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?

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?.

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!

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!

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?

Yeah and we all believed them - bugg...r!

So who is this well informed Senior Officer, RAF or RAAF?

Sorry, just to clarify I was using an oxymoron in my last post.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

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!?

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 ;) )

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.

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

I have flown many 1000s of hours on the old K, most in the TAC AT role, and more recently accrued nearly a 1000 in the J. Most of the misinformed comments about the J seem to come from the BZN Antiques Roadshow mates so I have not bothered to reply.

I dont think you can be serious, the K difficult to fly and trim at low level? Its a babe. I have been fortunate to fly the J in its early stages of TAC AT development, and believe me it is even better. One example being its better rate of climb during weather penetrations. As for the workload issue, the pilot non flying spends little time heads in, trained crews can quickly manipulate the kit if required, and re-routes are more quickly sorted. The workload for both pilots is much less than on a K. Furthermore, the ac is showing excellent NVG potential. However, it is acknowledged that for a small number of mission profiles, such as SF high level of difficulty, then a 3rd pilot may be carried.

As for the MTOW issue, the J is limited to a max normal of 155 000lbs, as are all other C130s except the K. The 160 000 lbs clearance for normal ops was never endorsed by Lockheed. However, there is work being done to clear the J to a normal MTOW of 167 000lbs.

I have also trained many pilots on the J and I have yet to find one that would return to the K. Take a ride in one and see.

C130J
 

I think its just the new model pickfords van with fancy new engines

I flew in a J the other day and I have been converted, I was v. impressed, it's just a shame no one bothered to spend any time thinking about aft of 245. After all it is a cargo ac.

Whatever the J's short commings are at the moment they will have to be sorted out as too much money has been put into it already and the k is starting to knock on.

The one thing I really liked about the J is that it's not started, it's booted up... fantastic. :confused

As for Devildawg comments about our lack of balls all I can say is that he is a complete and utter - begins with W and sounds like anker.:mad::

Bassett
Thank you for such a candid reply - I can just about feel the weight of your sincerity!

As I said, over the past years I have heard all kinds of talk in the bars from Brize and Lyn to Akronelli and beyond. My feeling is that for a lot of the time J guys talk the a/c up while the K crews talk it down (to be expected). Almost everyone on the J has always sung its praises (also expected) but 'in their cups' some have expressed reservations about the 2 - person flt deck, especially at LL and that sets my alarm bells ringing.

If you are someone with some influence, I hope that you have noticed it too and are in a position to check some people's apparent mad rush - more haste less speed and get the Tac training right first time with the right people.
I am a cautious old soul who believes the adage of 'old/bold etc' and I may now be an old-ish fart, but experience counts for a lot - i guess thats why we have spec aircrew (not this PA-bollox).

If it means anything, I think the J is potentially brilliant but it is not yet the b-all and end-all with lots of work to. Not least, the tactical awareness of J crews is below that of the K crews (47 mainly). However, the J is not alone in this and I could level this at every AT/AAR ac type - it takes a long time to do that on any ac and 2 Gp have so many 'route-queens' - the K included!

Also, and unfortunately, the J is still a Herc airframe and when operating at MTOW - it only carries as much as a K, albeit off a shorter runway!
(167,000 lbs would be something but having seen the ******ed K airframes post Gulf and also after the latest 'war', I think you would do well to stay clear of that part of the envelope!)

I also wish people (esp snr bods) would be honest and stand up and be counted - we seem to have bred a generation of bullsh.tters, so no-one is sure what the problems really are!

The big question is - can the J get it right before the next generation of Tac Airlifter comes along with all the clearances already in place for its ISD in 2008 (allegedly)?

God speed but please don't run before you can walk - Be careful out there in AFG/PAK.

Fascinating thread boys, but is the 'J' really a 2 person flight deck or is it a 3 man crew with the ALM having a greater role?

My point exactly! The ALM should be looking after the trunk space - esp if carrying pax - and/or having their eyes out of the windows and not playing at computers or EW. Some countries carry 2 ALMs just for the lookout option! So, once again, who is extra pair of eyes/EW systems operator at the front - that all other countries want for Tac AT ac? Even the FSTA is rumoured to have a third chap/chapess for trails and war-like tanking up close to the FEBA!

Why bother with all this Herc ****? The C17 is already proven at low level, NVG carrying at least 80T of freight with DAS blah blah 2 pilots etc.......Why try and make an issue of something that can already be done? There is no doubt that the J's cockpit is as good if not better then the C17s, the J will be able to do the job. The K really is history and it seems to me that those at Lyenham still flying it should accept this and move forward or are you all so ***** that the thought of change and being knocked off your ****ing perches scares you that much? CR(A) - ****.

