Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-130J Problems?  
User currently offlineCannibalZ3 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

An article in the New York Times recently suggested that that the C-130J's problems are so bad that it cannot perform the missions it was designed for. Comments? Ideas? Any first-person experiences with the Hercules are greatly appreciated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/business/24plane.html
(free registration)

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

The airplane went thru some serious teething troubles and gave the British and the US some issues about sending them into combat zones.

These have mostly been worked thru and the USAF is now talking the airplane up. The Italians have been flying theirs into Iraq for a while.

We need these airplanes to replace the older C-130s in the fleet throughout the world.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5892 times:

I've worked both military and commercial aviation and here's what I have learned. Even when you read a story like this from a reputable source you have to remind yourself that the person writing the story probably knows very little about aviation. In addition they quite often will only tell part of the story.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

My experience with a C-130J is of course second hand . . .

I have had the opportunity to watch it do take offs/landings at HSV several years ago. Amazingly fast take off and landing . . . shorts starts and stops.

But the real deal was listening to my former spouse who is a C-130 driver in "real life" . . .

One of the biggest issues they were attempting to overcome was the lack of a Navigator on drops . . . be it troops or gear. Now this info is a few years old, in that I haven't been married for that long . . . but it was a loud point of contention in her unit back then.

Dropping gear and troops at Bragg was a serious challenge without a Navigator to call the shots. Missed drops and troops going the wrong places was the order of the day. Did they get those issues worked out?

Another example of downsizing not necessarily meaning rightsizing.


User currently offlineB747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5871 times:

ANCFlyer,
I work the line at Pope, we put all the planes in the air for the Bragg troop drops, although I work the C-17's doing this, and only a handfull of the 130's, that being said, why would the C-130J's need the navigator, when the C-17 do the bulk of the troop drops here without a navigator? I flew one such mission on a C-17, and they had oral cammands from the computer telling them 10 mins to drop, 5 minutes to drop etc.. until they were over the zone.

Can this not easily be adapted to the 130J's as well?

Also, I have heard ALOT of complaits about the 6 bladed composite propeller not being able to hold up very well in combat op's on unimproved runways being a big problem.

Brian



At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
User currently offlineTnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5730 times:

The AE2100 engine is not as reliable as the old T-56. Most operators are not happy. The Australians never went for their second batch, the RAF were looking at 50, but backed off and stayed at 25. Even the USAF has mixed feelings. All this after they dealt with the software issues in the FBW controls.


700 hours and counting...
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

Quoting B747 (Reply 4):
why would the C-130J's need the navigator, when the C-17 do the bulk of the troop drops here without a navigator?

Neither one of those aircraft use navigators. They have two man cockpits and have done away with the position as they use inertial and GPS nav systems.

Quoting Tnsaf (Reply 5):
The AE2100 engine is not as reliable as the old T-56. Most operators are not happy. The Australians never went for their second batch,

Those problems seem to have been teething problems that have been set aside.

The RAF replaced their older C-130s with the J models, and will replace their newer ones (still currently serving) with the A-400 as has always been planned.

The Aussies did not definitely plan on taking more C-130s as they really need a smaller airplane to replace the Caribous.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5622 times:

Problems with Aussie J's centred on prop vibrations from the new 6 bladed unit. The two things I've heard about the C-130J in RAAF service is that Lockheed drove a very hard bargain- the cost of fixing the vibration problem was borne by the customers, not so much the company. Secondly, due to the airconditioning required to cool the J's EFIS, the J cockpit is actually noisier than the E model it replaced.

At some stage, the RAAF's C-130H's will have to be replaced. It will be interesting to see which way the Air Force goes. Bring on the FLA!


User currently offlineTnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5614 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
The RAF replaced their older C-130s with the J models, and will replace their newer ones (still currently serving) with the A-400 as has always been planned.

The original plan for the RAF was not to take the A400 as it was not even on the drawing board when the original C-130 replacement plans were created. Calling the issues with the airplane teething problems is an understatement. The RAF refused to take delivery of the airplane at one point.

The whole program has not been managed well by Lockheed.



700 hours and counting...
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

Actually that has been the plan since even before the 1997 White Paper which identified the need for the C-17s in the interim while the A-400's were coming.

The British have always wanted their share of the buildout on the aircraft and the way to get that is to order the thing. 25 is by no means the big order for this bird, but it is probably what the British need.

Teething problems can cover alot of issues. In this case it appeared that an infection set in, but they have pretty much all been dealt with and the aircraft is currently meeting expectations.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13220 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5548 times:

Originally, it was expected that the RAF was to order 30 C-130J's, they ordered 25.To replace the most aging of the C-130K fleet.
The UK was a player in the early 80's for a future European large aircraft, but withdrew (in disgust maybe?) in 1989.
But BAe pushed the then FLA from 1994 heavily, when it really should have started as a full programme.

Now the programme is actually going ahead, the ultimate RAF requirement is for 45 A400M's, for now they have ordered 25, the final number was always going to be decided by what happens to the C-17's, as the RAF will add a 5th C-17 and are to buy them all when the lease expires, I would not expect for the RAF to eventually get 45 A400M's, a top order maybe a decade or so from now perhaps, 5-10 more.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-130J Problems?
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...
Usmc H/AH-1 Program Problems posted Wed May 31 2006 20:11:02 by KC135TopBoom
Buffet Problems For Italian KC-767 posted Mon May 22 2006 09:56:35 by Scbriml
Article: Australian Army Eurocopter Tiger Problems posted Fri May 12 2006 22:46:07 by Lumberton
C-130J Or A400M - What's The Better Aircraft? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 07:19:12 by AirRyan
EH-101 Problems posted Tue Sep 20 2005 00:01:33 by MissedApproach
RNZAFs B757s Grounded - Engine Problems posted Sat Sep 3 2005 10:43:46 by 777ER
C-130J Problems? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 23:07:47 by CannibalZ3
Hercules C-130J posted Sat Mar 12 2005 13:31:39 by MauriceB
First Look At The HC-130J posted Mon Jun 28 2004 07:01:58 by L-188
RAF C-130J In Midair posted Wed May 26 2004 17:59:29 by Spacepope

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format