# The CC-130-J Hercules Merged Thread



## MarkOttawa

Lockheed wins $4.9B contract
Tories quietly pick U.S. aerospace giant to replace Hercules
_Ottawa Citizen_, Nov. 22
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=bc42b975-f7b7-47ad-ad14-3ecd961501c5&k=1477

A certain reporter, for some reason, never mentions that the A400M is actually being made by a company named Airbus.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/

One wonders why.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100492.html



> The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin's C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military's aging Hercules transport planes.
> 
> The U.S. aerospace giant was informed of the government's decision on Monday, although there has been no official government announcement about the selection of the C-130J for the project.
> 
> Despite the government secrecy, the choice of the C-130J as the military's new tactical transport aircraft doesn't come as a surprise to those in the aerospace industry. Although the Conservative government maintained that the competition was open to all bidders and fair, the project requirements automatically eliminated the European-built A400M aircraft, the main competition to the C-130J.
> 
> The recently issued statement of qualification for the new aircraft called for a test flight sometime this year. The A400M is now being built and won't be able to fly until 2008.
> 
> Defence Department officials also declined several invitations from A400M manufacturer EADS to visit the aircraft's production line as well as view the high-tech flight simulator that has been built for the plane. The same officials did, however, spend extensive time test flying the C-130J last month [well, they would wouldn't they as it actually is flying]...
> 
> The Canadian government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and another $1.7 billion for a 20-year service contract for the planes. Lockheed, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for the maintenance contract as well.
> 
> The contract for the planes is expected to be signed by the summer of 2007. The first aircraft will be required to be delivered three years after that [seems a bit long to me]...
> 
> Supporters of the A400M argue that the C-130J is older technology and the EADS aircraft is a new generation plane that will be operated in the future by a large number of Canada's allies.
> 
> But military officials counter that the aging Hercules planes needed to be replaced as soon as possible and they had concerns about whether the A400M could meet delivery schedules...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

The experience civilian operators are having with delays to the A 380 superjumbo project should serve as a warning as well, since Airbus is unable to service "real" customers, many of whom are dropping their orders after being told there will be up to two years delay in receiving their planes.

Airlines cancelling their orders means lost revenues for Airbus, which should be a huge incentive for the company to get sorted, but sadly this does not seem to be happening.

Far better Canada buy into a "real" airplane rather than a paper one.


----------



## Astrodog

Agreed, glad to see at least we've learned from taking it on the chin with the cormie, why stray from the tried and tested airframe?


----------



## newfin

Best news I've heard all week.  I am in the "a bird in the hand..." side of the camp.  Why does it take so long to get a contract in Lockheed's hands?

It's truly great news.  Finally some movement.

However we can all be a little ashamed that we have 40 year old aircraft as frontline cargo and troop haulers.  This process should have been started at least 10 years ago.


----------



## a_majoor

newfin said:
			
		

> However we can all be a little ashamed that we have 40 year old aircraft as frontline cargo and troop haulers.  This process should have been started at least 10 years ago.



That had to do with a government that was elected 13 years ago...........


----------



## jimmy742

At last... Some of Hercs were already old when I was in, and that was over 20 years ago. I understand servicing had its challenges then, I can just imagine now.

I'm hoping that a government to government deal is also being considered so we can start retiring the older birds asap.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>the project requirements automatically eliminated the European-built A400M aircraft, the main competition to the C-130J.

In the same way, the requirements automatically eliminated every potential airframe not currently in production, past or future.  What a drool-on-the-chin statement of the obvious.


----------



## MarkOttawa

*Update* (full text subscriber only): Lockheed Martin says it will try to speed up delivery (old Hercs are failing fast but lets consider the A400M anyway) and DND confirms that the J has been selected. What remains are formal contract negotiations. Why they will take until next summer is quite beyond me.



> Lockheed Martin is hoping to speed up delivery of its C-130J transport aircraft to the Canadian Forces to help deal with military concerns that some of its aging Hercules planes will have to be pulled from service sooner than anticipated.
> 
> The Canadian Forces is estimating that up to 14 Hercules may be grounded early because of excessive wear. The aircraft were scheduled to be withdrawn from service in 2010...
> 
> But Jack Crisler, a Lockheed Martin vice-president, said the firm is going to try to see if it can start deliveries earlier than that.
> "We're giving them a range of ideas that would take it anywhere, maybe even down to 24 months, depending on what they want to do," he said...
> 
> ...military officials yesterday confirmed the information in Tuesday's Citizen article that the C-130J had been selected as the only plane that can meet the Canadian Forces tactical airlift needs.
> "We can now confirm that Lockheed Martin is the successful respondent of the solicitation of interest and qualification," said military spokesman Lieut. Adam Thomson. "It is now a matter of entering into negotiations with Lockheed for the acquisition of the C-130J aircraft."
> 
> Government officials expect a contract to be signed by the summer of 2007...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Given that several countries apparently have problems with the J's electronics suite (UK and the US) giving everyone time to get their act together and get the bugs out is not a bad idea.

If we have to keep our Hercs up in the air for a little while longer, stock up on bailing wire and gun tape.


----------



## Journeyman

geo said:
			
		

> *...problems.....electronics......UK *


 Same people involved with the submarine program? (my first bike was a Norton - - I still curse Lucas electrics   )


----------



## geo

Lucas - the Prince of darkness...............

WRT the Js electronics - nope, that's all Lockheed.
As stated, the USAF & the RAF have had some issues with taking delivery of Js... have the bugs been ironed out - not sure.

Anyone?


----------



## ringo

2 more C-17's should be aquired before Boeing shutsdown the line, 6 C-17 stategic airlifters coming into service before the J's come on line and would relieve a lot of presssure from current airlifter fleet sooner.

As for the A400M, they could be procured to replace the 5 KC-130 and 2 L-130-100? Herc's, I believe these newer model Herc's are to remain in service after 4 planned C-17's and 17 C-130J's are procured.


----------



## a_majoor

How does anyone propose to procure a plane which does not exist as a piece of hardware yet?

You can buy C-17's (or ask for the production line to be retooled, but at a quarter billion a pop.....)
You can buy C-130J's
You can buy Il-76M if you are really desperate (or are the buyer for the Russian Air Force)
You can buy the one and only AN 70 (as an interesting exhibit in a museum), and "maybe" could get the company to work from the prototype to make a useable aircraft for us.

Or you can pick up lots of shiny brochures on the A400M, and if you are a black belt in origami, maybe you can make one.......


----------



## geo

With the problems Airbus are having with their various production lines, the A380 delivery is being pushed further and further back.  Given that this is the product that has firm orders in hand, Airbus will divert all of their efforts towards the 380 before moving on to the A400.
Airbus is now dealing with China and looking to open a production line over there - not sure if that is good or bad news???

For the time being, the Herc is the only one standing on the playing field.


----------



## Bert

A slight tangent, but Stratfor put this little blurb as part of an intelligence summary today.
Seems India is rounding out their air force.

>
www.stratfor.com
November 28, 2006 13:01

INDIA: Indian air force (IAF) chief SP Tyagi said the IAF is close to finalizing a deal for the acquisition of six Hercules C-130J transport aircraft from Lockheed Martin. The IAF is also working on a deal to purchase 126 multifunctional combat aircraft, including Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon, the Swedish Gripen fighter, the French Rafale and the Russian MiG-35.
<


----------



## geo

ice big shopping list........
 - given their economy, what are they planning to use for payment I wonder out loud?

(whups, that's right, no pension obligations and no health care...)


----------



## aesop081

Bert said:
			
		

> A slight tangent, but Stratfor put this little blurb as part of an intelligence summary today.
> Seems India is rounding out their air force.
> 
> >
> www.stratfor.com
> November 28, 2006 13:01
> 
> INDIA: Indian air force (IAF) chief SP Tyagi said the IAF is close to finalizing a deal for the acquisition of six Hercules C-130J transport aircraft from Lockheed Martin. The IAF is also working on a deal to purchase 126 multifunctional combat aircraft, including Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon, the Swedish Gripen fighter, the French Rafale and the Russian MiG-35.
> <



Those are the contenders for the contract.......the Indian AF is not buying all of these models


----------



## geo

Ahhhhhhhhh now it makes sense


----------



## MarkOttawa

The latest from a certain journalist (reprinted under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act):

DND report questions $4.9-billion plane plan
Super Hercules lacks lift capacity to be workhorse aircraft
_Ottawa Citizen_, Dec. 14
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=daedd90b-eaf5-4a33-9347-196b34243501



> The military aircraft Canada has selected as its new transport workhorse has received poor reviews from some countries now using the plane and has significant limitations in what it can do, according to a Defence Department report produced last year.
> 
> Another 2005 briefing presented to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier also details that the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules is limited in how high and fast it can fly and would require a significant change in the amount of support needed to run a transport aircraft fleet.
> 
> The records, obtained by the Citizen under the Access to Information law, outline the divisions within the Forces about the C-130J, selected last month as the winner of the $4.9-billion tactical airlift program.
> 
> Some officers are strong supporters of the aircraft and believe it is the right plane to replace the military's aging fleet of C-130 Hercules.
> 
> Others, however, have raised concerns about the aircraft. The 2005 draft study issued by the Defence Department outlined serious deficiencies with the C-130J that were identified by the U.S. government, including inadequate range and payload. "The bottom line with regards to the C130J is that although it looks like the venerable old C130, it has yet to officially achieve the same level of operational capability as its forbears," the report concludes.
> 
> It points out the C-130J has "significant operational limitations" as well as noting that informal correspondence obtained from some of the airplane's users is "almost universally negative."
> 
> The names of the militaries that provided their opinions on the C-130J have been censored from the document for reasons of national security.
> 
> Lockheed Martin argues that any claims about problems with the aircraft are old news and the planes are performing flawlessly in combat operations with a number of militaries.
> 
> In the April 2005 briefing to Gen. Hillier, air force officers outlined pros and cons of the C-130J. They detailed the positive aspects of the C-130J, noting it has an advanced technology cockpit, improved engines and a versatile airframe. It has also successfully completed a high number of combat missions.
> 
> But the same briefing pointed out that the plane's maximum altitude is limited and it uses fuel at a higher rate than advertised. The purchase of the aircraft would also require "significant change in infrastructure and support," including engineering, training and maintenance. In addition, the cruise speed advertised by Lockheed Martin can't be reached without "significantly impacting engine life," according to the briefing.
> 
> The officers used the briefing to argue against using the C-130J in any kind of long-range strategic role.
> 
> On Tuesday in the Commons, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said there are no technical problems whatsoever with the C-130J. He staunchly defended the aircraft, noting that the Canadian Forces picked it as the best to meet its needs.
> 
> Defence Department spokesman Jeremy Sales said yesterday that the procurement process that selected the C-130J is competitive, fair and transparent.
> 
> "Like any new piece of equipment, the C-130J has had some development challenges," Mr. Sales said.
> 
> "The aircraft is moving towards becoming a mature platform that will meet the needs of the Canadian Forces."
> 
> Opposition MPs have questioned why the Harper government is spending $4.9 billion to purchase an aircraft they claim is essentially similar to some of the C-130 Hercules now flying with the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Lockheed Martin points out that its aircraft meets all the performance and operational requirements set out by Canada.
> 
> "As the only compliant respondent, Lockheed Martin is pleased to meet Canada's urgent need to replace its aging C-130 fleet," said company spokesman Peter Simmons.
> 
> The Canadian government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and another $1.7 billion for a 20-year in-service support contract for the planes.
> 
> Lockheed Martin, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for the maintenance contract as well.
> 
> But some air force planners have questioned the need to purchase the C-130J. In an October 2004 presentation made to senior military leaders, they argued the air force's priorities should be to buy four C-17 strategic lift planes as well as immediately replace the aging Buffalo aircraft used for search-and-rescue missions. The giant C-17s, along with the newer model C-130s already in Canadian Forces inventory, could handle the military's transport needs, they argued.
> 
> Some air force officers see the purchase of new search-and-rescue planes as critical to ensuring the service can continue to provide that capability to Canadians, particularly those on the West Coast.
> 
> Instead, the government proceeded with a plan to buy the C-17 and the C-130J.
> 
> Negotiations are ongoing on those two programs, but contracts are expected to be signed by next year.
> 
> The search-and-rescue aircraft replacement program has been stalled, but it is expected to be included in the defence capability plan to be released in the coming months.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cplcaldwell

I am not sure here but it seems to me...

When the 'J ' was first put into early deployment (96-97) both LMCo and DoD agreed that the system would be accepted in a phased testing arrangement. In this segmented approach the tests would proceed through phases 1A, 1B and 2.

Now there were issues in 1A and 1B. IIRC, these had to do with software deficiencies and some maintainability issues (to wit, forward maintainability was in question due to training and equipment provisions). 

Given these problems, plans were put in place to correct the deficiencies and the system was to be tested this year to verify the first issues were taken care of. 

This was the agreed upon testing regimen. 

So I am having trouble with the assertion that the system is deficient. It seems to me that issues were identified, a plan was formulated, a date for retest was agreed upon, and 'press on'. 

It seems to me that the issue is either still in the balance, or that it has been recently sorted out. Quoting two and three year old memos without stating the path forward does not seem to be a responsible reporting of the facts.

Thoughts?


----------



## George Wallace

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> ....... Quoting two and three year old memos without stating the path forward does not seem to be a responsible reporting of the facts.
> 
> Thoughts?



Those are my thoughts.


----------



## geo

Hmm... (correct me if I am wrong)
C17s for strategic lift
CC130s for tactical
Buffalos for SAR

They want the gov, to buy the C17s and new Buffs instead of the 130Js
the Herc can (and does) handle SAR
the Buff cannot handle the volume that the Herc is doing soooo.... 

priority must go to the C17s and the Hercs.  The Buffs or an alternative can be acquired at a later date IMHO.  Also, as we are getting the C17s we shouldn't have to concern ourselves quite so much about the strategic capabilities (or lack thereof) of the 130Js.

