WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The Air Force continues to order more C-130Js despite those problems. The military is buying the planes as a commercial item — a process designed to allow the military to purchase goods on the open market that need <b>few modifications for military use. </b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Few modifications...yeah right...you should see all the crap we are having to do to J models right now.....

<img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0>

_________________

Yikes.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Isn't that rather alarming since LM has been making C-130's for 50 years that they cannot make a new one today?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I suggest you notice who is complaining here. Hint, it is not the customers. Nevertheless, let me be the first to call for the cancellation of the the C-130J before you get around to it. It has been a "troubled program" from the beginnings, when the technology test bed crashed, killing all aboard. Then there were the schedule slips, the massive cost overruns, mangement shake-ups, the coverups, the pork barrel sweetheart deals and now the last straw...the software for the mission planner doesn't work. If the Inspector General says that he doesn't think things are Kosher, well then that's good enough for me. The US doesn't need anything better than the H model anyway. Let the foreign air forces fly the J. The joke is on them. They don't know the US Inspector General says the airplane can't do airdrops and assualts and combat zone stuff, they just do it.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Wasn't there some scandal where they were delivering new Js with old rebuilt motors out of H's or something?

What's different on the J than the H model? And yeah, what is wrong with the H?

Nothing that i know of. How does someone make a trash hauler into such a complicated machine? I don't get it.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Marvin Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisition official, wrote to the investigators that the program is within its cost, schedule and contract guidelines. Lockheed Martin has started delivering planes which meet Air Force specifications and the necessary upgrades have either been completed or scheduled, Sambur wrote.

While some of the facts presented in the DOD/IG report are accurate, the findings and conclusions ascribed to these facts cannot be supported," Sambur wrote in response to the inspector general's office. "The Air Force fully endorses the C-130J program."

It sounds like the USAF are complaining here on the C-130J, and they are the customer are they not?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The customers, if not happy, are satisfied. That includes the foreign ones too, and they have used them in combat support roles in Iraq.

Quick brochure comparisons from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... c-130j.htm

<i>The new C-130J has the familiar silhouette, but it is a brand new airplane with the performance to prove it. Compared to the earlier production C-130E, maximum speed is up 21%, climb time is down 50%. Cruising altitude is 40% higher, range 40% longer. With new engines and props, the J can reach 28,000 feet in just 14 minutes. And for tricky low altitude maneuvers, new avionics and dual head up displays make it easier and safer to operate. It also offers reduced manpower requirements, lower operating costs, support costs, and life-cycle costs.

While continuing to upgrade through modification, the Air Force has budgeted to resume fleet modernization through acquisition of the C-130J version. This new model features a two-crew-member flight system, 6,000 shp Allison AE21 00D3 engines and all-composite Dowty R391 propellers, digital avionics and mission computers, and improved reliability and maintainability. </i>

Also from http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92


<i>General Characteristics
Primary Function: Global airlift
Contractor: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Power Plant:
C-130E: Four Allison T56-A-7 turboprops; 4,200 prop shaft horsepower
C-130H: Four Allison T56-A-15 turboprops; 4,591prop shaft horsepower
C-130J: Four Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprops; 4,700 horsepower
Length: C-130E/H/J: 97 feet, 9 inches (29.3 meters)
C-130J-30: 112 feet, 9 inches (34.69 meters)
Height: 38 feet, 10 inches (11. 9 meters)
Wingspan: 132 feet, 7 inches (39.7 meters)
Cargo Compartment:
C-130E/H/J: length, 40 feet (12.31 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
C-130J-30: length, 55 feet (16.9 meters); width, 119 inches (3.12 meters); height, 9 feet (2.74 meters). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 meters); width, 119 inches (3.02 meters)
Speed:
C-130E: 345 mph/300 ktas (Mach 0.49) at 20,000 feet (6,060 meters)
C-130H: 366 mph/318 ktas (Mach 0.52) at 20,000 feet (6,060 meters)
C-130J: 417 mph/362 ktas (Mach 0.59) at 22,000 feet (6,706 meters)
C-130J-30: 410 mph/356 ktas (Mach 0.58) at 22,000 feet (6,706 meters)
Ceiling:
C-130J: 28,000 feet (8,615 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload
C-130J-30: 26,000 feet (8,000 meters) with 44,500 pounds (20,227 kilograms) payload.
C-130H: 23,000 feet (7,077 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload.
C-130E: 19,000 feet (5,846 meters) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
C-130E/H/J: 155,000 pounds (69,750 kilograms)
C-130J-30: 164,000 pounds (74,393 kilograms)
Maximum Allowable Payload:
C-130E, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
C-130H, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
C-130J, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
C-130J-30, 44,000 (19,958 kilograms)
Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
C-130H, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
C-130J, 34,000 pounds (15,422 kilograms)
C-130J-30, 36,000 pounds (16,329 kilograms)
Range at Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 1,150 miles (1,000 nautical miles)
C-130H, 1,208 miles (1,050 nautical miles)
C-130J, 2,071 miles (1,800 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 1,956 miles (1,700 nautical miles)
Range with 35,000 pounds of Payload:
C-130E, 1,438 miles (1,250 nautical miles)
C-130H, 1,496 miles (1,300 nautical miles)
C-130J, 1,841 miles (1,600 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 2,417 miles (2,100 nautical miles)
Maximum Load:
C-130E/H/J: 6 pallets or 74 litters or 16 CDS bundles or 92 combat troops or 64 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.
C-130J-30: 8 pallets or 97 litters or 24 CDS bundles or 128 combat troops or 92 paratroopers, or a combination of any of these up to the cargo compartment capacity or maximum allowable weight.
Crew: C-130E/H: Five (two pilots, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster)
C-130J/J-30: Three (two pilots and loadmaster)
Aeromedical Evacuation Role: Minimum medical crew of three is added (one flight nurse and two medical technicians). Medical crew may be increased to two flight nurses and four medical technicians as required by the needs of the patients.
Unit Cost: C-130E, $11.9, C-130H, $30.1, C-130J, $48.5 (FY 1998 constant dollars in millions)
Date Deployed: C-130A, Dec 1956; C-130B, May 1959; C-130E, Aug 1962; C-130H, Jun 1974; C-130J, Feb 1999
Inventory: Active force, 186; Air National Guard, 222; Air Force Reserve, 106</i>

I don't think it is possible to substitute the T-56 for the AE2100D3 engine. There are too many differences.

The J model also holds many obscure aviation records for its class. It is a big improvement over previous models.











THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

Edited by - a10stress on Jul 26 2004 2:31 PM

_________________
????

Thanx for the specs Stress.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Here's something off the internal company site today.

<i>Lockheed Martin backed the Air Force.

"Lockheed Martin is in full agreement with the Air Force's assessment of the DoD Inspector General's report," the company said in a statement. "In its comments regarding the report, the U.S. Air Force clearly states that it does not concur with any of the findings or recommendations in the report. The Air Force, ultimately the end user who is flying the aircraft, also says that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule, contract and regulatory commitments. The Air Force says, without qualification, that it fully endorses the C-130J program, that is it one of Air Mobility Command's top priorities, and that the aircraft meets the current contract specification. In addition, the Air Force notes that there is a disciplined plan in place to enhance the aircraft."

Lockheed Martin also pointed out the C-130J is in use with Italy, Australia and Britain in those countries' operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.</i>


I don't know why the Inspector General's Office has its panties in a wad. However, I can speculate based on my own prejudices. In the early 90's the White House had an initiative as part of "Reinventing Government" that showcased commercial procurement of off the shelf items that the government buys. It sounds good in the speeches to say there will be no more $500 hammers bought by the government. The administrators dutifully applied that concept to everything from condoms to military aircraft. The C-130J project was starting to roll about then and got caught up in it. They tried to procure it using FAA certification processes. It was a deliberate attempt to end-run military specs and the tried and true bureacracy. It did not work and there were many financial and technical bugs to work out, but things are OK now. The bureacracy has timed its counter attack for now and I think it is really part of a devious ploy to cripple the 767 Tanker project, which is currently combating the professional government bean counters. They are not going to stand for that again, and are rattling their sabers.


THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Did't the USAF not even want the C-130J, but certain lawmakers from certain states persuaded the USAF to buy something they claimed they didn't need? Funny all the original planes went direct to the ANG and USAF Reserve.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Did't the USAF not even want the C-130J, but certain lawmakers from certain states persuaded the USAF to buy something they claimed they didn't need? Funny all the original planes went direct to the ANG and USAF Reserve.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's kind of correct. The USAF declined to buy any of them in the beginning because their budgets and oversight efforts were commited to other projects. They knew, and admitted at the time, that they would be needing them 5 years down the road. The Reserves and the Guard stepped in to keep the assembly line lukewarm (they had the oldest C-130's anyway). The legislators made a good case that it made fiscal sense to buy them that way, but let's get real, it didn't hurt their re-election chances.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

This article may be over the top with praise for the C-130J, (there have been some problems in the long ago past) but I don't see any obvious distortions.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008273

by Staff Sgt. Melanie Streeter
Air Force Print News

7/28/2004 - WASHINGTON -- Air Force officials are standing by the C-130J Hercules as the aircraft prepares to join the fight, despite a recent Department of Defense inspector general report criticizing the program.

The Air Force fully endorses the C-130J, senior Air Force acquisitions officials said. The program is one of Air Mobility Command’s top priorities and the aircraft is currently planned to be ready for combat deployment by the end of 2004.

In fact, the C-130J already is supporting combat missions in Iraq as part of the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, said Col. Paul Stipe, the deputy director of global reach programs for the Air Force.

“This aircraft was developed by Lockheed Martin at its own expense, and the company contributed more than a billion dollars of its own money to develop (the C-130J) for the commercial market,” Colonel Stipe said. “And they were successful. They sold it to the United Kingdom, to Italy, Australia and Denmark. In fact, the United Kingdom purchased it before the United States.

“There are two basic ways to buy an aircraft,” said Colonel Stipe. “One way is to pay a company to develop an aircraft that meets your needs from scratch. This way, the Air Force pays for all the research and development and all the modifications. The other way is to buy an aircraft commercially developed and then adapt it to Air Force needs. With the C-130J, the commercial route was more advantageous.

“With the commercial route, the Lockheed Martin development investment of over $1 billion is shared by the myriad of users and not just by the DOD. Another advantage was that they could deliver the first planes faster,” he said.

The first aircraft were delivered in 1999. The Air Force then took the next step, testing the aircraft and integrating the military capabilities onto the commercial aircraft.

“Through testing, we’ve really been able to wring out the aircraft for its diverse missions,” said Colonel Stipe. “As part of this process Lockheed has invested at least another $100 million in upgrades and fixes. Through all this, we are confident that we will deploy the C-130J to combat areas by the end of this year.”

While the outside of the aircraft looks no different than previous models, the inside is a whole new animal, according to Lt. Col. James Dendis, acquisitions deputy chief of tactical airlift, special operations forces and trainer division.

“This looks like the older C-130s, but only on the outside," he said. "The avionics have been updated throughout, and the aircraft is arguably more complex now than our C-17 Globemaster III large cargo aircraft. It is a phenomenally complex, computer-driven, high-tech airplane.”

When all of the bugs are worked out, it will be a lot easier to maintain than the older versions, said Colonel Dendis, because the computer test equipment makes troubleshooting and repairs simpler.

“The pilots love it, and the maintainers love it,” Colonel Stipe said. “It’s designed to be very easy to work on.”

Leaders are confident the aircraft will rapidly become a valuable asset to the 21st century Air Force, despite early challenges.

“Initial rounds of operational tests showed more work was needed to bring the plane up to our very demanding standards,” said Gen. John Handy, commander of U.S. Transportation Command and AMC. “The work to convert this aircraft for military use is scheduled or already completed.

“The Air Force … is confident that the C-130J will more than prove itself in global mobility operations,” he added.







THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

""The avionics have been updated throughout, and the aircraft is arguably more complex now than our C-17 Globemaster III large cargo aircraft. It is a phenomenally complex, computer-driven, high-tech airplane.”"

Is that really what we should be looking for in any plane that's designation starts with a C???

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I speak brochure language. Allow me to translate.


(The avionics have been updated throughout, and the aircraft is arguably more complex now than our C-17 Globemaster III large cargo aircraft. It is a phenomenally complex, computer-driven, high-tech airplane) = (It has a fly-by-wire system, automated flight engineer functions, and a glass cockpit)

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

<i>Another deliberate lying, thieving New York Times yellow journal editorial. They can kiss my</i> (_x_)


THE FLAWED PLANE CONGRESS LOVES: It is hard to imagine an airplane with more problems than the C-130J, the latest version of the venerable workhorse the Air Force uses to drop cargo and paratroopers into global hot spots. The C-130J has so many flaws that it cannot fly its intended combat missions. It is unable to drop heavy equipment, operate well in cold weather or perform combat SAR missions. Paratroopers cannot jump out of it without risk of banging up against the fuselage. Still, the C-130J has one important fan: Congress. Powerful members of both the House and Senate want to spend $5B to acquire even more C-130J's for the Air Force, at a cost of $66.5M a plane. For all the C-130J's shortcomings, lawmakers love to buy the plane and dole it out to National Guard and Reserve bases around the country, using its deployment as a justification for keeping local bases open. But, in what could be the nastiest Pentagon budget battle this year, SECDEF Donald H. Rumsfeld has vowed to kill the C-130J as part of a larger plan to upgrade the military. In doing so, he is backed by two recent studies - from the Pentagon's IG and from its top weapons tester - that concluded the C-130J is unfit for duty. "It's going to be a battle royale," said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's comptroller and CFO from April 2001 until May 2004. "In other years, Congress went and put money back in the program in spite of the Pentagon. So it shouldn't come as any surprise Congress would not take these cuts sitting down." Lockheed Martin, which makes the plane, declined to comment on the fight over the C-130J, but issued a statement suggesting that any final decision about its fate is a long way off. Mr. Bush's 2006 budget only "marks the first step in a process of review and analysis" of Pentagon needs, the company said. Mr. Rumsfeld's recommendation is also being challenged by the Air Force, which says many of the C-130J's problems have been fixed. Given all these problems, some military planners, including Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's acting acquisition chief, have questioned whether the military even needs large numbers of cargo aircraft to haul equipment, or whether it could turn instead to high-speed ships and other methods of transportation. The IG's report, issued last July, found deficiencies in the aircraft that, if left uncorrected, could "cause death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems." The report concluded that "Lockheed Martin has been unable to design, develop or produce a C-130J aircraft that meets contract specifications in the eight years since production began." For all its problems, the C-130J remains popular in Congress for a few simple reasons. It is largely manufactured in Georgia, long the home state of powerful members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Beyond that, C-130J's have given lawmakers a reason to keep National Guard and Reserve bases open, even as government reports have said this allocation makes no military sense. "You can base a bunch of C-130J's at an installation and keep alive a squadron at a base in a member of Congress's district that was slated to be shut down," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. "Or you can move them around to a base that is scheduled for closure and you have a brand new reason to keep it open." The Air Force, too, is painting a rosy picture. "The J's are a critical part of the modernization of a very old fleet of models" said Gen. Paul Fletcher, the Air Force's deputy director of plans and program. "We've worked through the issues that have been raised." Doug Karas, an Air Force spokesman, said the Pentagon's investigative reports were based on outdated data. "There will be tests this summer, and after that, the Air Force expects the C-130J will be fully mission capable," Mr. Karas said. "We've worked on fixing and updating." (New York Times)





THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"



Edited by - a10stress on Mar 24 2005 12:31 PM

_________________
????

Maybe we should be talking to airbus about a short fuselage version of the slightly A400M. Who knows, maybe it'll scare lockheed into making a plane that actually works.

"The worst football halftime show is still better than a soccer game." - Ron "Tater Salad" White.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Maybe we should be talking to airbus about a short fuselage version of the slightly A400M. Who knows, maybe it'll scare lockheed into making a plane that actually works.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I guess you misunderstand or refuse to read the whole thread. The criticisms of the C-130J you see are based on data from 1999. Most of the "deficiencies" were as a result of the testing being insufficient or incomplete, not that it failed the test. It is 2005 and all that has been cleared up. The NY Times knows this. Has anyone seen how the A400 works, by the way? Remember, paper airplanes always have superior performance, and cost less too.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Are these articles all from one writer, or multiple idiots that all need one-way tickets to <img src=newicons/spit.gif border=0 align=middle>france?

Dammit, Snipe, you are <i>not</i> talking your way out of this one; the kids caught you fair and square, so grant them their three wishes and hand over your pot of gold!

Edited by - Horrido on Mar 24 2005 12:37 PM