Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-130 AMP Cancelled(?)  
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-said-to-be-ended-by-pentagon.html
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation...uction-c-130-amp-upgrade-delivered

I add the (?) because the Pentagon is often second-guessed by Congress. Not sure if that is possible here.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGyreaux130J From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

Pretty sure the AMP is donzo. Word on the street is that they have been having some avionics issues with the upgraded Herks(nothing official). I'm just curious what is going to happen to the birds they've already converted and all of the kits that have already been purchased.


When all else fails, fly Martin Baker!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5271 times:

I agree, the C-130H AMP program is probibly gone. My guess is the KC-10 avionics update is gone, too.

User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

KC135TopBoom, are you referring to the KC-10 AMP test that was going on at McGuire AFB a few years back or was there another avionics update announced?

I've been told by one of my KC-10 engineer buddies at Travis that we have the only KC-10 test bird there at Travis now after acquiring it from MCGuire and I'm told its an avionics nightmare right now. I'd love to know if that's true and if so, why.



...
User currently offlineGyreaux130J From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5173 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):

they'll probably follow that act up with the C-5M's



When all else fails, fly Martin Baker!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

I kinda had a feeling this was going to happen. There was alot of talk about bringing the C-130 AMP to Dover to keep the Lockheed contract team employed here after they finished the C-5 AMP. Then they cancelled AMP on the last 10 jets and a bunch of people I know lost their jobs and knew that the idea was scratched because of "bugs" in the C-130 AMP.

Quoting Gyreaux130J (Reply 4):
they'll probably follow that act up with the C-5M's

AMP is done on the C-5s staying in service...nothing to cancel there.


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

Dover never had a real chance of getting the C-130 AMP mod. That was some AMP mod team generated rumor. Lockmart would never do the mod at a non C-130 base. Lockmart would want to lean on big blue for AGE, special tools, manning support, and of course somebody to blame when they ran into "legacy problems" that they could or would not deal with. They did a real number when they wrote the C-5 AMP contract, I'm sure to beef up the bottom line. Also, big blue tried to toss the AMP team to another base after the AD planes had been AMPed, because they really didn't give a damn about the reserve component AMP getting done or not....

I wonder if a factor in the C-130 decision was the bad taste C-5 AMP left in Uncle's mouth after that "project". Another question would the plane be any better off after the AMP mod? Is the C-5 better off?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Yes, the KC-10 AMP has been a problem for the past few years. I expect it to be formerly canceled, and that one test bed tanker returned to the original avionics systems eventually, maybe at its next PDM Depot.

On a related note the KC-135R PACER CRAIG program has been successful. I don't know if all KC-135R/Ts have been completed yet, or not. If they have not all been completed, I expect they will be. These KC-135R/Ts will not retire as the KC-46As begin delivery, they will replace the already retired KC-135Es. I also have this bad feeling the KC-46 program will be canceled after about 120 aircraft have been delivered, or about 10 squadrons, maybe 6 active duty squadrons, 4 ANG squadrons, and 2 AFR squadrons.

Heres how I see the new KC-46 squadrons basing;

Fairchild AFB, WA, 1 Sq KC-46A, 1 Sq KC-135R, 509th WS duel qualified KC-46A, KC-135R/T, 1 KC-135R ANG Sq

McConnell AFB, KS, 1 Sg KC-46A, 1 KC-135R Sq, 1 ANG KC-46A Sq

Altus AFB, OK, 1 KC-46A Training Sq, 1 KC-135R Training Sq, 1 KC-46A Sq

Pease ANGB, NH, 1 KC-46A Sq, 1 KC-46A ANG Sq

Hickman AFB, HI, 1 KC-46A ANG Sq

Westover ANGB, MA, 1 KC-46A AFR Sq (converted from the C-5B)

March JARB, CA, 1 KC-46A AFR Sq (Converted from the KC-135R)


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 6):
I wonder if a factor in the C-130 decision was the bad taste C-5 AMP left in Uncle's mouth after that "project". Another question would the plane be any better off after the AMP mod? Is the C-5 better off?

