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.

Can we expect yet another extension for the RAF C-130Ks, beyond the latest announced retirement date in October?

Might that be to avoid another Type that's limited to VFR Ops only?

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 :rolleyes:

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!

Oooohhhhhh you'll go straight to hell for that one....:)

Rule 1 for Procurers and Evaluators. Don't trust a single word the manufacturer says.

At least the aircraft will have received a better servicing than it would have at Cambridge.

I don't see why, but if anyone knowledgeable on the subject does post it will be better value than your juvenile comment.

Where have we heard of this before?

Well, by the time the aircraft has come out of its maintenance programme, had the blessing of MAA and been through Boscombe, the UK will have been out of the Great Sandpit for several years, no doubt - and the aircraft will be waiting for something to do...... Along with all those helicopters...:rolleyes:

Beagle old bean,

Are you asserting that Albert never did anything prior to the recent bust up on the North West Frontier?

Not at all! Although at a (then) DTMA brief concerning the STSA, the speaker was asked why so many of his so-called 'intra theatre' tactical transports were being used on 'inter theatre' strategic transport tasks.

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 :ok:

Works for me Mr Smith . . .

Indeed Smudge! :ok:

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!