Posted on 02/10/2005 11:44:26 AM PST by Magnum44
LOCKHEED MARTIN IN THE NEWS:
LOCKHEED'S HERCULES MAY GET REPRIEVE: The Pentagon may not halt production of the Marietta-built C-130J Hercules after all, Sen. Johnny Isakson said Wednesday. President Bush released a budget proposal Monday that called for eliminating the plane after next year. But SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld has told Georgia lawmakers that the Pentagon is already re-evaluating that decision. Rumsfeld did not pledge to spare the plane during a meeting with senators Tuesday, Isakson said. But as soon as Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Isakson asked why the Pentagon was recommending that the plane be scrapped, Rumsfeld was quick to offer assurance that a review of that recommendation was already under way, Isakson said. (Atlanta Journal Constitution)
better yet, how about they get rid of the E models that don't work especially well for whatever reason in the desert heat in the middle east? maybe?
:^)
The C-130 and C-17 do different things. The C-17 is a long range heavy lifter. The C-130 is a short to medium range in-theater lifter.
C-17's can carry a buttload more and land almost anywhere the C-130 can, so no reason it can't do the intra-theater lift mission. Don't get me wrong, C-130 is a great little plane, but IMHO it is hamstringing the Army's ability to design the future force.
Future Combat Systems are being forced to comply with C-130's weight and volume...which were based on the dimensions of 2 M-151 Jeeps abreast. And if you believe the logic trail on wheel gauge going back to chariot wheels which are based on the width of two horse's asses...
Simple turbo-prop vs. jet argument. Low speed touch and go's will be the deciding factor.
IMHO. :-)
Local news this week has been trying to hit President Bush with the cuts on the Hercules. I purposefully watched the news Monday night because they teased all night that "Georgia voted for Bush but Bush votes against Georgia".
Funny thing though is they interviewed Lockheed employees and not one of them seemed bitter. Most said they are used to programs being cut. Then they interviewed an employee who had worked at Lockheed for 30 years. He said he trusted the President to make the right decision.
No offense, but the C-130 is the ONLY Super Cub on steroids in the military.
That is an old plane. I remember watching them during a firepower demonstration at Eglin back in the early 60's.
The original design is old. The planes are not that old, and they are built to last forever. They perform their mission without equal.
Boeing is already upgrading the cockpits.
Boeing Accepts First C-130 for Avionics Modernization
ST. LOUIS, January 19, 2005 - The Boeing Company [NYSE:BA] marked the induction of the first U.S. Air Force C-130 into the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) in San Antonio, Texas today.
This aircraft will undergo a trial installation leading to the modernization of more than 500 U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps C-130 aircraft.
"After four years of hard work by our C-130 AMP team in Long Beach, Calif., St Louis, Mo., and Fort Walton Beach, Fla., the program is performing to plan and we?re on track for first flight in early 2006," said Pat Finneran, vice president and general manager of Aerospace Support, part of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
The C-130 AMP program will standardize aircraft configurations with the installation of a fully integrated, night-vision-goggle-compatible digital glass cockpit and provide a reduction in total ownership costs for the U.S. Air Force. The new avionics system features digital displays and the proven flight management system from the 737 commercial airliner, both of which provide navigation, safety and communication improvements to meet global air traffic management (GATM) requirements. The GATM upgrade will facilitate the warfighter?s ability to deploy the fleet world-wide.
Aircraft modifications will be performed by the company at its Boeing Aerospace Support Center in San Antonio, employing more than 200 people on the program at full production. Modifications also will be performed by the Air Force at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Ga., and Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses. Headquartered in St. Louis , Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $27 billion business. It provides network-centric system solutions to its global military, government, and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems; the world's largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world's largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense and Department of Homeland Security; NASA's largest contractor; and a global leader in launch services.
But as Iraq has shown (and Viet Nam before that), much more vunerable to ambush. More here:
"During the past month, Air Force C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft carried a daily average of 450 tons of cargo, 100 tons per day more than the previous four month’s average. The increase has kept the equivalent of about 400 trucks and 1,000 drivers with military escorts off dangerous roads in Iraq, officials said.
"From February to November, Soldiers averaged 215 convoys per day using 3,000 vehicles. In that same period, Air Force aircraft moved cargo that would have taken an additional 9,000 trucks and about 150 people per day, officials said."
http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123009422
C-17's can ... land almost anywhere the C-130 can
"The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet (914 meters) and only 90 feet wide (27.4 meters). "http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86
C-130J landing 1400 feet, maximum effort take off 1800 feet
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j-specs.htm
Of course, when they were testing it for carrier supply, one (C-130F) (at maximum payload) landed in 460 feet and took 745 feet for takeoff.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-130f.htm
That was with the four-bottom plow and spring-loaded landing gear options, right?
After the fiasco with the Carter era rescue attempt in Iran, they experimented with a model with retro rockets which would be able to land and take off from a soccer field. An operator error during a test landing led to a crash, and the release of the hostages removed the pressure to proceed with the program.
The C-130 qualifies as one of the great airplanes of history.
So more dust is stirred up. I never said it was or wasn't. Not sure why turbid integrity should be a metric of merit. Consider the life-cycle costs of the different engine types. MTBEFF will always be higher on the C-130...unless maybe the C-17 mission profile changes to 100% dirt strips. And then structural fatigue would probably still eclipse engine wear.
There are always risks in war, and any logistics line can be interdicted. In correlating risk with movement of tonnage, the truth of your conclusion is assumed by the premises. My argument is that the plane doesn't offer much tonnage for the range, and when you consider ground and Army aviation, the relevance is not as great as some would think. Your sources are also interested parties, and combine C-130 and C-17.
As said, C-17 can land almost anywhere C-130 can. The raw number of relevant airstrips that fall into C-130 only and their percentage as a whole of relevant airstrips in contingency theaters is sufficiently small that the 700 in the inventory, with proper sustainment resources, can satisfy that niche.
I believe you are correct. There is an issue of mission balance between platforms. The genesis of this thread was that we might buy more C-130's. IMHO, with about 700 in the invetory we have enough. Balance that inventory capability with C-17, CH-47, V-22, and the Army's future tactical rotocraft (utility) capabilities across the next 20 years. There are probably better investments for tactical lift than C-130.
The Osprey is supposed to supplant current heavy lift helocopters. The C-130 is about 80 mph faster than the V-22, and is substantially larger. The C-130 will fly over 3000 miles with 38,000 lbs of cargo. The V-22 has a range of 2100 miles even with in-flight refueling, and has about half the capacity.
PRESS RELEASE -- Secretary of the Air Force, Directorate of Public Affairs
Release No. 02-06
February 11, 2005
C-130Es Grounded
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill - Air Mobility Command Commander, Gen. John W. Handy, directed 30 U.S. Air Force C-130E model aircraft be grounded Feb 10. An additional 60 C-130 aircraft, including some of the E, H, H1, and HC-130
N/P models were placed on restricted flight status to minimize wing stress and increase the safety margin.
The 30 C-130E aircraft were grounded based upon a recommendation by the C-130 System Program Office at Robins AFB, Ga. Since 2001, a series of inspections of the center wing box structure of C-130 has revealed that cracks to the structure were greater in number and severity than originally expected.
Most of the aircraft affected are in AMC's inventory, but affected aircraft are also assigned to Air Education and Training Command, Pacific Air Forces, US Air Forces in Europe, the Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve
Command.
"Working together with the Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command and our active duty units, we are committed to meeting our requirements to war fighters around the world', Handy said."
Well there is that...
When I was in Iraq, during the summer, we had a hell of a time getting down to Qatar sometimes because the E model's engines would overheat constantly....
'inducing'
There's your problem. Injestion,not inducing. They both induce a pile. Props injest less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.