Although AMP got to a rough start on the C-5, it has definitely improved the C-5 reliability. Mainly because even if they have an avionics problem, they have parts to fix it. The major problem they had with the legacy parts were that there were no spares. That and they had to be upgraded to an extent anyways just so they could keep flying through Europe. Not having all the mechanical dials and guages definitely made things a little easier for AFIN.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Westover ANGB, MA, 1 KC-46A AFR Sq (converted from the C-5B)

Not going to happen. Westover ARB is going to get the C-5M. Even if they shrank the C-5 RERP more, Dover and Travis would lose their jets before Westover did...and Westover would get them. There are plenty of other units that are more likely to see the KC-46 as well.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Boeing has a whole program for updating DC-10 pits to MD-11 standards, the USAF should farm it out to FedEx via Boeing.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Westover ANGB, MA, 1 KC-46A AFR Sq (converted from the C-5B)

Not going to happen. Westover ARB is going to get the C-5M. Even if they shrank the C-5 RERP more, Dover and Travis would lose their jets before Westover did...and Westover would get them. There are plenty of other units that are more likely to see the KC-46 as well.

Hi Galaxy5007. The NE US needs some tanker assets as there currently are not enough. The current assets are small KC-135R squadrons at the NHANG, MEANG, PAANG, NJANG, and the KC-10s at McGuire. But the C-5 units, along the east coast include the WVANG, DOV, NYANG (Stewart), and of course the AFR units at CEF. Further inland you Memphis and Wright Pat plus all the C-17 units (isn't WPAFB converting to C-17s?).


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Hi Galaxy5007. The NE US needs some tanker assets as there currently are not enough. The current assets are small KC-135R squadrons at the NHANG, MEANG, PAANG, NJANG, and the KC-10s at McGuire. But the C-5 units, along the east coast include the WVANG, DOV, NYANG (Stewart), and of course the AFR units at CEF. Further inland you Memphis and Wright Pat plus all the C-17 units (isn't WPAFB converting to C-17s?).

Stewart and Wright-Patterson both operate C-17s now; neither operate C-5s. That leaves Westover, Martinsburg and Dover with C-5s. Memphis will slowly lose their jets over the next year or two as their jets are also retired. See my C-5A fleet shrinking thread.
I should also note that since we are "done" with Iraq, alot of the missions out of the east coast have been going westbound and through the pacific. The NE can have more tankers there, but I was just saying Westover is one of the most unlikely candidates to get tankers...especially the KC-46. Most of the time, from what I've seen, tankers are used more overseas that here stateside for actual missions. 9 times out of 10, C-5s make it all the way to their destination and C-17s do as well. If they stop, its usually at Bangor or Gander, which isn't a big deal for the C-17. I think only the Heavy loads the C-5 take off with actually require an a/r if they transitioning through the NE. If the "need" was that bad, they would move 135s that way sooner rather than later.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-130 AMP Cancelled(?)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
New C-17 And C-130 Dim A400M & Usaf Chance posted Thu Jul 10 2008 20:52:40 by CX747
C-5 & C-130 @ ORD On 7/5/06 posted Thu Jul 6 2006 01:00:08 by Airfinair
C-130- Extra Gizmos & Doodads posted Sat May 6 2006 02:47:04 by MissedApproach
Lockheed Unveils Two Future C-130 Variants posted Sat Dec 3 2011 06:39:12 by Spacepope
C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130 posted Wed Sep 7 2011 11:39:30 by PolymerPlane
C-130 And Drone Collide In Afghanistan posted Wed Aug 17 2011 16:59:59 by HaveBlue
C-130 Crashed In Morocco posted Tue Jul 26 2011 07:08:47 by photoshooter
C-130 Makes Emergency Landing At COS posted Mon Apr 18 2011 10:34:00 by Spacepope
VAQ-130 The Zappers, Finshed Last Prowler Curise posted Mon Dec 20 2010 10:35:53 by 747400sp
External Differences Between HC-130 And MC-130? posted Sun Aug 29 2010 14:36:19 by SandroMag

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format