• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The CC-130-J Hercules Merged Thread

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
cplcaldwell said:
....... Quoting two and three year old memos without stating the path forward does not seem to be a responsible reporting of the facts.

Thoughts?

Those are my thoughts.
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hmm... (correct me if I am wrong)
C17s for strategic lift
CC130s for tactical
Buffalos for SAR

They want the gov, to buy the C17s and new Buffs instead of the 130Js
the Herc can (and does) handle SAR
the Buff cannot handle the volume that the Herc is doing soooo....

priority must go to the C17s and the Hercs.  The Buffs or an alternative can be acquired at a later date IMHO.  Also, as we are getting the C17s we shouldn't have to concern ourselves quite so much about the strategic capabilities (or lack thereof) of the 130Js.

... then again, I'm just a guy in green looking way, way up in the sky  :warstory: :bullet: :cdn:
 

a78jumper

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Buffalo is out of production, and in any event a study conducted years ago concluded a four engined Herc cost roughly the same amount as the notoiously unreliable(from a power plant standpoint) two engined Buffalo, about the only thing it was deficient in was the extreme STOL capabilities. The decision was made at that point to run down the Buff fleet except for those in Comox, as they apparently require some STOL capacity there.
 

C1Dirty

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
At the risk of stating the obvious...didn't the Liberals officially plan to purchase the J's just prior to the last election? 



 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
C1 - they are talking about Opposition MPs without specifying the colours

Blue, Baby blue, Red, Orange, whatever...........
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
C1Dirty: Yes.  See:

C-130J: That was last year for both Conservatives and Liberals
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54569.0.html

Updates (Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):

1) Lockheed Martin has lost its bid
Aviation Week & Space Technology
11/27/2006, page 20
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2006/11/27/AW_11_27_2006_P20-23-02.xml&query=c-130j

Lockheed Martin has lost its bid to be reinstated in the competition to provide the U.S. Army and Air Force with a Joint Cargo Aircraft. The program could involve up to 100 aircraft worth $5 billion. At least some participants say the decision turned on an Army demand for GATM (Global Air Traffic Management) system capability on the first aircraft. The company's plan was to add it at a later date approved by the Air Force. Lockheed Martin pitched the only four-engine design--a version of its standard body C-130J. The other competitors offered twin-engine aircraft--the C-295 from Raytheon/ EADS and C-27J from L-3 Communications/Alenia North America/ Boeing. The Government Accountability Office upheld USAF's decision to eliminate the C-130J in the first downselect. Lockheed Martin continues to build its transport, but an order slowdown means it could face a line shutdown by 2009. Lockheed Martin officials said they had shown there was an advantage to the Army operating an aircraft already in USAF inventory, rather than introducing a new design. Army officials want a smaller aircraft that won't be dominated and controlled operationally by the Air Force [emphasis added]. Supporters of twin-engine designs say some studies show the C-130J can't meet some of the tactical scenarios for takeoffs from 2,000-ft. runways that are prevalent in operational hot spots. Lockheed Martin says its aircraft is the best performer in high-altitude/hot-temperature conditions.

2) Airbus will have to commit
Aviation Week & Space Technology
12/11/2006, page 20
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2006/12/11/AW_12_11_2006_p18-22-13.xml&query=%28c-130j%29%2BAND%2B%28a400m%29

Airbus will have to commit more engineering resources to the A400M military airlifter program to rein in "critical risk areas" and preserve its schedule, customers are concluding after EADS briefed them on the results of a study of the project's status.

The report suggests there are "significant" challenges to meeting first flight in March 2008 and other scheduled milestones. The risks are "systems design (in particular electrical harnesses), maturity of military mission systems, engine modifications, remaining work to be done on the final assembly line."

Although EADS says the program schedule is holding, a senior company official acknowledges an updated master plan is being developed and will be presented to customers. Under scrutiny is the start of final assembly in Seville, Spain. Airbus Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier says the goal is to ensure all elements are in place before the process starts, and to avoid A380-like problems that have led to excessive rework and program delays.

The electrical wiring harness issue on the A400M is different than for the A380, officials say. The A400M harnesses are less complex and the proper design tools are being used. However, a company official says the supply of some harnesses is running behind.

One military buyer says the depth of the review is appreciated by customers, and keeping the delivery schedule is positive. However, he says, there clearly is no more schedule margin left and EADS will have to enhance resources to meet contractual milestones.

Bregier says the aircraft will meet performance targets. That's critical, says the military representative. But he also points out that the first six aircraft, pre-production versions, will not meet those standards.

The engine program has long been recognized as a possible risk area. A modified Lockheed Martin C-130 is due to enter flight trials fitted with a single TP400 in the first quarter of next year.

