A possible C-130H Replacement?

[MechEng]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/04/215332/japan-to-make-commercial-cargo-aircraft.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-X

I know the C-130E is being replaced by the C-130J.  But in the next decade we will probably be looking at replacing the C-130H.  I know one of contenders could be the A400.  But this aircraft (similar in size to the A400) could be possible.  Japan is replacing it's C-1 and C-130's with this plane.  And would 4m x 4m x 16m be enough to carry outsized cargo?

There are a few more good pictures here:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3489842/

 

[geo]

Mech eng... plenty of discussion already on the forum on the "J" and the A400.
Till they get one flying, the A400 is more or less... vaporware.... lots of talk and no substance.

If and when they get it to fly, the A400 is supposed to be roomy enough to carry the LAV125 / Coyote / Bison

 

[Spencer100]

Down the road there is many projects on the table that could replace C-130's.  The C-X is one and Embraer is looking at one. Plus there is the A400.  But and the big but is that they are "vaporware".

But your question about the C-X, I THINK the C-X will be very expense as it is a "make work" and "help build a national champion" program for the Japanese goverment.  I have read it is years late and over budget.  But if the Japanese and their taxpayers would like to subsdise Canadian purchases I think we should take a look.  >

I think the P-X program is also something to look for the CP140 replacement.  But that is a whole other tread.

 

[MechEng]

Mech eng... plenty of discussion already on the forum on the "J" and the A400.
Till they get one flying, the A400 is more or less... vaporware.... lots of talk and no substance.

If and when they get it to fly, the A400 is supposed to be roomy enough to carry the LAV125 / Coyote / Bison

I'm aware that the A400 is not flying yet (will be next year).  The C-X is supposed to be flying this summer.  But I'm not talking about the C-130E Replacement.  My understanding is we have already ordered the C-130J to replace those.  I'm talking about the possible future replacement for the C-130H models that we got in the early 1990's.  They will probably be flying with us for another 10 years but what will replace those?  The A400 and the C-X will not be vaporare then and the C-130J will be a relatively old airplane.  The average product life cycle in the aerospace industry is 25+ years.  And designing and building an airplane for the military takes quite some time.  Long term planning would have it's advantages.  Both the A400 and the C-X are going from the development to testing phases of their programs.  And if we showed interest we might have a small say in the features of the airplane.

The C-X is similar in size to the A400

A400
Cargo Box Dimensions 
  Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m
  Ramp Length 5.40 m
  Width 4.00 m
  Height 3.85 m
  Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m

C-X

Capacity: Length 16 m,Width 4 m,Height 4 m

 

[aesop081]

I'm aware that the A400 is not flying yet (will be next year). 

:rofl:  Yeah, and the A380 was supposed to be in airline service by now too........

Further to that, why replace 2 versions of the C-130 with 2 different aircraft ?  Why not replace both the CC-130E and CC-130H with the J model ?

Why seek to add 2 small fleets to the CF vice a single one ?

And IMHO, the CC-130H will not last the 10 years you give it......the CC-130E should have been retired years ago....the H wont last that long

 

[RetiredRoyal]

They forgot the props....CF6 high bypass turbofans....hmmm. Sounds like a vacuum cleaner...it'll suck the desert clean of all it's sand.

 

[MechEng]

:rofl:  Yeah, and the A380 was supposed to be in airline service by now too........

Further to that, why replace 2 versions of the C-130 with 2 different aircraft ?  Why not replace both the CC-130E and CC-130H with the J model ?

Why seek to add 2 small fleets to the CF vice a single one ?

And IMHO, the CC-130H will not last the 10 years you give it......the CC-130E should have been retired years ago....the H wont last that long

Yes Airbus made some mistakes with the A380 but it's selling very well now and will be in service in 4 months.  Airbus is a very competent aerospace company that has tremendous experience  building aircraft far more complicated than an air transport.  Haven't you seen the pictures?  The first A400 is almost done.

Now if your right and the CC-130H doesn't last 10 years than it would make sense to include the CC-130J in the procurment process.  But if they do last 10 years (and knowing the governtment probably 20 years) then the CC-130J will probably not be in production by then.  In fact I'm willing to bet that the ones we get to replace the E model will be some of the last to come off of the production line.  So we might not have the choice to buy the CC-130J by the time we need to replace the H model.

 

[MechEng]

They forgot the props....CF6 high bypass turbofans....hmmm. Sounds like a vacuum cleaner...it'll suck the desert clean of all it's sand.

So what do they use on the C-17.  Oh right 4 high bypass turbofans.  So there will be no desert left because the C-17's would have sucked it all up by now. :

 

[RetiredRoyal]

The following is a quote from "C17A: Operation Enduring Freedom Employment/Deployment: Lessons Observed". Lt Col, M. R. Shanahan, USAF 9 Dec 02. p. 29

"Airfield Conditions

Due to severe FOD potential to the engines, crews were always guarded, especially in the AOR. Several key issues at these locations caused great concern. Among these were chunks of runway from damaged and deteriorating sections, helicopters blowing debris during landing and takeoff, and animals on the runway."

My experience is that high bypass turbofans can take a fair bit of FOD, and do protect the engine core, to a degree, because the N1 or fan will absorb some FOD damage (in forward fan configuration). However, the major portion of thrust is created by the fan, therefore a large amount of erosion or blade damage is going to cause a huge decrease in thrust. The engine core will still produce power, but the fan becomes aerodynamically inefficient.

I've had the pleasure of viewing a number of A250 engines out of light heli's coming in from Iraq for overhaul. The amount of blade erosion attributed to sand is amazing.

For that reason, my uninformed opinion is that turboprops would be preferable for unprepared fields etc. That's all I was thinking when looking at the Kawasaki as a replacement for the herc. The C17 isn't replacing the herc, I think it's taking on a completely new role in the CF.

The mentioned paper is a good read as it explores the role of the C17 as a replacement to the C141, traditionally acting as the 'hub and spoke' transport, complimentary to the C130's role as rapid transportation in a more 'austere' environment and it's first use in deployment to FOB's.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes Airbus made some mistakes with the A380 but it's selling very well now and will be in service in 4 months.  Airbus is a very competent aerospace company that has tremendous experience  building aircraft far more complicated than an air transport.  Haven't you seen the pictures?  The first A400 is almost done.

Now if your right and the CC-130H doesn't last 10 years than it would make sense to include the CC-130J in the procurment process.  But if they do last 10 years (and knowing the governtment probably 20 years) then the CC-130J will probably not be in production by then.  In fact I'm willing to bet that the ones we get to replace the E model will be some of the last to come off of the production line.  So we might not have the choice to buy the CC-130J by the time we need to replace the H model.

If they get the A400 flying (I hear they been having issues with the engines and the wiring looms) I have no problem with the aircraft being evaluated, I prefer an aircraft already in service and hopefully the French Air Force will have some so real life performance can be checked.

 

[Globesmasher]

I know the C-130E is being replaced by the C-130J.  But in the next decade we will probably be looking at replacing the C-130H. 

That's a very good question, but a moot one at that.
The CC130E AND the CC130H are both being replaced by the ACP-T project - or otherwise known as the C-130J acquisition.
17 tails in total are included in this project to replace the 32 ..... now down to about 28 ..... Es and Hs.
This is all one and the same project.

The "phase out" process of the Es will be different to the Hs ... that is all.  And this is based solely on the fact that the Hs have more life span left than the Es (obviously).  The Es will go first (some have already gone) and the Hs will logically be the last ones to go.

As the Js come on line they will commence the role of Tactical Air Transport.
Once the fleet is approaching FOC the remaining few H model CC130s will be moved solely to SAR.
This will provide some relief to the Buffalo since it was supposed to have been retired many "times" ago.
I know it is not as good as the Buffalo at the SAR role - I am not here to debate that issue or get into that melee .... that is simply the plan.

Then ... the remaining CC130Hs that remain in the SAR role will then be replaced by the FWSAR project surrently being reviewed by the respective PMO team.

There will be no new project as the CC130 H replacement.
It is already a done deal.
The one single project to cover the replacement of the entire "CC130" fleet [Es, Hs, H-30s and HT-90s] was ACP-T.
ACP-T = C130J.

Still Airbus vs Boeing vs Kawasaki vs whomever should be a good debate.
Props vs turbofan engines.
But - a bit of a red herring here.

Talk amongst yourselves.

 

[MechEng]

That's a very good question, but a moot one at that.
The CC130E AND the CC130H are both being replaced by the ACP-T project - or otherwise known as the C-130J acquisition.
17 tails in total are included in this project to replace the 32 ..... now down to about 28 ..... Es and Hs.
This is all one and the same project.

The "phase out" process of the Es will be different to the Hs ... that is all.  And this is based solely on the fact that the Hs have more life span left than the Es (obviously).  The Es will go first (some have already gone) and the Hs will logically be the last ones to go.

As the Js come on line they will commence the role of Tactical Air Transport.
Once the fleet is approaching FOC the remaining few H model CC130s will be moved solely to SAR.
This will provide some relief to the Buffalo since it was supposed to have been retired many "times" ago.
I know it is not as good as the Buffalo at the SAR role - I am not here to debate that issue or get into that melee .... that is simply the plan.

Then ... the remaining CC130Hs that remain in the SAR role will then be replaced by the FWSAR project surrently being reviewed by the respective PMO team.

There will be no new project as the CC130 H replacement.
It is already a done deal.
The one single project to cover the replacement of the entire "CC130" fleet [Es, Hs, H-30s and HT-90s] was ACP-T.
ACP-T = C130J.

Still Airbus vs Boeing vs Kawasaki vs whomever should be a good debate.
Props vs turbofan engines.
But - a bit of a red herring here.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?

Isn't the proper question: "Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's and n Buffalos, will 17 CC-130J's, n FWSAR aircraft and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?"

Edit: Is it (was it) not the intention that the FWSAR aircraft would, in fact, be untility transports - able to augment the tactical transport fleet, too?

 

[newfin]

Yeah.  I'd love to hear the answer to E.R.C.'s question.  In total will they all be enough?  And with how much room to spare?  What will become of the KC-130's?  Does the AF intend to keep that capability?  Can't do a lot of AAR with just 2 CC-150 MRTT airframes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think it's important to remember that with many, many systems one-for-one replacement is rarely necessary.  The new 'version' has a combination of greater relaiability-maintainability-availability and greater capability (range, payload, rate of fire, speed, etc) which allow a lesser number of new system to do the job.  Thus the right mix of C130, FWSAR and C-17 ought to be able to replace a greater number, maybe a much greater number of old Hercules and Buffalos,

 

[C1Dirty]

Props VS Jets...

C17 Landing on a 5000' (4000' field elevation) dirt strip in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk

Of course, not as smooth or as pretty as a Herc, but obviously capable despite the turbo-fans.

 

[Allen]

Until recently, we had 32 Hercs and 6 Buffalos.

The plan is to replace them with 17 C-130 J's, 4 C-17s and from what I've heard, at least 15 FWSAR if not more.

So it's not a huge loss in the number of airframes.

 

[Globesmasher]

Isn't the proper question: "Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's and n Buffalos, will 17 CC-130J's, n FWSAR aircraft and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?"

Edit: Is it (was it) not the intention that the FWSAR aircraft would, in fact, be untility transports - able to augment the tactical transport fleet, too?

E.R.

Absolutely - you pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
The FWSAR project was (is) also intended to encompass "northern" and "domestic" air transport [in addition to it primary SAR role] thus relieving some of that demand from the strategic and tactical air transport fleets.  These new fleets and capabilities will not be mutually exclusive - there will be overlapping common ground and synergies to be exploited between fleets and airframes.

Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?

MechEng:

I really don't know.
You'd have to ask the ladies and gentlemen who wear maple leaves on their shoulders that question.
I'm just a coal face worker who doesn't write doctrine or define capabilities so my opinion means nothing.

I only hope that the new fleet acquisitions will be enough.

 

[Globesmasher]

Of course, not as smooth or as pretty as a Herc,....

C1Dirty
Cool video - very nice.
But from the flight deck point of view, like that video, they're both about the same.
Neither are smooth nor pretty ......  ;D
It's all a bumpy, rough, noisy ride.

 

[Fraz]

Update...

Controversial Hercules purchase approved

By CP


OTTAWA -- The Defence Department's long-awaited and controversial purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane has been approved by the federal Treasury Board, defence sources say.

A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.

Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of 17 C-130Js received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin.

The in-service support portion of the deal will be the subject of further discussions, said one source familiar with the agreement.

Officials at National Defence declined comment, and it's unclear whether the federal cabinet needs to review the package again.

But in a year-end interview with The CP last week, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said he understood the cargo plane was in the final stages of approval.

Three of the older Hercules have already been retired after exceeding their flying life and "we'd like to put the other ones to bed as quickly as possible," Hillier said.

"With the old C-130s, we're spending more to keep them flying but their operational availability is going down."

He compared the existing fleet to a 1981 Ford Taurus that is constantly in the shop for repairs.

"You spend a thousand bucks to keep it running, take it back out and something else breaks and you put it back in," he said.

hopefully with the ACAN and treasury board approval, the contract is signed off quickly with Lockheed Martin now, and planes delivered in a short time span (by 2010?)