Future of C130Ks
 

:mad:

Just to clear a few things up guys - I am a returning PPRuNer with fingers in many pies :mad: My contacts tell me that only C130Ks are allowed into Iraq at the moment because the rest of the AT fleet (including the wonderful C130J) don't have a good enough DAS. Aren't these systems the same ones everyone was using over Afghanistan? Oops!:oh:

Heard that many Ks have overflown expected fatigue extensions and have problems with centre spar box sections which will result in them being retired unless rewinged.

Still best rumour is the upgrade of C130Ks with super H flight decks and an extension of service until 2020! (and the 30 year old role equipment still works for every sortie)

funny i'm sitting looking at a pic of a C130J I took at Basrah international airport.

When was the picture taken?

not so sure that discussion on which aircraft are flying to which destination with what equipment fit is entirely suitable for these pages. im sure people are interested for genuine reasons but there are those out there who are not, and we dont want to give them any more information than is already available. sound fair?

Juliet - Perhaps just a little paranoid? I am all forsecurity but surely any self respecting opposition is going to rely on first hand sight and sound and not what he/she may read here?

juliet

Here here

workinghard - not paranoid at all, i just happen to like my ten toes and ten fingers all being attached to my person! the less operational info made available to those without a need to know the better. anyway, who said the opposition was self respecting when it came to getting info.

Roland Pitch has made a couple of posts since he (re?)joined Pprune - yesterday.

Namely

This thread as post one

A post here looking for a bite

and now this thread as post three.

He may be a returning Ppruner, but his 'contacts' don't even know what the telly broadcasts and if his fingers are in any pies they aren't ones to do with the RAF.

It sounds far more likely that he's just after information he has no access to otherwise (media, commercial, bad guy, you guess). Whatever the reason, this just doesn't smell right.

Juliet, I agree.

Juliet is right, I can't see any constructive reason for posting operational information that can be viewed by anyone - even if the info is available thru other means.

However ROLAND appears to be an irksome little troublemaker who posts start with ''My friend told me... or I heard that...''. Don't rise to his bait. All his gen on C130s, both K and J has been utter drivel so far.

There are obvious reasons for not talking about certain types of equipment fit (DAS, etc.) especially in conjunction with operations in particular theatres.

BUT

The apparent unsuitability of the 'short' C-130J (C5) for its originally stated purpose is politically rather than militarily sensitive, as would be questions as to the ability of the remaining C-130Ks to reach their OSD. If the C-130K won't last until the A400M (sorry....) reaches the frontline then there has been a procurement f*ck up, and keeping quiet about it can only protect the guilty!

Asking questions about an upgrade of the remaining Ks is similarly 'harmless' but may be interesting for the light it might shed on expectations as to the ISD of the A400M.

Similarly, asking questions about the suitability of stretched C3s to operate from short strips, and about the availability (and remaining FI) of C1s would probably be aimed at uncovering questions of competence among the IPT and desk officers, rather than at uncovering information which might be legitimately sensitive.

At the moment I can't really imagine a J looking at home anywhere but at Lyneham with them big holes in its wings!! Let alone actually being flown anywhere!:ok:

The question being asked by RP is specifically which aircraft can go where, and what capabilities will be lost if one type is sold early or another retired early. That information is more than I would like to define here.

As to political or commercial sensitivity, I'll worry about that bit if I ever get a real job!


W3
Nice constructive post. :rolleyes:

I can see good military reasons why one shouldn't necessarily detail "specifically which aircraft can go where" though there may be pressing reasons why the taxpayer should know that, if limitations are the result of poor procurement.

As to which "capabilities will be lost if one type is sold early or another retired early" then witholding the information can only make it easier for politicians to take easy and expedient courses of action, secure in the knowledge that the implications of those actions will not be picked up by the electorate or the opposition.

Fellers....a very nice Boeing 747 flew into Baghdad over Christmas...and all sorts of aircraft are operating into Iraq with the Stars and Bars on them....your piddily little fleet of aircraft are not going to make that big a difference in the tactics used by the Oppo's. With all the cuts in yer budget...the argument should really be along the lines of if you will have an air force at all. You have got warehouses full of Apaches but have only begun lately to train crews...the management of your forces needs some improvement and that would be more an issue than which mark of Herc goes where.:{

I know there was a few problems with the J on the para dropping side has any resolution of thease been reached?

What is the status of the C130J fleet how poor is it?

I was actually half way through a scathing reply to SASLess last post, but deleted it because I couldn't be bothered to reply to a post that contributed nothing to the debate.

I agree with the latest posts that it is better if movements/types/capabilities are not discussed, more especially if it concerns recent or on-going ops. Intelligence gathering is all about collecting individual pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle for which you don't have a picture to help you finish it. A lot of pieces are not much good in themselves, but eventually you'll manage to fit one to another and another, gradually building up to completion.

And when you have the full picture, you are better placed to inflict damage on your enemy. And if that enemy happens to be us, clearly we must do everything in our power to stop the other side getting hold of individual pieces of OUR puzzle.

It's our men and women who will die - I would not like that on my conscience.

So please let's be very careful what we post with regard to types, capabilities and movements, and that includes confirming rumours.

Indeed, FJJP!

Which is why a certain thread has recenty disappeared - and if that idiot keeps giving away information about certain V-force activities, the 'Vulcan' thread will also disappear. Which would be a pity.

This site is supposed to be self-moderating; regrettably, some people don't appear to have any idea about 'need to know'.

Journos never 'need' to know - they might 'like to know' as it helps them sell their chipwrappers. But they do NOT 'need' to know......

Have a good day!

Im in two minds about this. Overly oppressive secrecy leads to a mistaken belief that no one else knows what we have which is usually not the case. This is a self defeating concept. Given the nature of the american defense industry with its open disclosure of what equipment is sold and to whom (mandated by congress) it wouldnt be difficult to just go looking through past releases of defense sales information to find the C130j buy were it would list all the equipment sold to us. OTOH there's no reason why people shouldnt be careful.

PS Sasless Apaches are mission obsolete anyway we should never of bought them.

Don't think this thread would've lasted long pre-6/6/44; nor would one or two of its posters ---------

All too often, secrecy is used to cover up policy and procurement cock-ups. The public, whose taxes are being used to pay for such cock-ups do have a right to know how their money is being spent, and more particularly have a legitimate interest in whether their money is being spent wisely. Moreover, in the long run, it is in the interests of the services to be as transparent as is possible (within the obvious constraints imposed by security relating to ongoing operations) if they are to maintain public support and goodwill.

There is a culture of secrecy which is profoundly unhelpful to the best interests of the forces. The question should not be "what is the absolute minimum that we can reveal to the press/public" but "what NEEDS to be kept secret for military purposes". Preventing the embarrassment of politicians, civil servants or senior officers is not a good reason for secrecy, and indeed helps in the perpetuation of many of the problems which now bedevil the forces. Half the reason that BAE can get away with fkn up in spades on (say) MRA4 is that so many previous disasters (Foxhunter, for example) were swept under the carpet.

I'm not sure which 'vanished thread' you're referring to, BEags, but would say that anything relating to the V-Force (which vanished 22 years ago) or indeed to the nuclear deterrent (already a memory) ought to be something that could (and even should) be talked about. It's simply not necessary to keep the Bouncing Bomb secret into the 1960s, as we did, and nor is it necessary now to have a screaming fit if someone talks about how, when and why we might have used WE177 (say). It's about as relevant as good archery tactics...........

And what would or would not have happened before D-Day is not relevant today. Society has changed, and whether you like it or not, the public demands greater accountability from those who claim to act in its name - whether they be Politicians, Civil Servants, or members of the armed forces. Public consent to be kept in the dark no longer exists, and the public no longer believes that politicians and generals 'know best' nor does it trust them to act without self interest.

Today, unfortunately, the attitude is that "if you want my money for new toys, pay reviews, etc. then you're going to have to tell me what my money's being spent on, you're going to have to prove that it's being spent wisely and I'm going to need convincing that it's not going on equipment programmes whose costs spiral out of control, or which isn't fit for purpose when it arrives, or that equipment that I have bought and paid for isn't being jettisoned prematurely." And you're going to have to live with that, just as the public will have to live with not knowing details about tactics, parametrics of particular weapons systems, etc.

ER

Didn,t our beloved Pres B.LIAR storm into Basra in a "Long J" (C4) last Christmas, I recall loads of footage of it on SKY

Must mean that the J is a cracking VIP platform then.

Jackonicho, you do make a number of very valid points, worth commenting on in turn.

I'm with you 100% on procurement cock-ups. Indeed I have been at the receiving end of a number of them, usually finance-induced - 'chop this off the specification to save a bit of money' syndrome, which usually means that the bit of kit will perform way below what is NEEDED and will cost much more than the original costings to rectify. The infuriating thing about this is that those individuals that make the decisions to chop are NEVER HELD TO ACCOUNT. It all gets swept under the carpet - promotion, medals and home for tea. Sod the man in the field who doesn't have the kit to do the job.

I agree that political expediency is often the cause of secrecy - maybe if the politicians had the guts to name names and actually become honest for a nanosecond in their miserable lives and admit to having got it wrong, then maybe the public would have more faith in those making decisions on our behalf, not to mention spending vast sums of our money in the process. The latest screw-up is in its infancy right now - I refer you to the impending c*ck-up in computerising the NHS. Another project that is beyond the capability of contractors in this country (witness the IT blunders of recent years with billions poured down the drain for no return). We need people like BWoS to be held totally to account, as is beginning to happen now - but with them, so should those faceless wonders who screw up procurement.

Nuclear affairs should never be discussed IMHO. It is bad enough that rogue governments and terror groups can lay their hands on seriously nasty weapons, but the thought of Bin Laden laying his hands on even the crudest and most simple of nuclear weapons just doesn't bear thinking about. 9/11 would seem a picnic compared with what some terror groups would do if able. Those of us who held special clearances to work on and with nuclear weapons are uncomfortable discussing the subject, if for no other reason than we were indoctrinated into the need for secrecy, to prevent detail falling into the enemy (Eastern Bloc) hands. Now for Easter Bloc, read Terrorist/rogue governments. Besides, nuclear deterrence is still around - the fact that such weapons exist is all that anybody needs to know; the detail is irrelevant.

I agree that the concept that politicians and generals 'know best' is outdated, and rightly so. They must be held to account for their reasons for a particular course of action. Within reason. A witch-hunt in the media trying to create max embarrassment for the PM or even trying to drive him out of office is counter productive and frankly tedious to watch. Media think that the public have an insatiable appetite for scandal and falling politicians. Well, forget the opinion polls, conducted with carefully chosen groups of people; the average conversation, certainly in my pub, indicates that few bother to watch the news or read the papers these days because of this factor. If the balance is right, the public will follow the debates with interest, and make informed choices at the ballot box.

You are right in your assertion that the public will demand to know why vast sums are being spent on 'boys toys'. So do I. When it is explained to them that a radio for the guys in the field costs x squillion pounds, but the money will guarantee to provide them with a device that will work in ALL conditions, and that it is essential in the modern battlefield and that it will save lives and help towards the ultimate victory, then they will be happy with that. But it is not helpful if that debate starts to make public shortfalls in performance that the manufacturer and users are trying to fix or work round. However it was caused, be it money, bad procurement, poor manufacturing or what, it is not good for the man at the sharp end to have the enemy know of your weaknesses. Wars are won and lost on one side finding out and exploiting the weaknesses of the other. The Israelis were good at that...

Secrecy and transparency both have their place in the modern world. Getting the balance right is a trick called common sense. If disclosing something could bodily harm others, them perhaps it is best left unsaid.

[Edited for spelling]

Jacko,

You wrote:

".....anything relating to the V-Force (which vanished 22 years ago) or indeed to the nuclear deterrent (already a memory) ought to be something that could (and even should) be talked about."

In a word....BOLLOCKS!

When it comes to stating any weakness or shortfall in kit that is still in use, the 'public' does not have a 'right' to know. To state the obvious, if a weakness is public knowledge it's also known by the bloke that wants to exploit it.

There should and must be accountability, but that is for Parliamentary Defence Committee and the NAO, not so John Smith the Sun reader can tell Jonny Foreigner the Weapon Wielding Madman the best way to take out our faulty equipment and vulnerable troops.

I have to agree with Jacko to an extent, Stuff that is long past its sell-by date should be in the public domain. And I don't suppose for a minute that he was suggesting free access to current tactical details. But Hell, there's information still being withheld dating back to WW1 - are we worried someone might steal our operating plans for the Vickers Gunbus? I would suggest, IMO, that a lot of the time only reason files remain closed is to protect the guilty

And for those of you who favour the 'secret is secret forever' approach, just wait till the Freedom Of Information act kicks in next year (and elements of it are in now) Then to onus will be on the government department to prove they need to withhold the information

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm

The historians are going to have a field-day!

Operation Musketeer anyone?

Regards

-Nick

(Not the bloke from Shawbury.......)

p.s. BEags, it's 'need to share' now, 'not need to know'.......

bluetail ....

Is that the "Long J" operated by 99 Sqn. I always thought it was called a C-17 but then my aircraft recognition was never very good

I note that engines 1 & 2 have four of those paddle things missing. Have the locals nicked them for their canoes ?

very few canoes out there. the blades were most likely removed for maintenance. the J has the ability to automatically balance each prop as well as to adjust power output on each side so that it is quite capable of flying with a reduced number of blades.

Now that sort of capability really ought to be kept a secret :cool:

The blades are all there.

:rolleyes:

spoil sport :p

Gosh! What a staggering revelation!

Juliet - it was a double double counter-bluff to cover your having given away our secret blade shedding capability.

FJJP - quite.

My team of highly trained espionage operatives have tracked down the missing blades. They were removed from the C130J and packed off to a secret airbase in Afghanistan.



http://www.russians.bird.ch/An70/AN70ADB.jpg

now that must explain all the holes in the j's at home, theres about 8 props worth on that thing alone:D

Military secrets, keep the public in the dark, matters not that info. is available from other legitimate sources, etc etc. How many here are Greek magistrates in disguise? Be reasonable and not paranoid and those items that actually are secret keep them that way. Just a blanket stop on all info. will not work in the 21st century.

In the picture above, note the radar mounting in between the main spar and the fin. The aerodynamic properties of this mounting are intriguing. Dammed clever fellows, these Afghan's. I wonder if the Pakistani's helped them out?

Its probably best not to answer the original question directly, but hasten to say ALL types and ALL of our folks are working hard and still out there doing their best in trying circumstances.
Now Jacko has it about right when procurement/political expediency and good old freedom of speech are brought to the fore.
Beags misses the original point by harping on about dark age wonder jets then biting at anyone sticking his/her head up.
The RAF AT long term plot like the whole of Brit Mil Plc is in a curious state of flux and the biggest influence is political (allied to £££ +votes) Now were in the aforementioned places for mostly political reasons. The future of C130k/j and A400 and super nimrod and super fighter and super tanker and super tank and super gun and super boat and super (but much slimmer) UK Mil are all in the melting pot.
Its going to be an interesting time for us all, journalists and politicians included:confused:

We've seen it often enough on this webswite - someone posts that are obviously sniffing around for a bite. If someone makes a statement, however outrageous, and it is ignored, then they will go away and the thread is of no value. But if someone's comment attracts comment that seems to be valid, it may confirm that the contention might be true.

Let me give you an idea of what I mean. Let us say I post the question 'is it true that the Vickers Funbus Mk 55 middle engine vibrates so badly that the whole fin feels as though it is shaking itself to pieces?' Beagle, who has established himself as one of authority in these forums, posts - 'Yeah, when flying at warp factor .95, feels like the whole machine is coming apart, so we're limited to warp factor .7'.

So now the other side knows that the Vickers Gunbus has an airframe limit of .7, and therefore knows that their Miskinov Hero Mk 382, which has a top speed of warp factor .74 can now be used to catch and shoot down our Vickers Gunbus Mk 55.

Ok, so it might be a daft analogy [apologies Beags for taking thy name in vain] but you get the drift. Better to zip shut than give away one tiny piece of info, no matter how inoccuous...

Would never say "Yeah". Far too Amuuuurican.

Rest's about right though.

Here's another defence secret - the horrible, worthless piece of $hit known as the Jetscream T Mk 1 is actually nicer on 1 engine than on 2. Because the performance is just as poor but it only makes half the noise!