Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:37 pm



Quote:
Lockheed Martin confirms studies are under way for a new version of the C-130 featuring a wider fuselage to accommodate a proposed class of US Army ground vehicles entering service after 2015.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...kheed-looks-to-widen-hercules.html

Guess this puts to rest any doubts about the C-130 accommodating the Army's FCS...and it also gives competition to the A400M and those that thought it might be a shoe-in for the USAF.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:42 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Guess this puts to rest any doubts

Widening, rather than lengthening a fuselage is easier studied than done though...

Peter
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:06 pm

Aside from the Super Guppies and the like, has anyone ever widened a fuselage? Wouldn't that be an entirely new aircraft?
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:10 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Widening, rather than lengthening a fuselage is easier studied than done though...

It can be done. What it may all boil down to, though, is at what price? The only other current viable option, the A400M, is by no means a cheap bird. So the value proposition is going to be the cost of fattening the C-130 vs. the cost of acquiring a mid-sized lifter (e.g., A400M), the cost of introducing a completely new model into the USAF inventory, minus any cost-savings benefits/performance advantages it brings to flying the same mission as the C-130XWB. Not to mention the comparative operating costs of the two models over their lifespan, but I don't think that will be as big a factor (this is, after all, the USAF and not a commercial airline operation).

The article was interesting in that it mentions the following:

Quote:
One is to partner the army to develop an all-new airlifter for delivery after 2021. A notional development programme called Joint Future Theatre Lift, emphasising either vertical or super-short take-off and access to austere airstrips, is in the planning stages.

Obviously, if they move forward with that program, neither the C-130XWB nor A400M would suffice. And that is what I said in the other thread on the C-17B: if/when the USAF decides to address the gap in its lift capabilities then it may just order up a spec-to-build airframe. Let the competition begin!

[Edited 2008-09-08 09:35:05]
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting Thorny (Reply 2):
Aside from the Super Guppies and the like, has anyone ever widened a fuselage? Wouldn't that be an entirely new aircraft?

The KC-135 has a narrower fuselage than the production 707's that were based on it. From what I remember reading in the past, the KC-135 fuselage was going to be put into production for the passenger variant, but too many airlines balked and requested a wider fuselage, so Boeing complied. But you are correct in that the C-130XWB may ultimately be an entirely new model.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:20 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Guess this puts to rest any doubts about the C-130 accommodating the Army's FCS...and it also gives competition to the A400M and those that thought it might be a shoe-in for the USAF.

Lockheed-Martin's congressional clout is without peer in the Military-Industrial complex. Unless Airbus planned to build the A400M in Georgia, it would be hard to fight the C-130. Even Boeing would have fun trying to get a C-17B buy over the C-130.  Smile
 
zanl188
Posts: 3882
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:48 pm



Quoting Thorny (Reply 2):
Aside from the Super Guppies and the like, has anyone ever widened a fuselage? Wouldn't that be an entirely new aircraft?

Not necessarily. The narrow bit of a 130 fuselage is between the wheel wells - might be as simple as moving the wheel wells outboard of the pressure hull ala C-141 & C-17.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:20 am



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Widening, rather than lengthening a fuselage is easier studied than done though...

Peter

Agreed, Unless you are talking about a Supercub wide cabin, but in that case you simply replace the whole fuselage

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Aside from the Super Guppies and the like, has anyone ever widened a fuselage? Wouldn't that be an entirely new aircraft?

Well you had Boeing do it with the 367-80 to the KC-135 to the 707 and I think Donald Douglas widened the fuselage of the DC-2 to the DC-3.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:03 pm

Mind you, the DC3 was unpressurised.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:36 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
From what I remember reading in the past, the KC-135 fuselage was going to be put into production for the passenger variant,

It was actually the original B717, some KC-135 parts still bear the 717 model number.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 6):
The narrow bit of a 130 fuselage is between the wheel wells

It is only 5" you are tanking about, forward cabin is 10'5", in the middle it goes back to 10'.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 6):
might be as simple as moving the wheel wells outboard of the pressure hull ala C-141 & C-17.