Is MrO really just Admin Guru or that other pest WEB Fanatic! in disguise?

Or is he/she one of the FEW AR@!S left from circa Carterton who rather blinkerdly believes that anything aft of the flight deck door is only fit for making tea or coffee and doing up lap straps. Whilst only true sky gods sit in the cockpit, a location rather aptly named for the likes of MrO!

GM to answer your question the J is completely a 2 man flight deck. The guys are taught from the outset that us tea boys are not going to be available so they have to react to all flight deck occurances as a two man crew. More importantly when we are available we restrict ourselves to merely following the drill from the FRC's or book 3 and SHOULD only pipe up if we felt something untoward was occuring. Our "tech" is reasonable but no way near as in depth as our pilots, although some would no doubt dissagree with me there.

However apart from producing the odd hot drink and halumi lounza roll with our all singing and dancing micro waves us ALM's have proved and are continuing to prove that we have a lot more to offer in the way of flight deck help. We can, when asked and not as the norm!!!, talk to artichoke, pass departure messages, copy down and more importantly fully understand taf's and actuals, liase with mil and civil op's regards A/C and pax requirments, balance the fuel panel and crossfeed as required. And as part of our pilot incapacitation drills we need to be able to monitor VSI and bank angles via HUD or head down diplays, understand approach plates etc and assist if required with air traffic calls bt with the "automatics" working any capt or co worth his salt can manage all this quite happily on his own.

However as I said this help is simply offered, fairly regularly practiced BUT IS NOT EXPECTED. And I am led to believe that even more skills will be taught as part of the Tac package again to assist only and not to replace.

Bearing in mind my earlier post stating that if a Puma/Chinook can rattle around at 140 kts at 50' with a pilot and a nav whose only nav aids are gps and a quarter mil then why can't a J with it's HUD, moving map display,GCAS, F16 radar!!! etc etc manage it at 150' -250' with 2 pilots. The simple answer..............IT CAN!!

However MrO I can only speculate that the various CRM packages introduced over recent years were to counter the neanderthal attitude of those like your self. I, and I am sure many of my colleagues will find your assertion that ALM's "play" at anything extremely insulting. We are all proffesional aircrew doing our utmost to offer the very best service we can and the idea that we would be best placed aft of 245 for the entire flight watching the walking freight sleep or making sure the palletised freight is secure is not only ludicrous but a complete waste of a valuable asset, which thankfully the vast majority of the J front enders completely aggree with. ;)

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

charliesbar,

totally agree that the K is dead and the future is J/C17, but I think there are still some unanswered questions with the J - esp the prop issue.

Thanks for that well-informed comment about Tac Hercs, Charlie. Does that mean that RAF C17s will also be going Tac when the pilots have perfected the art of landings that you can walk away from?? :) :)

Bassett - I'd love to have a ride but Air Transport Taskers never give us anything!!

Ryanair or Easy Jet it is then.

ABIW
Unfortunately, you are still missing the point but I will not enter into abusive and personal slanging matches.

As captain ( I was on the K), I am totally dependent on the rest of my crew and they on the highly(?) paid stick monkeys in the front. But I would do everything to ensure the whole lot of us stay alive.

I am not suggesting by any means that ALMs are glorified trolley dollies (which is a total insult and I am dismayed you think that is what I have implied). But when AAA, small arms and/or MANPADs are flying about, the place for ALMs is looking out of the windows - 'cos DAS is not a cloaking device and its not 100 pc reliable! If the ALM(s) are not looking out during approach/landing and T/O/departure, they should be busy with the paras/other chaps or CVRT/WIMIX/Loads etc.
Which means that there is b.gger all redundancy in the front for doing the WSO/AEOp type of things that need doing - not getting f...g weathers for Akronelli! However, I know ALMs are capable of doing the things you mention, its just not appropriate when in bandit country - you are more use saving the crews @rses!

Sadly, my thousands of hours of experience is falling on deaf ears - but of course, I'd forgotten, the J is a new aircraft and all previous knowledge is worthless. Have fun with your new toy - don't break it and come back in one piece.

Mike
With all due respect I think you’ll find that your thousands of hours of K experience are matched by a great number of people on the J fleet. Far from disregarding any past experiences I’d hope we’d tried to take what was good and relevant onto the new aircraft. The people now developing the tac course are not what you might term inexperienced as either K or J operators. What they say would place them at odds with you on a number of issues, particularly workload. Are you so arrogant as to think you know more than these people who have operated both ac types? Your posts have grown less strident through this thread, but sorry, the early ones suggest you clearly are that arrogant.

Brit J's are good, its such a shame though that they didn't buy the fully spammed up version. Now that is a seriously gucci piece of kit.

RoboA

I am not so arrogant to admit that I might be wrong! In fact I have checked out a few sources and well.........****** and sorry - that's rumour for you!! However, not all of my comments are off the mark - my comments on ALMs and lookout still stands as does the fact that Ks have been better 'trucks' in AFG than the J is at present - of course that may change and its only a matter of perspective and rose-tinted Oakleys on both sides, I suspect. Strangely, there doesn't seem to be much comment from the southside of Lyn on this thread but lots of rattled cages on the northside - does that say something? I suppose it might?

But I must repeat that I am only stating what I have heard from around the houses/bars. Also, I must repeat that I have no axe to grind either way - I am just interested in reality and not supposition. Furthermore, I have many friends at Lyn - both J, K and ground branches. Some have a lot more experience than myself on the Herc but a significant number of people have concerns that things are not all sweetness and light on the J. All that 'people' want from the J is a sensible progression to full Op status (which will surely come) - but not a headlong rush into oblivion. No-one wants a week or more of funerals - been there done that - not again thanks!

I sincerely apologise if I come across as arrogant but I am only taking the lead from the attitude of some (but not all) senior offs on the J side of things (at Lyn and 2 Gp) who have blatantly shunned their oppos on the K.

As i have said before - be careful out there. The J is an impressive beast. However, I am more than convinced that it will bite very hard - likle any a/c - and let's face it, most of us who have ended up on multis are not the 'sharpest knives in the drawer' - by definition. It is those who think they are, that are the arrogant ones.

Without breaking the rules of the secret squirrel club, how does the workload on an RAF -K or -J on a tac mission compare to the MC-130 when its down in the dirt? Do their goodies help?

rivetjoint,

cannot answer that question, mainly because I'm not sure that the J has done any low level at night, which would be the real test of workload.

Mike

The fact that you are prepared to post such vague rumours here, most of which are complete tosh, shows to me a good dose of either arrogance, ignorance or stupidity. Instead of listening to your K mates, of which the sideways-seating fraternity are willing the aircraft to fail, why don't you go over to the J side, talk to the guys and hear it from the horses' mouths - there are even plenty of trips if you so desire, but watch out - you might end up in AFG! ;)

I have to say I am astounded by the continued assertions from MrO that somehow he seems to know best. Why is he completly ignoring the statements of fact offered by Uncle Buck, Robo, Arty, Prop, Bassett and Dutch Roll.

But what I find most puzzeling is the following from his last post:

But I must repeat that I am only stating what I have heard from around the houses/bars. Also, I must repeat that I have no axe to grind either way - I am just interested in reality and not supposition

His whole argument is based on based on supposition without an ounce of reality to it.

MrO Arty has offered you some sound advice. If your concerns are genuine get your ar@e over here and come see things first hand instead of listening and believing the views of the inebriated few.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

I can't bear it any longer - this is my first post (probably last, too) but MikeR has got my goat!

As a current K bloke, it pains me to back up the J types on this thread .......but Mike R is spouting rubbish!

The J is a new ac, but its doing fine in theatre, thank you very much (barring a few tech-snags that are being quickly sorted). They are bound to be making mistakes like the K did but they are learning as quickly as well.

The crews are well protected, well trained and highly keen. Most of them are top guys/gals - some of whom worked as opsos for the K crews at the height of the ops out there and many are experienced K guys with lots of hours like you Mike! - they are not 'rushing in headlong'! As for route-queens - they get everywhere I agree, but even they start to get 'tactical' when people start shooting at them!

I, for one, am very glad the J is 'out there', cos the K crews were on our knees and we are very glad of the respite the J deployment has brought - thanks guys and keep it up! Just give us a USA route or 2?

Mike - furthermore, the JOEU have very experienced chaps doing the tac workload trials - and are a lot more thorough than you insinuate, so back off!

The truth is that from now on in, the J will get all the money and back-up while the K will fall into a gradual decline (no change there, I hear you say). The J tac clearances will come and it will get most of the kit it needs. It's a shame that the K crews are not seen as worth spending money on - as the K apparently has a very short time left in service (yeah right - about 10 years!!!!) and it is not seen as a 'good investment' - makes my blood that one - but that's a different story!

I know that all J crews would agree with me that the K has done a sterling job recently and the crews have been exceedingly brave - day and night and in the finest traditions of the Service - of course with little publicity and acclaim! I am very proud to have served alongside the chaps.

I hope the J has such a successful time 'at war' and that the crews earn their spurs! Fly safe!

MikeR - I know this is a rumour network ....but a little more research next time? Suggest you take up the offer of finding out first hand about the J - I would if I could but I suspect I've missed the boat!

:cool: :cool: