2port (second name 'and you'll have 10 tail' prehaps)

If I send you a NOS MAT graph and an MOS WAT graph will that help explain things.

RA:bored:

Always Broken ...
- not quite "that bracket", 5000+ hrs over it in fact.

Robo
- well done on understanding the name, did you spend hours working out the surname riposte?
- send away, why not add ROS facts and figures as well.

To you both - any chance of an answer to my 1st point, not disputing the potential but it's obviously quicker to Kabul from Eastern Europe than it is from Oman, and as I said - I don't recall etc etc

2P,
Quite an impresive resume' but how many of those 5000+ hours have been on J model op's........................ none i suspect:p

Pay attention when someone of Robo's calibre speaks and you just might learn something....................but as I can guess which seat you sit in I doubt it :mad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Fabulous. As expected, it descends into another pointless cock waving contest.....

2port,
Are you trying to make a point or are you just trolling? I suspect the latter :rolleyes:

The J was based in Thumrait. The K was based in Thumrait. The J ( back then :rolleyes: ) cruises faster than the K, ergo (and work with me on this) I suspect it got to AFG quicker. Yes, it does now go there from Eastern Europe but that is irrelevant.

When I last operated the K it was into Kabul during the spring about 18 months ago. T/O WAT limits weren't a factor and if required we could get out of Kabul at about 70T (assuming about 10degC on the ground). Under the same conditions the K could make about FL210 on 4 and 11500' on 3. The J could make FL260 on 4 and 17500' on 3. These are all NOS comparisons and merely serve to illustrate the difference in performance between the two aircraft.

I am not trying to be a pedant nor am I particularly interested in a "debate" with someone who can't see the actual facts of the situation.

Yes, you can whittle away the safety factors built into NOS by going onto MOS/ROS and yes under those conditions the K can, I'm sure, cope with increased WAT conditions. Under conditions of war or high threat then, again, yes, operate to MOS and get the job done which the K does and is doing at the moment in places. But on a long term detachment in a relatively benign environment why not have an aircraft that can operate to those levels of performance and at the same time have a large reserve of performance tucked away should it need it?

Give me an engine failure after take off at a high AUM out of Kabul in the middle of summer and I know which aircraft I'd rather be in.

If you're trying to make a point then make it, otherwise give it a rest - at the moment you're just making yourself look like a sad, petty little man which I am sure that as someone of your obvious experience you are not.

SS,
Apologies for "takin' the bait" but I just get annoyed with opinionated, and not very accurate, twerps come in here and raking over old ground.

I hope your post has now cleared any doubts he had and we can get back to some sort of sensible debate in here.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

The difference between a J and a K
 

It is simple. The J does not smell of pi$$.

A Herc is a Herc is a Herc is a ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

2port – Top banter mate - no it actually came to me in a second – a sort of hideous flash back were I say '278 and 55 seconds outbound' and you say 'no no no co-pilot try again' in a despairing and slightly unhelpful sort of way. Sorry you missed my point about the graphs – But if you need an ROS graph I’ll see if I can dig out a dusty, little used, copy of the J’s MAT ROS graph.:bored:

Robo - Not worth the banter mate! 2ports is just another pi$$-ridden old drift-reader who is as ignorant on matters about the J as he is on his geography from Kabul to East Europe / Oman.

Give me a computer any day! (EHE 0.000) :D

Episkopiana,

You seem to ba a tad muddled over the RAF Hercules procurement. The MOD bought the current 25 J's to replace half of the then current 61 aircraft K fleet. The deal was that there was to be no increase or enhancement in capability, merely replacement.
The current surviving K fleet will not be replaced by the J, it will be replaced by the 25 A400M's that the MOD is purchasing.

Stopstart - a far more erudite reply, mostly, than your two colleagues (although I admit that too is an assumption). I cannot deny that my first comment was a slight dig but neither RA or ABIW has yet to give a suitable answer - banter is all very well, and expected, but you'd think they could perhaps write something more intelligent as well.
I imagine that has left me open for some more of the same ....

2port,

There is no point getting silly with trying to prove a K can do more than a J by comparing flight of different distances or launching from different bases. Your just getting silly. You want some facts.
FACT: The aircraft flies faster. This means you can carry more cargo, quicker over the same distance.

Surely your not argueing on this note??

:rolleyes:

If you can't carry the cargo you WANT to over that distance, then that is a severely limiting factor. Flexibility - the key to superior air power after all!

2port

Sorry, but what is the question you are looking for a suitable answer to?


:confused:

pr00ne - you're bang on about the new aircraft not offering an improved capability, according to Hansard earlier this week:

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the (a) highest and (b) lowest monitored mission readiness rates for RAF C-130 aircraft of each type in the past three years.

Mr. Ingram: The required Readiness States for C-130 Force Elements in each of the last three years have been met.

As monitored mission readiness rates is not a term with a precise military definition, I have interpreted this as serviceability rates, figures for which are based on a snapshot of serviceability taken at 8:00 am each day. For the C-130J, these figures start from May 2002, when all aircraft had entered service; for the C-130K, they start from November 2001, as prior to this time a number of aircraft were out of service but awaiting return to Lockheed Martin.

Highest (lowest) serviceability rates:
C-130J: 69% (46%)
C-130K: 76% (37%)

Isn't it wonderful what technology can do for availability!

46% as a lowest serviceabilty rate with for the C130J??
Last week??
Given our ongoing engine problems I suspect that is a typo; 4.6% might be more accurate :rolleyes:

One can prove many things with statistics but those show that each type is basically as serviceable as the other (56.5% vs 57.5%) - the J being a new aircraft with the associated problems of being such and the K being a 30 year old aircraft with the problems likewise. Out of interest, anyone know what the daily serviceability targets are for the engineering lines?

As for increased capability, I stand by my earlier comments that the improved performance of the C130J does offer an increase in capability over that offered by the C130K, like for like.

2port

Sorry mate you can’t really expect not to get banter when you phrase your questions in the way you did in your first post. Actually there was an answer to your question in my first post since the Js hot n high performance and hence its MAT limits were quite useful in Afghanistan, particularly taking loads out of theatre. Sorry if it wasn’t sufficiently clear.

RA:rolleyes:

Stopstart

My 1st post, although tongue in cheek and nothing to do with this thread, was that I didn't actually recall the J working out of Thumrait - or at least certainly nowhere near as much as the K. It was purely in reply to Mr Epi's comment about "higher further faster". But have now lost interest as don't wish to descend into slanging match, and so shall leave the thread to the original engine question ...

2port

Ah, I see.
The Js were based in Thumrait for some time although I'm not sure how long. There was certainly a detachment there, hence the comparison with the Ks.

StopStart - still come back to my last point - it matters not how much quicker it gets down the route etc. If you have limits on what you carry, then that is a major restriction. Therefore, better to have something with less restrictions that moves a little slower. Sorry to keep banging on about the stuff in the back, but sometimes there is more than Webers, lawnmowers and fuel to be moved.

Mr C

I'm sure there are some loads that the J can't carry that the K can. I think I'm right in saying there are some wheeled loads we're restricted on by the fitted dash 4 kit and that the oxygen modules in the roof incur some height limitations. Also, the Mk5 can be odd when trying to seat pax or on pax only moves with no other freight to trim it with. Ultimately though our bread and butter loads, pallets of rubber dog sh*t and air experience Land Rovers, are a problem for the neither of the aircraft. If the J has the performance to get more people or rubber dog do into or out of a location then surely that must be an improvement?

Arguing the corners of the performance envelope - be it the MOS performance of the K or the the J's inability to carry a Deltic ship engine (or whatever) reveals little other than that perhaps the two aircraft types can complement each other in certain situations - hence a 50/50 fleet?

PS.
I'm well aware that the Herc is there to move stuff around hence the comments in my initial post about some of the design and planning failings regarding the back end of the J. Please don't try and paint me as bloody minded aircrew who couldn't give a toss about the backend of our aircraft. Pretty much everybody at Lyneham is ultimately just a small cog in a big wheel in an even bigger machine the sole purpose of which is to move rubber dog sh*t and air experience landrovers round the world - no matter how loud they shout or how big their combat smock is :rolleyes:
I'm not interested in an inter-trade bunfight thanks.