CannibalZ3 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 392 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7183 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.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4891 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7128 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.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7125 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.
B747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7107 times:
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.
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6966 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.
Cheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6858 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!
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6850 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.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11454 posts, RR: 73
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6789 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13474 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6784 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.