... then again, I'm just a guy in green looking way, way up in the sky  :warstory: :bullet:


----------



## a78jumper

The Buffalo is out of production, and in any event a study conducted years ago concluded a four engined Herc cost roughly the same amount as the notoiously unreliable(from a power plant standpoint) two engined Buffalo, about the only thing it was deficient in was the extreme STOL capabilities. The decision was made at that point to run down the Buff fleet except for those in Comox, as they apparently require some STOL capacity there.


----------



## C1Dirty

At the risk of stating the obvious...didn't the Liberals officially plan to purchase the J's just prior to the last election?


----------



## geo

C1 - they are talking about Opposition MPs without specifying the colours

Blue, Baby blue, Red, Orange, whatever...........


----------



## MarkOttawa

C1Dirty: Yes.  See:

C-130J: That was last year for both Conservatives and Liberals
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54569.0.html

Updates (Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):

1) Lockheed Martin has lost its bid
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_
11/27/2006, page 20
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2006/11/27/AW_11_27_2006_P20-23-02.xml&query=c-130j



> Lockheed Martin has lost its bid to be reinstated in the competition to provide the U.S. Army and Air Force with a Joint Cargo Aircraft. The program could involve up to 100 aircraft worth $5 billion. At least some participants say the decision turned on an Army demand for GATM (Global Air Traffic Management) system capability on the first aircraft. The company's plan was to add it at a later date approved by the Air Force. Lockheed Martin pitched the only four-engine design--a version of its standard body C-130J. The other competitors offered twin-engine aircraft--the C-295 from Raytheon/ EADS and C-27J from L-3 Communications/Alenia North America/ Boeing. The Government Accountability Office upheld USAF's decision to eliminate the C-130J in the first downselect. Lockheed Martin continues to build its transport, but an order slowdown means it could face a line shutdown by 2009. Lockheed Martin officials said they had shown there was an advantage to the Army operating an aircraft already in USAF inventory, rather than introducing a new design. *Army officials want a smaller aircraft that won't be dominated and controlled operationally by the Air Force* [emphasis added]. Supporters of twin-engine designs say some studies show the C-130J can't meet some of the tactical scenarios for takeoffs from 2,000-ft. runways that are prevalent in operational hot spots. Lockheed Martin says its aircraft is the best performer in high-altitude/hot-temperature conditions.



2) Airbus will have to commit
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_
12/11/2006, page 20
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2006/12/11/AW_12_11_2006_p18-22-13.xml&query=%28c-130j%29%2BAND%2B%28a400m%29



> Airbus will have to commit more engineering resources to the A400M military airlifter program to rein in "critical risk areas" and preserve its schedule, customers are concluding after EADS briefed them on the results of a study of the project's status.
> 
> The report suggests there are "significant" challenges to meeting first flight in March 2008 and other scheduled milestones. The risks are "systems design (in particular electrical harnesses), maturity of military mission systems, engine modifications, remaining work to be done on the final assembly line."
> 
> Although EADS says the program schedule is holding, a senior company official acknowledges an updated master plan is being developed and will be presented to customers. Under scrutiny is the start of final assembly in Seville, Spain. Airbus Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier says the goal is to ensure all elements are in place before the process starts, and to avoid A380-like problems that have led to excessive rework and program delays.
> 
> The electrical wiring harness issue on the A400M is different than for the A380, officials say. The A400M harnesses are less complex and the proper design tools are being used. However, a company official says the supply of some harnesses is running behind.
> 
> One military buyer says the depth of the review is appreciated by customers, and keeping the delivery schedule is positive. However, he says, there clearly is no more schedule margin left and EADS will have to enhance resources to meet contractual milestones.
> 
> Bregier says the aircraft will meet performance targets. That's critical, says the military representative. But he also points out that the first six aircraft, pre-production versions, will not meet those standards.
> 
> The engine program has long been recognized as a possible risk area. A modified Lockheed Martin C-130 is due to enter flight trials fitted with a single TP400 in the first quarter of next year.
> 
> A400M users are pressing Airbus Military to ensure reliability is high on delivery. They don't want to suffer years of growing pains, such as those the U.K. and Royal Australian Air Force underwent when fielding the C-130J.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a78jumper said:
			
		

> The Buffalo is out of production, and in any event a study conducted years ago concluded a four engined Herc cost roughly the same amount as the notoiously unreliable(from a power plant standpoint) two engined Buffalo, about the only thing it was deficient in was the extreme STOL capabilities. The decision was made at that point to run down the Buff fleet except for those in Comox, as they apparently require some STOL capacity there.



Can they be re-engined in the intermin?


----------



## eurowing

The venerable Buff is soldiering on since 1967. Despite it's detractors, it fills a niche nothing else on the market can.  Sadly, only about 30 are operational world wide and there is little to no chance of a resurrection.  Yes, it could be re-engined, but for such a small market the cost would be prohibitive.  The engineering costs alone would be astronomical since it would be shared by... well, no one but us.  There is even a market for new ones, but apparently only for slightly more than 100 (Original run of 126).  Not enough for a manufacturer to start a production run in today's market. 

Buffalo info here - http://www.xdh.ca/DHC_Aircraft/DHC-5/dhc-5.html 

and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-5_Buffalo#RCAF.2FCF_Use

Newer aircraft are nice, but none can do what the Buff can do and do it on unprepared runways.  So, what ever we get will undoubtedly faster, roomier but less effective at STOL.  Expect flying Buffalo's until 2015.


----------



## Rigger

There are newer engines for the Buffs out there. Arctic Sunwest out of Yellowknife is flying one (possibly two now) with upgraded engines. It is more than just the engines though. Lack of pressurization, hard to find major parts (IE landing gear) and a general lack of incremental improvements are hamperring the Buff. Right now our biggest problem is props. The airframe itself is still holding up great, no pressurization means less stress on the fusalge. The buff is great in the mountains of BC for SAR, but lacks the speed, range and loads for anywhere else you might want a medium lift transport. All that said she is a great aircraft, and never ceases  to amaze me.


----------



## Zoomie

Hey RiggerFE - I was shooting the proverbial poop with one of the AERE types and was talking about how the Brazilians are no longer flying their Buffs and may be looking to sell their fleet of 12 for half a million green backs.  Imagine the LRT ferrying them back to home base?   ;D


----------



## childs56

Would you guys keep flying Buffs or do you have a preferance?
I am just curious, I think the plane is amazing.


----------



## Zoomie

CTD said:
			
		

> Would you guys keep flying Buffs or do you have a preferance?
> I am just curious, I think the plane is amazing.



Buff = fun to fly, unmatched in STOL capabilities + lift capability

Make it pressurized (which you can't) and strap new engines and props on her and we're golden.


----------



## Jammer

Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.