They already are, also no point in making the cabin wider, if the cargo ramp is not made wider, it is useless for airdrops otherwise.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:06 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):

Glad to see you're back, Zeke. These threads have been so boring in your absence and the absence of the constant back-and-forth.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
also no point in making the cabin wider, if the cargo ramp is not made wider, it is useless for airdrops otherwise.

Would that not be an assumed modification? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to widen the fuselage to accommodate wider loads, only to bottleneck it at the ramp.

On another topic, I've been told by others that the load on the C-130XWB would have to go up by such a large amount in order to accommodate "Combat Ready" vehicles (not "transport ready") as to render it requiring the A400M's type engines. I don't know if I buy into that, especially since I'm not even sure the A400M is that effective for "combat ready" loads.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3882
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:36 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
They already are, also no point in making the cabin wider, if the cargo ramp is not made wider, it is useless for airdrops otherwise.

C-130 main gear are well inside the mold line of the hull, moving the main gear outboard would open up considerable space. Widening the fuselage would provide additional room for the vehicles crew - which I understand from reading the thread is one of the issues the army has has with the 130...

It isn't necessarily the width of the ramp that's the problem - it's being able to get the loadmaster thru the narrow bit between the gear wells. 463L pallets loaded between the gear wells require aisleway built into the pallet for this reason. Also AAR makes custom ISUs specifically to address this problem... strangely enough C-130 pax & crew want access to the honey bucket  

My own personal experience of this dimensional limitation of the C-130 was with a L-100 that had a busted exterior ramp switch. No troop doors on the L-100 so I had to crawl over the top of a couple of well cubed out pallets to reach the interior ramp switch- there was NO clearance between the pallets and the wheel wells - good thing I was skinny then...

http://www.aarcorp.com/gov/Mobility/...d/PDFs/02-06-ISU-90I-Container.pdf

Not enough info in this thread though to understand the exact dimensional requirement for the armys new vehicle....

[Edited 2008-09-09 15:38:10]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:47 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 10):
On another topic, I've been told by others that the load on the C-130XWB would have to go up by such a large amount in order to accommodate "Combat Ready" vehicles (not "transport ready") as to render it requiring the A400M's type engines. I don't know if I buy into that, especially since I'm not even sure the A400M is that effective for "combat ready" loads.

The C-130J-30 ( the so called C-130J Super Hercules) in my view is already at the upper limit of performance capability of that airframe, it has a maximum 2.5g payload (i.e. tactical) of 47,812 lb (providing you have the right wing relief fuel setup), but it unable to take that payload anywhere, it can only take about 45,000 lb 1,000 nm, or 40,000 lb at 2450 nm.

The A400M is has a tactical payload of 66,138 lb, and can carry that full tactical payload 2450 nm (the payload is constant to 2450 nm unlike the C-130J-30 which is constantly decreasing), 26,136 lb more than the C-130J-30.

I am comparing tactical weights here (2.5g) as you were talking about "combat ready" loads, if you were to disassemble loads and put them into the C-130, you would be looking at the logistic loads (2.25g) which are higher on both frames.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:14 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Widening, rather than lengthening a fuselage is easier studied than done though...

The article also talks about the possibility of lengthening the fuselage.....

Quote:
"We have teams looking at what it would take to make a [longer] fuselage," Grant says, "and then we also have the design teams looking at the emerging technologies should the requirements drive us to the new airframe."

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
if you were to disassemble loads and put them into the C-130, you would be looking at the logistic loads (2.25g) which are higher on both frames.

Except that LockMart is looking at putting those loads onto a virtually new airframe - a widened and lengthened one. Then they may just ask P&W or GE to propose for the engines if RR is tied to an exclusivity contract on the A400M with Europrop..... should the AJACS initiative not materialize.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...air-force-hopes-for-heavylift.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ontest-to-build-cargo-x-plane.html

[Edited 2008-09-09 19:24:23]
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:24 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 11):
C-130 main gear are well inside the mold line of the hull, moving the main gear outboard would open up considerable space. Widening the fuselage would provide additional room for the vehicles crew - which I understand from reading the thread is one of the issues the army has has with the 130...

You know I didn't think about that, but if you did convert it so that you din't have the MLG wells in the cabin that would be good for probably a foot and half of space.