A400M users are pressing Airbus Military to ensure reliability is high on delivery. They don't want to suffer years of growing pains, such as those the U.K. and Royal Australian Air Force underwent when fielding the C-130J.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,316
Points
1,060
a78jumper said:
The Buffalo is out of production, and in any event a study conducted years ago concluded a four engined Herc cost roughly the same amount as the notoiously unreliable(from a power plant standpoint) two engined Buffalo, about the only thing it was deficient in was the extreme STOL capabilities. The decision was made at that point to run down the Buff fleet except for those in Comox, as they apparently require some STOL capacity there.

Can they be re-engined in the intermin?
 

eurowing

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The venerable Buff is soldiering on since 1967. Despite it's detractors, it fills a niche nothing else on the market can.  Sadly, only about 30 are operational world wide and there is little to no chance of a resurrection.  Yes, it could be re-engined, but for such a small market the cost would be prohibitive.  The engineering costs alone would be astronomical since it would be shared by... well, no one but us.  There is even a market for new ones, but apparently only for slightly more than 100 (Original run of 126).  Not enough for a manufacturer to start a production run in today's market.

Buffalo info here - http://www.xdh.ca/DHC_Aircraft/DHC-5/dhc-5.html

and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-5_Buffalo#RCAF.2FCF_Use

Newer aircraft are nice, but none can do what the Buff can do and do it on unprepared runways.  So, what ever we get will undoubtedly faster, roomier but less effective at STOL.  Expect flying Buffalo's until 2015. 
 

Rigger

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There are newer engines for the Buffs out there. Arctic Sunwest out of Yellowknife is flying one (possibly two now) with upgraded engines. It is more than just the engines though. Lack of pressurization, hard to find major parts (IE landing gear) and a general lack of incremental improvements are hamperring the Buff. Right now our biggest problem is props. The airframe itself is still holding up great, no pressurization means less stress on the fusalge. The buff is great in the mountains of BC for SAR, but lacks the speed, range and loads for anywhere else you might want a medium lift transport. All that said she is a great aircraft, and never ceases  to amaze me.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
161
Points
680
Hey RiggerFE - I was shooting the proverbial poop with one of the AERE types and was talking about how the Brazilians are no longer flying their Buffs and may be looking to sell their fleet of 12 for half a million green backs.  Imagine the LRT ferrying them back to home base?  ;D

 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
Would you guys keep flying Buffs or do you have a preferance?
I am just curious, I think the plane is amazing.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
161
Points
680
CTD said:
Would you guys keep flying Buffs or do you have a preferance?
I am just curious, I think the plane is amazing.

Buff = fun to fly, unmatched in STOL capabilities + lift capability

Make it pressurized (which you can't) and strap new engines and props on her and we're golden.
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.
 

Daidalous

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Has anyone heard if there going to put new engines on the stretch Herc's we have now and use them as there under 20 years old?  I had a AVN tech tell me a few years ago that when we bought them we took the engines off and put E model engines on.  It sounds like buying a F-350 and putting a Ranger engine in it.:(
 

Globesmasher

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nope.

Now that we have retired about 5 C-130 E model airframes we have enough of the better "dash 15" engines.  We've ripped off all the old "dash 7" engines and replaced the entire fleet with the same rated engine.  All the aircraft now have the same engine .. the dash 15 engine.  Slightly more horsepower and it can run at a higher turbine temperature.  The two stretch H-30s have the same engines as all the remaining stubbies.
 

Gramps

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Jammer said:
Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.
Any idea just how different the new system is?
 

Globesmasher

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jammer said:
Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.

Jammer:

From some of the visits I've had with Lockheed, the USAF in Little Rock and the RAF out at Brize Norton and Lyneham ... the RAF didn't purchase some of the new features available on the J model - one of which is the new cargo enhanced handling system.  We took a look closely at it since it jacks up the aircraft price ... and the Canadian Loadmasters liked it .... a lot.  We have added the cargo handling system to the "shopping list" of stuff we want on the J model .... our normal L463 pallets will slide nicely in to the system, and just like the current dual rail system, will provide forward, aft and vertical restraint - we also do airdrop out of the same cargo handling rail system as well.

The RAF also had some funky centre-wing-box and cargo compartment vibration issue that restricted their pallet positions ... something to do with the middle of the aircraft ... but apparently that has been fixed by Lockheed on their last batch of production aircraft, the block 7s.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
A certain journalist just will not give up:

Canada missed chance for cheaper aircraft upgrade
Ottawa Citizen, December 27, 2006
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d18d96b7-e637-4323-919e-aaf3851083bd&k=45506

Canada was offered a chance to acquire aircraft specially designed for an Afghanistan-type war for less than half of the price of the new fleet of C-130J Super Hercules the government plans to purchase.

Government officials, however, decided against the proposal by a U.S. company, Snow Aviation International, whose plan was to overhaul the Canadian Forces existing C-130 Hercules so they could land and take off from short runways in war zones like Afghanistan...

The company's Hercules modernization package, developed with funding from the U.S. air force, involves installing a new tail, engines, propellers and new wings. The length of the Hercules would be extended to allow it to carry more equipment and the modifications would allow it to land and take off on short austere runways. The cockpit would also be modernized.

The result would be new, certified planes with 25-year plus service life.

Each plane would cost about $40 million US, said company president Harry Snow, a C-130 pilot with combat experience.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has told the Commons that Canada will be paying Lockheed about $85 million US for each C-130J...

...aerospace consultant Ben Works said the savings offered by the Snow Aviation proposal and the new capabilities in their modernization package was a deal that should not have been passed up.

''We're talking about well over a billion dollars you can save and that Canada could invest in other very needed assets,'' said Works, who had been employed in the past as a Snow Aviation consultant. He is now working at the Pentagon in the intelligence branch.

Works said the C-130J and similar aircraft are ''irrelevant to counter-insurgency warfare'' such as in Afghanistan. ''What you need is high capacity, low stall speed, short landing and takeoff,'' he said. ''That's what we're all going to need.''..

This would appear to be Snow Aviation's paper airplane:
http://www.snowaviation.com/c130m.htm

Views on this statement?

...the C-130J and similar aircraft are ''irrelevant to counter-insurgency warfare'' such as in Afghanistan. ''What you need is high capacity, low stall speed, short landing and takeoff,'' he said. ''That's what we're all going to need.''

On the other hand, a good editorial in the National Post:

Flying the pricey skies
December 28, 2006
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=587d30ec-47b6-4d70-9f3f-592e00efa19f

...
Canadian military pilots who have test flown the Lockheed planes have given them high marks. Moreover, the Airbus A400 -- the C-130s rival -- is not in full-scale production yet. Airbus has threatened to sue Ottawa for "freezing it out of the bidding process," and it has promised it could deliver planes as quickly as Lockheed to meet our present needs in Afghanistan. So far, though, all Airbus has delivered to any of its customers is a working mock-up of the A400's cockpit. Do we really want our military, in the middle of a war zone, to be the guinea pigs for testing whether the plane is as good as its manufacturer says it will be?

Nor is there any reason to believe Snow Aviation, another bidder for the Hercules contract, which recently claimed it could have refurbished our existing planes and made them as good as new for half the cost.

Still, given the huge price tags and accelerated nature of these new purchases, the government owes it to taxpayers to thoroughly explain its purchasing decisions. The newly ordered planes will cost us more than $9-billon. Given that extraordinary sum, voters deserve to know just what they'll be getting.

What the editorial fails to mention is that this was the situation in November, 2005:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/tactical-airlifter-airbus-wont-give-up.html

'The federal government tried to rebut claims that the fix is in for Lockheed Martin's C-130J by appointing an independent monitor to oversee the procurement of up to $5 billion worth of military transport aircraft.

With lobbyists already in full-blitz mode, Defence Minister Bill Graham said Monday he's going ahead with a "competitive, fair and transparent" plan to buy 16 replacements for the military's aging fleet of Hercules planes.

The process will be fast -- the one-page statement of performance requirements will go out in 10 days and bidders will have just 30 days to study it...'

Of course then Conservative national defence critic Gordon O'Connor was making the same sort of criticism of the rapid purchase of C-130Js that the opposition parties are now making. Silly him. Plus ça change...in Canadian politics.

Mark
Ottawa





 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hmmm.... spending $$$ on CC130Es that are some 40 years old just doesn't make sense to my way of thinking...

To date the A400 is still "vaporware".... all talk and no functioning production line on which to jump onto...

The C130Js and the C17s are the only aircraft currently in production on which we can reliably expect to receive delivery as contracted.... or have I missed something?
 

Globesmasher

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Spending more money on the old and rusted out E and H model fleet would be money poorly spent in my mind.

The airframes are already twisted and bent and the E models are well beyond their life expectancy right now - in fact that fleet has already begun its predicted implosion.  The outer wings have already been replaced, the engines have been upgraded, the cockpit and avionics have been updated (and are now out of date) ..... the list just goes on and on how we have shoehorned bits and pieces into these old airframes.

This proposed upgrade is a poor idea ...... we have gone beyond the point of no return with the E and H model fleet and any money spent would only extend the problems by a few more years, and then when they eventually break we'll be right where we are today looking at the J model as a replacement.  In the end run we'll end up spending millions on the H model upgrade and then in a few years we'll be spending billions on new J models ..... we may as well save millions and spend billions right now and go straight to the J model.

One thing the article fails to mention in the downtime required for each airframe (which are few and far between these days) to replace the centre wing boxes (our main problem right now) and then begin performing all these other proposed fixes and upgrades.

The time is now (well actually a couple of years ago) to move ahead and proceed with the stretch version of the J model acquisition and stop pumping money into a old airframe.

It's like a farmer's pickup truck ....... there comes a time when you can no longer put any more money into the old workhorse - the time comes that you simply have to stop and go out ad buy a new pickup truck ......
 
Top