----------



## Daidalous

Has anyone heard if there going to put new engines on the stretch Herc's we have now and use them as there under 20 years old?  I had a AVN tech tell me a few years ago that when we bought them we took the engines off and put E model engines on.   It sounds like buying a F-350 and putting a Ranger engine in it.


----------



## Globesmasher

Nope.

Now that we have retired about 5 C-130 E model airframes we have enough of the better "dash 15" engines.  We've ripped off all the old "dash 7" engines and replaced the entire fleet with the same rated engine.  All the aircraft now have the same engine .. the dash 15 engine.  Slightly more horsepower and it can run at a higher turbine temperature.  The two stretch H-30s have the same engines as all the remaining stubbies.


----------



## Gramps

Jammer said:
			
		

> Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.


Any idea just how different the new system is?


----------



## Globesmasher

Jammer said:
			
		

> Talking with some of the RAF types in Kandahar, they don't like to pallet loading/locking system. Apparently it's a bit different than the one used now, so in order to make sure the pallet won't slip in flight it cannot be loaded to capacity.



Jammer:

From some of the visits I've had with Lockheed, the USAF in Little Rock and the RAF out at Brize Norton and Lyneham ... the RAF didn't purchase some of the new features available on the J model - one of which is the new cargo enhanced handling system.  We took a look closely at it since it jacks up the aircraft price ... and the Canadian Loadmasters liked it .... a lot.  We have added the cargo handling system to the "shopping list" of stuff we want on the J model .... our normal L463 pallets will slide nicely in to the system, and just like the current dual rail system, will provide forward, aft and vertical restraint - we also do airdrop out of the same cargo handling rail system as well.

The RAF also had some funky centre-wing-box and cargo compartment vibration issue that restricted their pallet positions ... something to do with the middle of the aircraft ... but apparently that has been fixed by Lockheed on their last batch of production aircraft, the block 7s.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A certain journalist just will not give up:

Canada missed chance for cheaper aircraft upgrade
_Ottawa Citizen_, December 27, 2006
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d18d96b7-e637-4323-919e-aaf3851083bd&k=45506



> Canada was offered a chance to acquire aircraft specially designed for an Afghanistan-type war for less than half of the price of the new fleet of C-130J Super Hercules the government plans to purchase.
> 
> Government officials, however, decided against the proposal by a U.S. company, Snow Aviation International, whose plan was to overhaul the Canadian Forces existing C-130 Hercules so they could land and take off from short runways in war zones like Afghanistan...
> 
> The company's Hercules modernization package, developed with funding from the U.S. air force, involves installing a new tail, engines, propellers and new wings. The length of the Hercules would be extended to allow it to carry more equipment and the modifications would allow it to land and take off on short austere runways. The cockpit would also be modernized.
> 
> The result would be new, certified planes with 25-year plus service life.
> 
> Each plane would cost about $40 million US, said company president Harry Snow, a C-130 pilot with combat experience.
> 
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has told the Commons that Canada will be paying Lockheed about $85 million US for each C-130J...
> 
> ...aerospace consultant Ben Works said the savings offered by the Snow Aviation proposal and the new capabilities in their modernization package was a deal that should not have been passed up.
> 
> ''We're talking about well over a billion dollars you can save and that Canada could invest in other very needed assets,'' said Works, who had been employed in the past as a Snow Aviation consultant. He is now working at the Pentagon in the intelligence branch.
> 
> Works said the C-130J and similar aircraft are ''irrelevant to counter-insurgency warfare'' such as in Afghanistan. ''What you need is high capacity, low stall speed, short landing and takeoff,'' he said. ''That's what we're all going to need.''..



This would appear to be Snow Aviation's paper airplane:
http://www.snowaviation.com/c130m.htm

Views on this statement?



> ...the C-130J and similar aircraft are ''irrelevant to counter-insurgency warfare'' such as in Afghanistan. ''What you need is high capacity, low stall speed, short landing and takeoff,'' he said. ''That's what we're all going to need.''



On the other hand, a good editorial in the_ National Post_:

Flying the pricey skies
December 28, 2006
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=587d30ec-47b6-4d70-9f3f-592e00efa19f



> ...
> Canadian military pilots who have test flown the Lockheed planes have given them high marks. Moreover, the Airbus A400 -- the C-130s rival -- is not in full-scale production yet. Airbus has threatened to sue Ottawa for "freezing it out of the bidding process," and it has promised it could deliver planes as quickly as Lockheed to meet our present needs in Afghanistan. So far, though, all Airbus has delivered to any of its customers is a working mock-up of the A400's cockpit. Do we really want our military, in the middle of a war zone, to be the guinea pigs for testing whether the plane is as good as its manufacturer says it will be?
> 
> Nor is there any reason to believe Snow Aviation, another bidder for the Hercules contract, which recently claimed it could have refurbished our existing planes and made them as good as new for half the cost.
> 
> Still, given the huge price tags and accelerated nature of these new purchases, the government owes it to taxpayers to thoroughly explain its purchasing decisions. The newly ordered planes will cost us more than $9-billon. Given that extraordinary sum, voters deserve to know just what they'll be getting.



What the editorial fails to mention is that this was the situation in November, 2005:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/tactical-airlifter-airbus-wont-give-up.html



> 'The federal government tried to rebut claims that the fix is in for Lockheed Martin's C-130J by appointing an independent monitor to oversee the procurement of up to $5 billion worth of military transport aircraft.
> 
> With lobbyists already in full-blitz mode, Defence Minister Bill Graham said Monday he's going ahead with a "competitive, fair and transparent" plan to buy 16 replacements for the military's aging fleet of Hercules planes.
> 
> The process will be fast -- the one-page statement of performance requirements will go out in 10 days and bidders will have just 30 days to study it...'
> 
> Of course then Conservative national defence critic Gordon O'Connor was making the same sort of criticism of the rapid purchase of C-130Js that the opposition parties are now making. Silly him. Plus ça change...in Canadian politics.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... spending $$$ on CC130Es that are some 40 years old just doesn't make sense to my way of thinking...

To date the A400 is still "vaporware".... all talk and no functioning production line on which to jump onto... 

The C130Js and the C17s are the only aircraft currently in production on which we can reliably expect to receive delivery as contracted.... or have I missed something?


----------



## Globesmasher

Spending more money on the old and rusted out E and H model fleet would be money poorly spent in my mind.

The airframes are already twisted and bent and the E models are well beyond their life expectancy right now - in fact that fleet has already begun its predicted implosion.  The outer wings have already been replaced, the engines have been upgraded, the cockpit and avionics have been updated (and are now out of date) ..... the list just goes on and on how we have shoehorned bits and pieces into these old airframes.

This proposed upgrade is a poor idea ...... we have gone beyond the point of no return with the E and H model fleet and any money spent would only extend the problems by a few more years, and then when they eventually break we'll be right where we are today looking at the J model as a replacement.  In the end run we'll end up spending millions on the H model upgrade and then in a few years we'll be spending billions on new J models ..... we may as well save millions and spend billions right now and go straight to the J model.