Edit:The other thought I just had was that a wider track MLG for the Herk won't hurt it's off-road capablities in the least. Also might help on the x-wind landings, A couple of Herks have come to grief dragging a wing in a x-wind landing.

[Edited 2008-09-09 19:31:41]
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:28 am

What about increasing the carrying capacity?

The article even mentions it: the FCS has outgrown the C-130's weight limit, so what is going to be done to solve that issue?

What I found strange, was Jim Grant's argument that Army FCS vehicles may eventually be too heavy for the A400M! ...So if it's too heavy for the A400... then how can the C-130 even compete??? He basically made an argument in favor of his competitor - Boeing's C-17B proposal!
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:55 pm

It's tough to believe the AN-70 is completely ruled out still.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:04 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
The KC-135 has a narrower fuselage than the production 707's that were based on it. From what I remember reading in the past, the KC-135 fuselage was going to be put into production for the passenger variant, but too many airlines balked and requested a wider fuselage, so Boeing complied. But you are correct in that the C-130XWB may ultimately be an entirely new model.



Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
KC-135 to the 707

The KC-135 and 707 mods made sense tho right from the outset - with 803 KC-135s built, and 1,010 707s built, the two aircraft could have been completely different and still have made financial sense.

But there have only been around 200 C-130J orders placed, and a similar number for the A400M - does it make financial sense to spend the money widening it?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:26 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 16):
It's tough to believe the AN-70 is completely ruled out still.

The Russians are showing their true stripes now, so forget anything Russian. Look at the ruckus on the tanker; can you imagine the uproar of spending US money on a Russian airplane!
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:34 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 18):

Antonov is Ukranian.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:39 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 17):
But there have only been around 200 C-130J orders placed, and a similar number for the A400M - does it make financial sense to spend the money widening it?

There's a lot more C-130 airframes out there that will eventually need replacing. Frankly, I'm a little surprised LM isn't coming up with an all-new offering that can be a viable replacement for the existing fleets of C-130s as well as go head-to-head in all aspects with the A400M. But, then again, perhaps that is what the C-130XWB is intended to be. It may end up being an all-new design and LM may just be marketing it as a variant of the C-130 in order to make sure it continues to appeal to existing C-130 operators by implying it has the same bloodlines.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:48 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 11):
C-130 main gear are well inside the mold line of the hull, moving the main gear outboard would open up considerable space.

See for yourself, C-130J-30 shown, the wheels are already outside the cargo box.



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
Except that LockMart is looking at putting those loads onto a virtually new airframe - a widened and lengthened one

Rather useless exercise in my view, may as well add a new wing and engines to that.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
The article even mentions it: the FCS has outgrown the C-130's weight limit, so what is going to be done to solve that issue?

That is true, todays Stryker has even out grown the C-130.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
What I found strange, was Jim Grant's argument that Army FCS vehicles may eventually be too heavy for the A400M!

Depends on the vehicle, I have seen one class of vehicle that would be around 45,000 lb empty, and around 55,000 lb combat ready, also seen vehicles approaching 100,000 lb. It is not one vehicle, it is a family of vehicles that form a system.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:26 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 19):
Antonov is Ukranian.

The general public and, more importantly, the Congress would view it as a Russian since that is how Boeing and LM would portray it.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:14 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
C-130J-30 shown, the wheels are already outside the cargo box.

Zeke, from your diagram it would appear that the wheels themselves are outside of the cargo box. But it also appears that the wheel wells themselves impinge on the cargo box, albeit by only a few inches on either side.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5117
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:20 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
Zeke, from your diagram it would appear that the wheels themselves are outside of the cargo box. But it also appears that the wheel wells themselves impinge on the cargo box, albeit by only a few inches on either side.

 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:58 pm



Quoting Moo (Reply 24):

That sums it up in 1000 words, thank you. The dotted line of the sponsons is the shape on the outside of the fuselage, not inside. The solid lines indicate that they drawings indicate plan and elevation sections.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3882
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:34 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
See for yourself, C-130J-30 shown, the wheels are already outside the cargo box.

Maybe you've never been in a C-130 cargo compartment but for those of us who have and especially those of us who have worked the aircraft it's clear the gear wells intrude on the interior fuselage space.. and are in fact the limiting factor for cargo width...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27037
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:04 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
The general public and, more importantly, the Congress would view it as a Russian since that is how Boeing and LM would portray it.

Yep, just like the "French" tanker, unfortunately.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 26):
Maybe you've never been in a C-130 cargo compartment but for those of us who have and especially those of us who have worked the aircraft it's clear the gear wells intrude on the interior fuselage space.. and are in fact the limiting factor for cargo width...

You mean this ...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
It is only 5" you are tanking about, forward cabin is 10'5", in the middle it goes back to 10'.

Just to clarify, you clearly said previously "main gear are well inside the mold line of the hull", the main gear is outside the cargo compartment (the track is 14'3"), as the diagram and photo indicates.

The 10' constriction is due to a fairing around the main gear, not the main gear itself. Maybe that s what you were trying to communicate before, but you didn't.

Moving the sponsons laterally away from the fuselage center line would only gain about 2.5" either side, as the forward cabin is 10'5" wide.

Just in case you have not been in a C130 cargo compartment, this is what the cross sections look like

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:53 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
The 10' constriction is due to a fairing around the main gear, not the main gear itself. Maybe that s what you were trying to communicate before, but you didn't.

Zeke, I think that is what he and I were referring to. And that is what I said in my post about the wheels themselves being outside of the fuse, but that the well itself intrudes. While you might gain only a few inches in floor width, there would be a significant gain in lateral width. No matter how you look at it, the mid-fuse is very restricted.

The other advantage to moving the wheels and well further out is that a double-bogey wheel scheme could be employed, allowing for less weight being distributed per wheel, and which would certainly benefit any potential MTOW increases with regards to performance from unimproved surfaces.
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:33 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 20):

There's a lot more C-130 airframes out there that will eventually need replacing. Frankly, I'm a little surprised LM isn't coming up with an all-new offering that can be a viable replacement for the existing fleets of C-130s as well as go head-to-head in all aspects with the A400M. But, then again, perhaps that is what the C-130XWB is intended to be. It may end up being an all-new design and LM may just be marketing it as a variant of the C-130 in order to make sure it continues to appeal to existing C-130 operators by implying it has the same bloodlines.

I have a suspicion that if this LM's "proposal" ever comes to fruition, it will be an attempt by LM to backdoor in a C 130 replacement without ever going through a competitive bidding process.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:58 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 22):
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 19):
Antonov is Ukranian.

The general public and, more importantly, the Congress would view it as a Russian since that is how Boeing and LM would portray it.

Not if the Ukraine attempts to join NATO and the EU, as they would like to, and Russia makes hostile moves.

Jan
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:19 am



Quoting Thorny (Reply 2):
Aside from the Super Guppies and the like, has anyone ever widened a fuselage? Wouldn't that be an entirely new aircraft?

I don't know it counts as a true widening but the Nimrod was a "double-bubble" version of the Comet with an extra lower lobe
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:21 pm



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
RR is tied to an exclusivity contract on the A400M with Europrop.....

RR was suggesting use of the engine for other appliences recently.

What about LM striking a deal with EADS. EADS is tight on slots for a long time to go. McDonnell Douglas / Boeing did it with the AV-8B before.

The new A400M seems to far ahead to be competed effectively by a beefed up C130. The TP400 has growth potential build in and the A400M could be stretched.

 
zanl188
Posts: 3882
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:49 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
The 10' constriction is due to a fairing around the main gear, not the main gear itself. Maybe that s what you were trying to communicate before, but you didn't.

Moving the sponsons laterally away from the fuselage center line would only gain about 2.5" either side, as the forward cabin is 10'5" wide.

Just in case you have not been in a C130 cargo compartment, this is what the cross sections look like

If all that's needed is the 5" additional width moving the gear and yes, your "fairing" as well, outboard is the easiest way to go about it. No widening of cargo door and ramp required....
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:33 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):
Rather useless exercise in my view, may as well add a new wing and engines to that.

Did you miss this?.....

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
Then they may just ask P&W or GE to propose for the engines if RR is tied to an exclusivity contract on the A400M with Europrop.

Sorry, but I think most everyone on here would see those as a given. At the least, that's what should be expected of any manufacturer worth their salt.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
RR was suggesting use of the engine for other appliences recently.

