduct a number of missions from the Marietta plant, near Atlanta, ahead of returning to the MoD’s Boscombe Down flight test facility in southern England where it is planned to undertake release-to-service trials. British contractor QinetiQ was due to do what is known here as Primary Plus maintenance carried out every 12 months. Lockheed Martin had to undertake the work at Marietta.
DefenseNews: Clearance Challenges Leave Modified UK C-130 Grounded
LONDON — Problems in obtaining British flight clearances have kept a modified Royal Air Force C-130J Hercules airlifter stuck on the ground at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., facility several months after the planned first flight.
The aircraft was modified to test an extensive avionics upgrade for several international users. The C-130 has been marooned at Marietta so long an annual maintenance program scheduled to be undertaken once the aircraft was back in the UK has had to be carried out by Lockheed in the US.
The avionics update, known as Block 7.0, is the biggest modification of the J model since it entered service following a launch order for the RAF in the 1990s. A new flight management system, integration of a tactical data capability and a new special mission display processor are among the 26 or so capability upgrades incorporated in the Block 7.0 work. Lockheed Martin has undertaken flight trials on the upgrade but the RAF aircraft is meant to debut the national integration trial kit designed for Block 7.0 development partners Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway and the US.
The delay is holding up implementation of individual national programs to update their J fleets. In the case of the British, that also means retaining older special forces-configured C-130Ks in service longer than planned. The RAF aircraft was scheduled to fly in March following a development flight testing phase conducted by Lockheed on a US-owned aircraft. That target date was missed due to technical issues and the failure of the aircraft to receive UK certification.
It’s the latest in a string of problems that has delayed the Block 7.0 program by at least two years.
In March, the British MoD said the first flight could take place by mid-May. That date came and went with no sign the updated aircraft, which is modified to US standards, was close to a maiden flight. A spokesman for the MoD said there is no new target date for the first flight ahead of the machine coming out of its four- to five-week maintenance program. The aircraft also still has to receive the required approvals from the UK’s Military Aviation Authority (MAA) and others, he said.
When the first flight was postponed, industry executives reckoned the British would struggle to get rapid MAA clearance for an upgrade done to US standards.
The aircraft was scheduled to conduct a number of missions from the Marietta plant, near Atlanta, ahead of returning to the MoD’s Boscombe Down flight test facility in southern England where it is planned to undertake release-to-service trials. British contractor QinetiQ was due to do what is known here as Primary Plus maintenance carried out every 12 months. Lockheed Martin had to undertake the work at Marietta.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft also still has to receive the required approvals from the UK’s Military Aviation Authority (MAA) and others, he said.
When the first flight was postponed, industry executives reckoned the British would struggle to get rapid MAA clearance for an upgrade done to US standards.
When the first flight was postponed, industry executives reckoned the British would struggle to get rapid MAA clearance for an upgrade done to US standards.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 9th Aug 2013 at 08:08.
Champagne anyone...?
Block 7.0 is the latest iteration of the ongoing process of FMC software updates which started with the original Block 5.0 (if memory serves). These software updates have just been subtle FMC (CNI) functionality updates akin to those applied to the Smiths FMCs fitted to civilian Boeings.
Block 7.0 is a much more involved update and includes, I believe, new FMCs with improved (read 'some') FMC/autopilot integration. I think there have been some problems getting what are essentially ARINC 429 FMCs to talk to the multiplexing MIL-STD-1553 bus. The UK has lucked out by being the lead customer and supplying the airframe. I suspect all the other JUG members are just glad they don't have an aircraft tied up in Marietta.....
Block 7.0 has been dragging on for a while despite the best efforts of a few talented and pragmatic C130J trials folk (a rare beast indeed these days). Don't compare this to the introduction of the glass cockpit chinook - it's a very different kettle of fish.
I can see absolutely no reason why this will have any impact on the exit date of the C130K which is due to be finally relieved of its zombie existence this October.
This thread will undoubtedly attract a lengthy, rehashed diatribe from Airworthiness Man and The Boy Wonder on subjects various and unrelated
Block 7.0 is a much more involved update and includes, I believe, new FMCs with improved (read 'some') FMC/autopilot integration. I think there have been some problems getting what are essentially ARINC 429 FMCs to talk to the multiplexing MIL-STD-1553 bus. The UK has lucked out by being the lead customer and supplying the airframe. I suspect all the other JUG members are just glad they don't have an aircraft tied up in Marietta.....
Block 7.0 has been dragging on for a while despite the best efforts of a few talented and pragmatic C130J trials folk (a rare beast indeed these days). Don't compare this to the introduction of the glass cockpit chinook - it's a very different kettle of fish.
I can see absolutely no reason why this will have any impact on the exit date of the C130K which is due to be finally relieved of its zombie existence this October.
This thread will undoubtedly attract a lengthy, rehashed diatribe from Airworthiness Man and The Boy Wonder on subjects various and unrelated
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopstart
This is a real question, not a dig at the aircraft or process or anyone!
What about the statement in the article that Lockheed already sorted it out in a US aircraft?
John
Edit : I just re read the article, and it didn't actually say it was sorted out in the US development aircraft!
This is a real question, not a dig at the aircraft or process or anyone!
What about the statement in the article that Lockheed already sorted it out in a US aircraft?
John
Edit : I just re read the article, and it didn't actually say it was sorted out in the US development aircraft!
Last edited by rjtjrt; 9th Aug 2013 at 11:39.
This thread will undoubtedly attract a lengthy, rehashed diatribe from Airworthiness Man and The Boy Wonder on subjects various and unrelated
What about the statement in the article that Lockheed already sorted it out in a US aircraft?
This thread will undoubtedly attract a lengthy, rehashed diatribe from Airworthiness Man and The Boy Wonder on subjects various and unrelated
Industry executives reckoned the British would struggle to get rapid MAA clearance for an upgrade done to US standards.
Where have we heard of this before?
In March, the British MoD said the first flight could take place by mid-May. That date came and went with no sign the updated aircraft, which is modified to US standards, was close to a maiden flight. A spokesman for the MoD said there is no new target date for the first flight ahead of the machine coming out of its four- to five-week maintenance program. The aircraft also still has to receive the required approvals from the UK’s Military Aviation Authority (MAA) and others, he said
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle old bean,
Are you asserting that Albert never did anything prior to the recent bust up on the North West Frontier?
Are you asserting that Albert never did anything prior to the recent bust up on the North West Frontier?
Are you asserting that Albert never did anything prior to the recent bust up on the North West Frontier?
But maybe soon the C-130s will be back to droning back and forth across the pond, ferrying bits to repair each other?
I can't see JATFOR 36-ships coming back though.
Beagle,
As an ex Albert man, I find your argument compelling, yet, having served in a very much earlier time would question your "pond crossing for self support" argument. Maybe I'm just an old bloke, certainly feel it sometimes, but it wasn't the aircraft that got the job done in my day, we all knew its capabilities, it was the crew. I've taken spares to Belize for VC10s, Nellis for Buccaneers/ Tornados and a Tristar in Malaysia. And yes, on many occasions, spares for Albert. But operations like Sarajevo, Khana Cascade etc gave the Hercules fleet its reputation, not to be sullied by modern gizmos aimed at dumming down crew capability. Just my opinion !
Smudge
As an ex Albert man, I find your argument compelling, yet, having served in a very much earlier time would question your "pond crossing for self support" argument. Maybe I'm just an old bloke, certainly feel it sometimes, but it wasn't the aircraft that got the job done in my day, we all knew its capabilities, it was the crew. I've taken spares to Belize for VC10s, Nellis for Buccaneers/ Tornados and a Tristar in Malaysia. And yes, on many occasions, spares for Albert. But operations like Sarajevo, Khana Cascade etc gave the Hercules fleet its reputation, not to be sullied by modern gizmos aimed at dumming down crew capability. Just my opinion !
Smudge
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed Smudge!
Actually, flying Albert, while I never carried spares for Albert (although I did go u/s in Mauritius and Hawaii), I did do an awful lot of rescuing broken VC10s!
Actually, flying Albert, while I never carried spares for Albert (although I did go u/s in Mauritius and Hawaii), I did do an awful lot of rescuing broken VC10s!
Last edited by ExAscoteer; 10th Aug 2013 at 00:48.