One thing the article fails to mention in the downtime required for each airframe (which are few and far between these days) to replace the centre wing boxes (our main problem right now) and then begin performing all these other proposed fixes and upgrades.

The time is now (well actually a couple of years ago) to move ahead and proceed with the stretch version of the J model acquisition and stop pumping money into a old airframe.

It's like a farmer's pickup truck ....... there comes a time when you can no longer put any more money into the old workhorse - the time comes that you simply have to stop and go out ad buy a new pickup truck ......


----------



## MarkOttawa

Actual ex-factory price of C-130J: US $64 million and change, as of December, 2006--and these are stretched and tanker versions.

Lockheed Martin has received
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_ (text subscriber only)
12/18/2006, page 14
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2006/12/18/AW_12_18_2006_p10-13.xml&query=%22%24128+million%22&INTERCEPT_MESSAGES=S_LOGIN&PRIOR_REQUEST_URL=%2Fsearch%2FAvnowSearchResult.do%3Freference%3Dxml%2Fawst_xml%2F2006%2F12%2F18%2FAW_12_18_2006_p10-13.xml%26query%3D%2522%2524128%2Bmillion%2522



> Lockheed Martin has received $128 million from the Pentagon as the initial payment on a $256.2-million contract for three USAF C-130J-30 combat delivery aircraft and one KC-130J-30 for the Marine Corps. They are slated for delivery in 2010. That brings total C-130J orders to 186.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A400M engine--this certainly is confidence-building:

Propping Up TP400 (full text subscriber only, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
_AW&ST _, Jan. 1



> Snecma and its partners are moving to commit more resources to the powerplant for Europe's A400M to prevent the engine effort, and the airlifter program itself, from falling behind schedule.
> 
> Marc Ventre, the new head of Snecma's propulsion business, says the EuroPropulsion consortium building the A400M's TP400-B6 turboprop has met all milestones to date, but has fallen behind on total accumulated hours on the bench. EuroPropulsion comprises Snecma, Rolls-Royce, MTU and ITP of Spain.
> 
> To deal with the problem, the consortium is adding two test articles to the nine units already earmarked for the test bench program, and increasing the number of benches to six from five. Ventre says the move is related to an unspecified production hiccup, and no design glitches have been encountered.
> 
> He asserts that all performance targets, including engine mass and fuel consumption, are "right to spec," and that the consortium should meet the first-quarter 2007 schedule for the first flight on board a C-130 flying testbed.
> 
> It has long been recognized that the 11,000-hp. TP400--the most powerful Western turboprop ever built--*represents one of the greatest risk areas of the A400M, and any slippage in development is likely to impact the program itself* [emphasis added].
> 
> An audit of the project recently turned up the need to urgently target more engineering and other resources to a number of high-risk program areas, including the powerplant, to avoid impacting the schedule, which has already absorbed all available margin (AW&ST Dec. 11, 2006, p. 20). The aircraft is slated to make its first flight in March 2008.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Warning: A public relations agency for both Lockheed and Alenia supplied this link.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2488758&C=europe



> Airbus has warned customers of a potential three-month delay on its 20 billion euro ($26 billion) A400M transport aircraft program, a senior executive said Jan. 17.
> 
> News of the possible delay came as parent company EADS said in a Jan. 17 statement that Airbus probably would lose money for 2006 but EADS’ group likely would break even due to contributions from other divisions.
> 
> The European aircraft company said in December that an audit of the A400M program identified areas of risk and had approved a recovery plan. The program review recognized the risk of a three-month delay in starting final assembly of the aircraft, said Tom Williams, Airbus executive vice president, programs, at a press conference Jan. 17.
> 
> The original plan was to begin final assembly of the first cargo plane in March, but that could slip into the second quarter of this year, Williams said.
> 
> “We have flagged this to customers, who are naturally concerned,” he said.
> 
> The potential delay was due to an extensive redesign of the aircraft, which called for structural changes, to meet performance commitments, he said. The redesign had been completed by the time the program audit was done. But to avoid repeating the production fiasco that has delayed deliveries of the A380 superjumbo aircraft, Airbus will only begin assembly of the A400M if the sections delivered are at the required level of completion, Williams said...
> 
> If A400M assembly is delayed, time could be made up in the test phase by using several airframes in concurrent testing, Williams said. “It can be done.”
> 
> That could allow Airbus to meet a target of first flight, due in January 2008.
> 
> A three-month delay was probably not critical in a military program, he said...
> 
> The A400M program is a challenging one, involving a new aircraft, new turboprop engine and new propeller, the largest ever built, Williams said.
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53631/post-509474.html#msg509474
> 
> Jean-Paul Herteman, chief executive of Safran’s Sagem Defense Security unit, said Jan. 16 that development of the TP400 engine was “very challenging [see last para at link].” He added he was personally following the program’s progress...


 http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-procurement-heres-really.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Green On!

Globesmasher,

I love you analogy about the farmer who needs to replace his old truck, but what if he needs to get food out to his sheep and because he's procrastinated for soooo long the new truck he needs isn't available for a few years.  He just might have to put some more cash into that old workhorse to make sure he has something to haul his feed in until the new one arrives.  I think this is the point we’re at now, and that we need fix up some old the old Herc’s and progress with a new airframe at the same time just to ensure we can keep the sheep happy.


----------



## Globesmasher

Green On! said:
			
		

> ..... but what if he needs to get food out to his sheep and because he's procrastinated for soooo long the new truck he needs isn't available for a few years.



Green On ....
Yeah, you are absolutely right.  The timing is terrible.  The farmer needed that new truck not today .... but yesterday.  Unfortunately, he's been aware of that situation for the last couple of years, but for 13 years his "landlord" ... the banker ... the guy who controls his money ... has refused to listen to him .... and now he's stuck scrambling to get the 17 new trucks up on line and up and running by late 2009, more like 2010.

It is to late .... just like the Sea King fiasco ... and the Buffalo ......

The trucks are simply so old now that injecting more money into them is no longer feasible ... we've passed that point.  In fact we've been doing that now for the last 10 years with new outer wings, new engine upgrades, avionics upgrades ..... empenage upgrades ..... the list goes on ..... and we have reached a point where it is no long fiscally responsible to put more money into them ....we just have to get on with it and buy new ones.

But you are correct ......... this should have been done a long time ago instead of being procrastinated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Guess they were a little stung by Canada pointing out the "vapourware" factor of their design.....I will believe it when the actual aircraft leaves the ground.  :



Airbus to produce military transport plane
Updated Wed. Mar. 21 2007 7:22 AM ET

Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Airbus is ready to start production of its first military transport plane, designed to give European countries better ability to respond to crisis without American help.

The Airbus A400M airlifter program, expected to cost US$24 billion, was launched in the 1990s in the wake of the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia, when European countries couldn't dispatch peacekeepers to a region right on their own doorstep without American assistance.