Well and good if RR would be able to use that engine on a competing platform. Just the same, engine proposals will likely still be solicited from other manufacturers to get best value for money in case such a program goes ahead.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
What about LM striking a deal with EADS. EADS is tight on slots for a long time to go. McDonnell Douglas / Boeing did it with the AV-8B before.

I could see Northrop Grumman doing it - not a company with the capability and such a huge stake in it like Lockheed Martin - they will go it alone. Boeing may not do it either because it would undermine their C-17B or C-17C project.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):

The new A400M seems to far ahead to be competed effectively by a beefed up C130. The TP400 has growth potential build in and the A400M could be stretched.

It's not like the US's airlift capability would all of a sudden be seriously compromised if they did not order the A400M - they still have the largest, most capable fleet in the world, and could just as soon buy some more C-17s and C-130J-30s if they needed to. They could wait for a new design.

OTOH, EADS have a lot of customers waiting for the A400M for the longest time who now might be reconsidering their decisions, or could no longer be in a position to take delivery. The USAF would not want to be in a similar situation - they have had enough with the KC-X.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:46 am

There's a better view here of the conceptual C-130XL.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wider-larger-c-130xl-to-fight.html

With the feared one-year further delay of the A400M, this proposed Herk on steroids might be able to make progress in time for the next procurement round after the current economic storm blows over.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...lUKG38AAAEAAHA-goYAAAAA&modele=afp

"Airbus military transport delayed by a year: aviation body"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:36 am



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
With the feared one-year further delay of the A400M, this proposed Herk on steroids might be able to make progress in time for the next procurement round after the current economic storm blows over.....

Which is going to be really damming for the Europeans if the Lockheed can get a comparable prototype flying within a couple of years when the A400 actually enters service.

Some of these European weapons/aircraft systems just take forever in development.
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1669
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:42 am



Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
Some of these European weapons/aircraft systems just take forever in development.

I think you can leave the "European" part out of that sentence. Military projects tend to be late all over the world.

Cheers!  wave 
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:50 pm



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 38):
I think you can leave the "European" part out of that sentence. Military projects tend to be late all over the world.

 checkmark 
From current experience, you might want to leave the "Military" part out of the sentence.
 
columba
Posts: 5279
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:19 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 37):
Which is going to be really damming for the Europeans if the Lockheed can get a comparable prototype flying within a couple of years when the A400 actually enters service.

Big "If" as we don´t know what kind of problems LM will face and give the experience over the last few years I doubt we will see any project on time even a redesign of an existing model.

Just look how long it took for the latest versions of the Cobra and the Huey to be in service with the marines.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:51 pm

The XL will have a new engine, wing, and airframe. Of course it will have new landing gear and floor to go with that.

They're playing with a simpler "double bubble" mod now in the sketches (along with, yes, cutting down on the intrusion from the gear), but that's only a a small step from a new wing, etc., since the double bubble will by necessity require a new attachment to the fuselage for the wing. If you're changing that, and the engines, then you might as well chunk the 60-year old wing also.

Air Force lifters typically have hugely over-built floors (a la C-17, which was practically built around this component), and that will be interesting to see in the new version. It would be highly unusual for this to be an afterthought.
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1669
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:26 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 39):
From current experience, you might want to leave the "Military" part out of the sentence.

 checkmark 

Cheers!  wave 
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:02 pm



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 38):
I think you can leave the "European" part out of that sentence. Military projects tend to be late all over the world.

Some US projects do run relatively fast, the F-22 for example. The European projects seem to take ages without exception.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:05 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 43):
Some US projects do run relatively fast, the F-22 for example

The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

So EIS was 10 yrs later then originally planned..
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:31 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 44):
So EIS was 10 yrs later then originally planned..

Thanks for correcting me on that.

Peter
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-130: Lockheed To Widen For Army

Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Lockheed Explores Niche For Widebody C-130

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s%20Niche%20For%20Widebody%20C-130

In between the lines you can see LM is positioning it as a niche variant of the C-130J. In the same article it becomes clear it really would be an entirely new aircraft..

Not damaging the C130J prospects, positioning it as a variant (low risk perception) and at the same time promoting new capabilities maybe requiring little modification like new fuselage, wings, engines, etc..  Big grin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos