Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

C130J just a strat aircraft?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
View Poll Results: Is the C130J a Strat only aircraft
Strat only aircraft
7
7.95%
Should be used for both Strat and Tac
40
45.45%
Should be tac only as other aircraft are better for Strat
19
21.59%
Who cares, it\'s just one big computer game with motion!
22
25.00%
Voters: 88. This poll is closed

C130J just a strat aircraft?

Old 29th Jun 2002, 08:18
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question C130J just a strat aircraft?

A certain senior officer in recent times made the comment:

"The C130J is just a strat aircraft and therefore needs no self protect / ASE" ... or words to that effect..

Comments? Votes?
Pass-A-Frozo is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2002, 20:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not that it history repeating itself but I recall being told by a V Sen Off that Tankers will never need to night prod, do not need good nav kit because they will never operate outside the North Sea environment, don't need NVG compatable lighting, don't need selcal, need I go on. Will the 130J only be Strat?, will the Pope marry?.
Art Field is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 07:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Might as well be a Strat aircraft; the only people with any balls operating them are the SF flt. Anyone not convinced of this explain to me why RAF C-130s and C-17s are so scared of flying into certain airfields in Afghan regularly used by their US counterparts? Even Russian civvy contractors will happily go where our brave boys in blue dare not tread!
Devildawg is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 08:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the rumours from Lyneham are true, then its not even a strat ac and another leap backwards for the RAF!

Sure, it has teething problems but it can't go as far, carry as much, as far as the K - primarily as the J is heavier, has a lower MTOW, no external tanks and a shorter crew duty day (oh but think of the money it saves by having no engineer and nav)!

Furthermore, its arrival in AFG/PAK theatre was widely heralded only for it to break down on national TV! However, I gather this very common because of sand clogging its new engines. They fly about one sortie a night (compared to 4-5 done by the K Model) and have to be baled out by the K based elsewhere in theatre helping out with the tasking. I'm sure the crews are working hard flying their thoroughbred pilots'-play-thing but a friend of mine based in theatre says the K was a much better workhorse - crews were better drinkers too!

As for the Tac side - foget it! 2 pilots (one permently heads down) at low level just doesn't work and is just dangerous no matter how good the software is. The workload trials have been delayed, AAR is a way off and dropping trials are on hold! Even tho' it is only a pipe-dream at the moment, the A400M is earmarked as the next Tac/SF ac so the J will stay strat, as will the C17 - mainly cos 2 gp Staff Officers don't understand tac. Now as far as AAR is concerned - that is the way ahead - where the J might actually have a role a la the USMC helo-refuellers.

As for the slur that the crews don't have any balls - that is @rse! RAF C130s have been operating into AFG/PAK in unprotected ac since before Christmas, this despite pleas to buy it. USAF and SF (and now the J) ac are as fully protected as you can get. Furthermore, if the USAF DAS breaks, they don't go. Whereas the RAF K herc crews have soldiered on incredibly bravely whilst being shot at and having several near misses with SAM and AAA. Also, Airliners look like airliners and as such are not as good a target as mil ac. Whereas RAF Hercs look just like USAF gunships! Guess which one Osamas cronies target!? If you fancy flying an unprotected ac into a high threat environment, ask the Tristar boys who've done the same - but only once until they realised the dangers - also brave chaps. So sod orf DD!
Mike RO'Channel is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 14:58
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thought the "J" was supposed to be "More, further, faster, cheaper." At least that was what all the ads from Mr Lockheed said.

So, how much are we getting back in compensation then?
Sam Vimes is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 18:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah and we all believed them - bugg...r!
Mike RO'Channel is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 20:14
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

So who is this well informed Senior Officer, RAF or RAAF?
RoboAlbert is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2002, 20:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry, just to clarify I was using an oxymoron in my last post.
RoboAlbert is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 03:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah yes! Here we go again!
It's very interesting to witness discussions on the C-130J. I'll try & pitch my reply to those who may have:
A. never flown a C-130J or
B. never flown a C-130 in the tactical role, or
C. both of the above.
Just for the record, I fortuitously fall into none of the above categories, having done well over half my military flying time of 4000 odd transport hours in the tactical role on aircraft (including the C130E/H) with & without flight engineers/navs.

The senior officer to whom you refer, who stated that 'the C130J is just a strat aircraft & needs no self protection' is what I would call...............let me think about this...............an idiot. Yes I know you're as surprised as I am that such a senior officer could exist, but it's true.

The C130J MTOW is nominally 155,000 pounds, which is precisely the same as any other Herc I've ever flown. It also has exactly the same overload capacity as any other Herc I've ever flown, so I'm not sure where Mike RO'Channel's theory originates. Maybe I've been reading the limits wrong for all those years. I can't speak for the stubby J, but the stretched version does indeed suffer a weight penalty. Funnily enough it's mostly due to all that extra fuselage they plugged into it (damn, I thought they were going to make it out of paper mache but they made it out of metal, silly fools). It doesn't really fall into my definition of 'significant'. The range issue is more complex than meets the eye, and very much depends on what you are doing with it. Sure, it has no external tanks (although these can always be fitted as it has all the necessary plumbing, software, etc), which makes its total fuel capacity significantly less than older hercs. But it can climb higher to start with and enjoy the benefits of reduced fuel flow earlier. It also travels quite a bit faster, thus providing more beer drinking time at the other end - the greatest benefit one could bestow on any transport aircraft in my opinion. In some circumstances it may have less range than an H or E due to the lack of external tanks, but whichever way you look at it, it depends on that ancient trash-hauling balancing act between payload, fuel, mission requirements, etc. It is certainly not always a limiting problem, especially if we're talking about a tactical role.

Interesting statement that two pilots at low level just doesn't work. I guess Lockheed must be working on a Joint Strike Fighter with a Nav and a Flight Engineer, and perhaps my time flying two pilot fixed-wing tactical transport missions at low level was a figment of my imagination (not to mention all the chopper pilots out there you've just insulted).

Seriously though, while the J has had its fair share of teething problems (show me a glass cockpit aeroplane which hasn't and I will hand-stand naked on top of the statue of liberty), I can see little or no impediment, apart from people afraid of losing their jobs or who have very limited experience flying different types of aircraft, to flying the C130J on low level tactical transport ops. When it inevitably does, it would be foolish not to equip it with self protection, especially as it already has the built-in capacity for a very capable system.

The RAAF probably won't do it however, as the concepts of:
a. built-in capacity
b. highly capable systems
c. easy retro-fitting
are all beyond the understanding of those in charge of policy and materiel acquisition.

Last edited by DutchRoll; 1st Jul 2002 at 05:18.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 07:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sorry i inferrred that 2 pilots in any ac at LL wouldn't work - I apologise to to single seat/helo chaps but 2 pilots in a Herc won't work. For the following reasons
It is quite a fast ac and can maintain a good and constant 250-150 ft msd (thats why FJ normally whizz over the top without seeing us ) but the ac is quite cumbersome, especially at heavy weights, and is relatively diificult to trim. Therefore, the P1 spends most of his time just flying the ac! The P2 will spend a majority of his time heads down (map reading (K) or button pressing (J)) - neither looking out properly . From my time at LL, it is a well accepted fact that the Air Eng is the one who always spots the wires, masts, other ac etc. Add to that comao, DZ, comms, EW threats and counters and leading a formattion etc. The J guys always tell me how busy they are in the route phase so goodness knows so busy they will be at LL despite any software. Nope, sorry I can't see it working.

As for weight, payload, speed distance problems - I can only base this on present performance. The truth is, at the moment, in the present theatre on present leg times/routes etc, the end customer (Loggies) gets a better service from the K model - FACT! The 155, 000 is the limit for the J but for non SF Ks it is 160,000 lbs - FACT.
Also, Herc K CDT - 16 hrs, J - 14 hrs roughly a 25 pc reduction but the J is only 10 pc faster - work it out!)


However, bringing stuff out of AFG will be slightly safer as the J will be better able to climb over the mountains, esp in the prsent temps

I have no particular axe to grind and i have friends on both fleets - I just get the impression that both sets of crews have rose tinted spectacles. On balance however, as an impartial observer, I think the J is white elephant and crews are trying to run before they can walk. I just hope they don't push too far.
Mike RO'Channel is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 08:02
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devilmongrel. (Ahem.) C17s and C130s scared eh? Well ****** me, all those night approaches on NVGs must have been a drunken dream. Both types have been flying their bits off supporting the op. How come you didnt notice? Been asleep at night have we?
The Brown Bottle is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 09:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I simply disagree on the two pilot thing, MikeRO.

The workload is not high in the route phase. It puzzles me that the RAF guys would say this and I can only assume that it is something to do with the way they are operating. The workload is only as high as you make it (I'm sure I could make myself work flat-out doing relatively pointless, semi-useful, or anally retentive stuff during a 2 or 6 hour route flight if I wanted to).

As far as TAC workload goes, it certainly can get busy, and this is no secret. Software improvements have significantly helped (Lockheed Martin has taken quite a few left jabs to the chin over this, and have responded slowly, although like many big aerospace contractors, they've practically had to have the feedback kicked into them). As far as the DZ, comms, defensive systems, etc, etc, go, there is no doubt that one pilot will be head down most of the time, and that he will be quite busy. But the aeroplane is very easy to fly on the HUD, and the S/A from this and the head down displays (map included) is twenty times what you get in an E or H or any other model for that matter.

The big problem with the J that I see and have experienced, is trying to operate it like it is an E or H or K or whatever. If your organisation tries to do this, they will unfortunately encounter a lot of trauma. It basically flies the same, but requires a fairly fundamental change in operating philosophy (to put it simply, you have to cut out the crap.....which is a very refreshing feeling I can tell you) - something which doesn't come easy when your organisation has been flying Hercs for decades.

Let's not kid ourselves - the concept of a fast, low flying aeroplane being flown by one pilot with only one other cockpit crew member doing everything else is not a new one and is common to this day. But to apply it to the C-130J is going to take a bit more forward thinking (a rare phenomenon in the military) and a bit of help from the manufacturer in the way of systems design, etc.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 17:29
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chaps, you're all way off the mark. The workload of a C130-J crew during a tactical mission is less than that of a K. Either take my word for it or read the reports from the tactical workload trials, which were successfully completed last year.
unclebuckhead is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2002, 21:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Unclebuckhead has it spot on - MikeRO you are barking up the wrong tree. The strat workload on the J is also MUCH lower than the K and I haven't heard any J guys say otherwise.

As for payloads in theatre, check out the hot/high performance of the J compared with the K and then tell me which can carry more freight.

You are also wrong about the J crew duty day.
Arty is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 00:49
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thankyou Arty & unclebuckhead! I thought I was going to get no backup there for a while!

unclebuckhead............hmmm.............that pseudonym brings back memories..............and some memory blackouts!
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 04:48
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder if MikeRo is one of those whose lively hood is being threatened by this techno advance? More importantly where does he get all his mis-info from.

If a Percy or a Wokka can flash around at 50' and 140kts with only a very basic gps and a competant rhs guy with a 1/4 mil as it's sole nav aids please explain why a J with state of the art avionics, HUD, moving map display etc can't manage it at 250' As regards lookout it would appear that us "trolly dolly's" are going to have a much more involved role "up front" which is great news for us and as we cost much less than the two other sources of white noise on the K HMG will no doubt be happy as well.

Yes it can't use all it's seats because of vibration however I can only think of a couple of occasions during my one K tour when we even got close to a full seat fit so this is a bit of a red herring as well.

We flew back last night/this morning from kebab land in 6hrs 50, 20 tons of fuel at 24-28k and during this time discussed just about every subject you can imagine. The suggestion that pilots spend their entire time time fevereshly pushing buttond is c..p. Guys new to the a/c do find themselves stuck in the "green tunnel" for long periods of time however soon discover the wonders of the black magic box and end up almost as bored as your average classic crew as the workload is not that high.

Sorry MRO but your wrong. The beast is extremly capable and you will not find anyone currently operating it, bearing in mind we are all ex K operators, who will tell you any differant. Yes it has it's problems as do all a/c, we left a "k" today issuing F34 onto the dispersal quicker than the bowser could pump so the assertion that the classic is somehow more reliable is tosh.

anyway after being up for almost 24 hours it's time for bed said..........what was his name?

any spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced.
Always_broken_in_wilts is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 06:30
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am only repeating what J guys and others tell me! Tho', perhaps you are right - like the rest of the AT world, they have turned flying in a straight line into an art form!
As for the Tac workload trials - correct me if I'm wrong, but these were carried out by very experienced ex SF/Tac AT pilots on the JOEU, as a singleton, in China Lake or somewhere equally blessed with glorious sunshine, with no other ac to speak of and few obstructions and sharply defined big valleys.
Please try to imagine less able crews in the UK clag, leading a 4/6 ship amongst the shark-infested custard of the UKLFS while trying to run a Comao secenario with FRA/threats to contend with Spade. Oh, and don't forget to call X Approach for deconfliction - "oops watch out for the pylons, yikes was that a microlight or a c152 (obviously not squawking) - oh ******, fogot to call the DZ - dummy run"! When the JOEU can clear the scenario above, I might feel happier that my pals might just get from LFA 14 to LFA 2 without killing themselves. As it is they can't drop anything worthwhile yet anyway but the clearances should come in the next 10 yrs!

Sorry, its just not on for a long while yet. It doesn't mean it won't happen but IMHO there needs to be a third pilot/AEOp/WSO in the cockpit for such tasks - all Euro countries want such a bod in A400M - why do we think we are so smart when our trg system is so **** (a different thread, methinks)?
Is it a coincidence that half the crews crashed themselves in the sim while working up for Afghanistan - route flying with a steep approach at the end and nothing very complicated!?
Mike RO'Channel is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 08:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: location location
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Bit arrogant aren't you Mikero? "If I'm not on board how on earth can 'they' be expected to cope??!!??!"

As for your top gen on clearances, workload trial results etc etc, you haven't been talking that much to your mates on the J!

By the way, 16hrs to 14hrs is a 12.5% reduction not 25%, and the aircraft flies about 11% faster. Do your sums again. As for range vs the classic, how about Canada flag Hannover for UK with the ability for round trip fuel, with a full load but without your precious external drag makers?

As for route flying being difficult.............

(And I'd just like to make clear that the reason I didn't crash the sim was because I wasn't trying hard enough )
propulike is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 16:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mike RO, just a few questions regarding you last post because I think you may have been badly briefed!

1. Why do you think that the workload trials were held in China Lake?
2. Why do you think that the missions were singletons?
3. Why do you think that there were no threats?
4. Why do you think there were no masts/birds/other traffic?
5. Why do you think that the weather was not a factor?
6. Why do you think that full operational comms were not used?

Also, apart from threats, TOT (time on target) changes, DZ changes, run in to DZ changes and refrags to include SAR the crews were given technical malfunctions that would disable flight deck displays. All TOT’s were accomplished within 10 seconds apart from one which was 12s. But this is the best bit, it was accomplished easily with, you've guessed it, just 2 pilots.
unclebuckhead is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 18:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It appears (maybe) that I have been poorly briefed but am only repeating what i have heard from Lyneham J and K - I will recheck my source(s) tho'. If, however, the ac is so clever, why is it not training crews in Tac AT skills then?
ABIW - if you are up on the flt deck, who's looking after the trunk space behind 245 crammed with 80 odd troops from p-40?
As I have said, I am genuinely intrested as I have many pals on the ac and am only concerned that things are being overlooked or rushed as is often thecase with new ac whose snr offs are politically motivated. My apologies for caring!
Mike RO'Channel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.