At the time, the Clinton administration fiercely criticized the strategy as wasteful duplication -- since the U.S. had similar aircraft for sale, such as the C-130 Hercules. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned of the potential "decoupling" of Europe and the U.S. if the European Union continued to divert resources from joint NATO-directed programs to its own security priorities.

But the war on terror has changed the relationship between the United States and Europe, who are facing common threats such as the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and rogue states like North Korea and Iran.

The most prominent example of U.S.-European cooperation is Afghanistan, where the EU now accounts for nearly half of the 35,000 allied troops and has expressed a firm commitment to see the job through.

While the Bush administration and many European allies disagree sharply over Iraq policy, the White House has toned down warnings of a trans-Atlantic rift, accepting the view that the four-propeller cargo airplane adds to the collective Western defense.

"Our activities are complementary, and if Europeans do manage to raise their game on defense, it seems to me to matter not a jot whether this is done on a NATO or an EU ticket," said Nick Whitney, head of the European Defense Agency.

"Everybody knows that if Europeans want to preserve effective military clout ... they have no choice but to cooperate."

The A400M is the first military plane produced by Europe's Airbus consortium. It looks like a larger version of the C-130, a workhorse of the U.S. Air Force and many allies for half a century. New variants still are being produced by Lockheed Martin Corp.

The prototype is scheduled to take to the sky in less than a year and about 200 will enter service in eight European air forces beginning in 2009.

Airbus will offer much greater range and nearly twice the payload of the C-130 Hercules, thus allowing the Europeans to quickly deploy forces to faraway theaters such as Central Africa, the Middle East, or Central Asia.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Colin P said:
			
		

> about 200 will enter service in eight European air forces beginning in 2009.



Yeah, right.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Just when you thought it was all over with, along comes Airbus with another proposal. According to this write-up in the G & M (09 Jun 07) Airbus has put forward a proposal that Canada kept its eight best CC-130's it currently has and buy eight A400M. By going this route Airbus says that Canada could save $2 billion dollars; $2 billion that then could be used to buy new SAR aircraft. Of course there is one little hitch and that is that* the A400M hasn't even been built yet, let alone flown!!* The link is here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070609.PLANES09/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile India is buying 6 C-130Js, which fact escaped Mr Leblanc of the _Globe_ and a certain _Ottawa Citizen_ reporter (who at least provided more context than Mr Leblanc).
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=02378026-8bb2-4404-822c-b31fcc5a95e1

US offers to sell India six Hercules planes
Times of India, 30 May
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2085836.cms



> WASHINGTON: United States has offered India a $1,059 million deal to sell six C-130J Hercules aircraft with associated equipment and services to provide it special operations airlift capability and ensure interoperability with American forces in coalition operations.
> 
> The US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on Tuesday that it had notified Congress of India's request for the sale of six Lockheed Martin C-130J aircraft as required by US law...
> 
> Other equipment sought by India includes four Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 spare engines; eight AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems; eight AN/ALR-56M Advanced Radar Warning Receivers; eight AN/ALE-47 Counter-Measures Dispensing Systems; and eight AAQ-22 Star SAFIRE III Special Operations Suites.
> 
> Also requested are eight ALQ-211 Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures; two spare AN/ARC-210 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS); eight spare Secure Voice Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Radios; four spare Secure Voice High Frequency Radios; three spare AN/AAR-222 SINCGARS and Key Gen (KV-10) Systems; one KIV-119 Non-standard Communication/ COMSEC equipment and two ARC-210 Non-standard Communication/COMSEC equipment.
> 
> The deal includes spare and repair parts, configuration updates, communications security equipment and radios, integration studies, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, technical services, personnel training and training equipment, foreign liaison office support, Field Service Representatives' services, US Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support.
> 
> Offset agreements associated with the proposed sale are expected, but at this time the specific offset agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractors, DSCA said...



Indian editors clearly think their readers want more solid information than Canadian editors do.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

> Also requested are eight ALQ-211 Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures; two spare AN/ARC-210 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS); eight spare Secure Voice Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Radios; four spare Secure Voice High Frequency Radios; three spare AN/AAR-222 SINCGARS and Key Gen (KV-10) Systems; one KIV-119 Non-standard Communication/ COMSEC equipment and two ARC-210 Non-standard Communication/COMSEC equipment.



I didn't think India was enabled on the US's channels......


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Let's hope this doesn't fly
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/lets-hope-this-doesnt-fly.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Somebody needs to help me out with the math on this....

The Pugiliese story says the following: 



> The government is currently in negotiations with Lockheed Martin to purchase 17 C-130Js. The government estimated it will spend $3.2 billion on the program. Another $1.7 billion will be set aside for a 20-year in-service support contract for the planes.



Maybe I'm a dumbass, but that looks an awful lot like $190 million CAD per C-130J with another $100 million per aircraft as part of the in-service support program (so $290 million CAD per aircraft including in-service support contracts).

The other story says that that the A400M project would cost $2 billion less which works out ot $2.9 billion CAD divided by 8 aircraft which works out to about $355 million per aircraft including in-service support contract.

Thoughts:
1)  The fly-away cost on both aircraft seems to be significantly higher than what I would've anticipated.  I beleve in this very thread there's mention that fly-away cost for C-130J should be about $65 million USD which now works out to less than $71 million CAD.
2)  Cosidering the extra capability the A400M should have in terms of ability to move the LAV-III as well as other materials (while the C-130J cannot move the LAV-III), I think the offer should be considered as long as we get a guaranteed delivery date and they're willing to write performance clauses into the contract.
3)  I find it strange that the costs for the Lockheed deal have not changed significantly as measured in $CAD given the precipitous fall in the $USD.  Is Lockheed just planning on billing us in $CAD and pocketing the difference?  And in the same vein, I hope we signed the deal for the C-17's to be payable in $USD as well....as in all cases because the production is based on $USD costs, it should save us a minimum of 25% over original projections, and since we're talking billions of dollars, that's huge money.


Matthew.


----------



## Loachman

These contracts typically include everything needed to start operating, not just the airframes themselves. That would entail such things as a simulator, tools, spares, publications (but don't let them subcontract translation of the French version to a Belgian company as Bell did for the Griffon programme), and initial aircrew and groundcrew training.

If you read back through the thread, you'll see that the problem with the A400M is that it hasn't been built yet, and we don't know when it will be. Company estimates are not to be relied upon, and all sorts of things could delay it further. We are unlikely to have a single Herc left flying by the time the A400M has finally entered full production. After that, of course, comes the inevitable bug-curing period.

In contrast, the J-model Herc exists and has been flying for some time.

The "requirement" to move a LAV-III is not particularly significant. It doesn't happen much, and if we're doing a full-blown deployment/redeployment an air move is hugely expensive and still takes lots of time with a handful of airframes.

C17 will be able to handle such moves far better.


----------



## kingfisher

Not so long ago, I read an article in which Airbus claimed that the maintenance costs for the A400 would be much lower than the "problem plauged" C130J.  I'd like to know how Airbus can quote maintenance costs for an airplane that has so far only been built on a draftsman's computer. :


----------



## MarkOttawa

What the heck, we should still consider buying the A400M instead of the C-130J. I wonder if Daniel Leblanc of the _Globe and Mail_ and a certain reporter will even be aware of the latest news.

An earlier post at _The Torch_:

Let's hope this doesn't fly
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/lets-hope-this-doesnt-fly.html

Now the news:

First flight target for A400M's TP400 engine slips to fourth quarter 2007
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/21/215029/first-flight-target-for-a400ms-tp400-engine-slips-to-fourth-quarter.html



> The target date for the first flight of the Europrop International (EPI) TP400-D6 turboprop has slipped into the fourth quarter of this year after the engine consortium was forced to redesign some mechanical components that encountered higher than expected loads during bench testing.
> 
> A development engine suffered oil contamination during ground testing earlier this year, but the source of the problem could not be traced, it emerged at the Paris air show this week.
> 
> Meanwhile, moving to limit the impact of propulsion system delays to the A400M project, Airbus Military has revealed plans to add a sixth aircraft to compress its previously planned 18-month flight-test campaign for the transport.
> 
> EPI expects to hand over the flight-test engine "before the end of June", says TP400 programme and operations director Jacques Desclaux. "The forecast is to have the first flight between October and December, depending on the integration issues."
> 
> The flight trials are to be performed by Cambridge, UK-based Marshall Aerospace using a modified Lockheed Martin C-130. Under the original schedule EPI had been due to deliver the first flightworthy TP400 in November 2006.
> 
> "Today there is enough of a buffer before impacting the [A400M] first flight," says Desclaux [and I have some really nice land in Florida for you - MC]...
> 
> Airbus Military says it "remains very confident of achieving first flight and first delivery of the A400M on schedule", referring to goals of the first quarter of next year and late 2009 respectively. "The addition of the sixth flight-test aircraft will bring flexibility to the programme."
> 
> Final assembly activities at EADS Casa's Seville site in southern Spain are expected to start later this year, with the work having been postponed from late March as a risk-reduction measure. "We've learnt from the A380 [airliner] programme that you shouldn't start final assembly when there are gaps in the programme," says an Airbus Military source.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hey- who is to say that someday, we won't want the A400M?  Airbus- bring us a flying A400M for us to test and evaluate...then we will talk.  Until then, STFU- the herc fleet is dying faster than you can possibly deliver replacement aircraft, even if your program remains on schedule and hiccup free (which would make you the first aircraft manufacturer in the history of aviation to manage that trick...)


----------



## ringo

If we order A400M's, in lieu of C-130J,  will have to buy additional C-17's to replace the C-130's that have to be retired before the A400M's can be delivered.

More C-17's will be fine with me, I believe Boeing has funded 10 more unsold C-17's to take production till 2010.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

ringo said:
			
		

> If we order A400M's, in lieu of C-130J,  will have to buy additional C-17's to replace the C-130's that have to be retired before the A400M's can be delivered.
> 
> More C-17's will be fine with me, I believe Boeing has funded 10 more unsold C-17's to take production till 2010.



As a non-pilot, no CF member, but a logistics specialist I always thought a mix of C-17's and A400M's would be better as it would provide greater capability....but I'll continue to defer to others who know better what the loads are that are being carried, etc.


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A400= slightly Jellied vapourware. Just as our pilots and flightcrews are currently training on real C-17 in real life, our guys can go train on real C130J's and be ready to greet them when they arrive. Even if we were to get a working A400 in 2009 (cough, gasp, sputter) Their would be no trained pilots, flight crews, real life load plans, spare parts, etc,etc


----------



## MarkOttawa

A400M shocker
Surprise (text subscriber only)!
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/07/23/AW_07_23_2007_p16-164766-28.xml&query=tp400



> _Aviation Week & Space Technology_
> 07/23/2007, page 19
> 
> EADS CEO Louis Gallois says delays with the TP400 turboprop engine that will power the Airbus A400M airlifter are likely to lead to a deferral of the first flight, which has been scheduled for late March 2008. Test problems already have delayed the initial flight of the engine on a C-130 testbed to the third or first quarter of this year (AW&ST June 11, p. 36). However, initial deliveries should still take place by late 2009, Gallois says.



Place your bets.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jantor

;D

That'll teach em for not picking P&WC to supply the go power.

Ya, sure, right, whatever...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No problem we can deliver the airplane to you soon, however the engines might take a little longer.........


----------



## Danjanou

Colin P said:
			
		

> No problem we can deliver the airplane to you soon, however the engines might take a little longer.........



The return of the troop carrying glider ? 8)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Reality revealed:

A400M flight test schedule delayed, says EADS
_Flight International_, July 30
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/30/215790/a400m-flight-test-schedule-delayed-says-eads.html



> First flight of the Airbus Military A400M transport has slipped by several months from the first quarter of next year, according to majority stakeholder EADS, which has for the first time also hinted at the possibility of making late customer deliveries.
> 
> EADS revealed in its half-year results report that the A400M's flight debut has been delayed until "the summer of 2008", and said "the consequence on deliveries and cost is under assessment"...
> 
> "The [A400M] programme contains material risks on the overall time schedule, and system providers continue to face challenges that may infer late design implications," says EADS.
> 
> A key area of concern is the aircraft's Europrop International-developed TP400-D6 turboprop engine, test flights of which have already been delayed from earlier this year until at least the fourth quarter (Flight International, 26 June-2 July).
> 
> Meanwhile, delayed final assembly of the A400M is to start at EADS Casa's Seville site in southern Spain in late August, following a five-month delay from Airbus Military's previous plan to start work in late March.
> 
> The company plans to meet its commitment to deliver the first A400M to the French air force in late 2009.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More:

EADS warns of potentially 'critical' delays to A400M military transport
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/26/business/eads.php



> European Aeronautic Defense & Space, the parent company of Airbus, reported an 85 percent drop in second-quarter profit on Thursday and warned of potentially "critical" delays to its multibillion-dollar military transport program...
> 
> despite the momentum in commercial jet sales, EADS said that development of Airbus's four-engine, turbo-prop military transport, the A400M, was falling behind schedule and could result in significant cost overruns.
> 
> "The A400M program contains material risks on the overall time schedule," Hans Peter Ring, chief financial officer for both EADS and Airbus, told analysts during a conference call. He said delivery of the engines for the first plane was "critically late," a factor that was likely to push the program's first test flights back as much as six months, to the summer of 2008.
> 
> Ring said that the company did not expect to be able make a specific estimate of the financial impact until late September or October.
> 
> "We can't rule out future costs for corrective action," he said.
> 
> Shares of EADS fell 83 cents, or 3.6 percent, to close at €22.24 on Thursday.
> 
> The engine for the A400M is being built by Europrop International, a consortium that includes Snecma, an arm of the French engine maker Safran, as well as Rolls-Royce of Britain, MTU Aero Engines Holding of Germany and ITP of Spain.
> 
> On Thursday, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce, John Rose, bristled at the suggestion that Europrop was to blame for the A400M's delays.
> 
> "We expect to deliver the engine on time," Rose said during a conference call with analysts, The Associated Press reported.
> 
> The A400M has been dogged for months by rumors of delays, which until now have been dismissed by Airbus and EADS executives as insignificant. Airbus conducted an extensive review of the program late last year. In March it conceded there would be slippage of "up to three months" to the start of final assembly, which will be carried out in Seville, Spain.
> 
> EADS said at the time that the delay would not have an impact on the delivery schedule for first plane, which is due to be shipped to the French air force in late 2009 - a timetable that was confirmed in May by Fabrice Brégier, the chief operating officer of Airbus.
> 
> *In a sign of the potential scale of troubles facing the A400M program, Airbus this month quietly replaced the head of its military transport aircraft division, Francisco Fernández Sáinz, naming another Airbus veteran and fellow Spaniard, Carlos Suárez, to replace him* [emphasis added].
> 
> "That's a pretty clear indication that senior management recognizes there are problems that need to be addressed," said Alexandra Ashbourne, an aerospace consultant based in London. " You don't fire the program managers when everything is going smoothly."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

It makes me happy that we will be getting a real plane C-17 in a couple days and the Airbus the MSM was going on about has yet to fly.  Thank you Stephen!!!  (not Staples ) I doubt you will hear anything about this is the MSM and how it was a good choice to buy something that works as opossed to something that has yet to fly.  Anyone taking bets if they have it in production before we get the next transport programs plane, the C-130J.  I got $5.00


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus Canada 1 has already flown!!! maiden flight July 23/07!!!!  ;D


----------



## Bandit1

One step closer to our J's....

PWGSC announces next step in procuring tactical airlift fleetFor immediate release 

Gatineau, August 3, 2007 – Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) today announced the release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to acquire 17 tactical airlift aircraft (CC-130J Hercules) to Lockheed Martin Corporation. 

The release of the RFP to Lockheed Martin Corporation follows a competitive solicitation of interest and qualification (SOIQ) process, wherein suppliers had the opportunity to indicate interest and demonstrate their ability to meet the project’s mandatory criteria. Three suppliers responded to the SOIQ and upon evaluation, Lockheed Martin Corporation was deemed the only supplier to meet mandatory requirements. 

As part of the RFP, Lockheed Martin Corporation will now be required to submit a formal bid. This will include a priced proposal confirming the supplier’s compliance with the mandatory requirements and other criteria, including contractual obligations for the provision of Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB), equal to 100% of the contract value. 

We will secure sufficient rights to intellectual property and technical data to allow Canadian industry to participate in high value-added work and thus provide as much in-service support as possible right here in Canada.

The Government expects to award a contract for tactical airlift aircraft in winter 2007. Delivery of the first aircraft is scheduled for winter 2010.

http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=343689


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pork--no wonder the C-130J and CH-47 contracts are taking so long:

Minister eyes aerospace guarantees
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6427cfb6-7a14-4ad6-b829-92b0dfaba458



> The federal government has to be careful not to destabilize Montreal's thriving aerospace industry by handing out billions of dollars in contracts with no guarantee any of it will go to Quebec, Quebec Industry Minister Raymond Bachand warned yesterday.
> 
> Speaking to reporters after meeting with new federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, Bachand said the key to success in the global economy is through economic clusters such as the one that has grown up in Montreal around the aerospace industry...
> 
> "The government of Canada still has a responsibility when you hand out $17 billion worth of contracts, it is a massive intervention in the economy, to not destructure the economy and to encourage the clusters where they are found," Bachand said.
> 
> Fortier, however, was optimistic contracts will flow naturally to Quebec without the need of any intervention. "Since a big part of the (aeronautical) industry is found in Montreal and the expertise is in Montreal, naturally Montreal should receive a large share of those contracts."
> 
> He also suggested future government contracts could flow to Montreal-based companies. "There are other contracts that will be awarded, for helicopters, for other planes - and I think before judging whether or not Montreal has gotten its share, you should wait to see the overall contracts."..
> 
> The question of just how much business Quebec's aerospace industry will get from military spending has been a point of contention between Ottawa and Quebec - in particular between Bachand and former federal industry minister Maxime Bernier, who preferred to let market forces prevail.
> 
> Bachand was optimistic yesterday as he emerged from his meeting with Prentice, even though Prentice's office said there has been no change in the government's position that subcontracting decisions are up to Boeing.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good Lord...it never ends...


----------



## Globesmasher

Concur ..... it just always seems to resurrect ... pork barrel politics.

It's a real shame .... the C130J is a fantastic aircraft.
Bringing it directly on-line to replace our E and H model C-130 fleet would be an even greater success than the C-17 program was.
Just like the C-17 project, the J model would be "operational" right after delivery just like the C-17.
It would be another crowning success story ...............

It's a crying shame to see the program being placed in jeopardy by politics once again.

!@#$%^&*    :rage:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Didn't I read that Lockheed was fine with Canadian Industrial Offset requirements, but wanted to spend the money in provinces other than Quebec....ergo this entire delay is about giving Quebec's "thriving industry" a larger share of the pie?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is a little tidbit courtesy of Reuters. Appears that the A400M is suffering more delays. Apparently, they are having problems with the turbofan engines. The highlight is mine and I've cut out some of the material that does not deal with the A400M.



> UPDATE 2-France sees delay to European military plane
> Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:37 PM BST161
> 
> By Tim Hepher
> 
> PARIS, Sept 10 (Reuters) - France's new defence minister predicted a delay in the A400M airlifter in another blow for planemaker Airbus, and criticised costly projects to build over-sophisticated weapons when cheaper ones would do. Herve Morin's remarks, in an interview with newspaper La Tribune published on Monday, reflect growing fears that deliveries of the A400M will be hit by a flaw in its turboprop engines. "There is a slight delay. It will reach our forces several months later than planned," Morin, who was appointed in May, told La Tribune.
> 
> The newspaper quoted unidentified sources as saying French procurement agency DGA expected the A400M _*to enter service as much as six to nine months behind an end-2009 target date.*_
> 
> France is the first customer for the tactical airlifter being developed for seven European nations as well as for export.
> 
> Airbus has already delayed by three months the start of A400M assembly in Spain as well as next year's maiden flight.
> 
> A source close to the project told Reuters the programme was losing money despite sales to Malaysia, South Africa and Chile, and to make money Airbus would need to secure more exports.
> 
> It is not yet clear whether the production delays will hit deliveries, which determine the timing of revenue payments to Airbus, already facing a cash squeeze due to civil jet delays.
> 
> PROBABLY DELAYS
> 
> The chief executive of Airbus parent EADS, Louis Gallois, told Reuters last month such delays were "probable".
> 
> Under pressure to minimise disruption, Airbus has started a detailed review of the A400M programme and is expected to make a final decision on delivery delays before the end of the year. Industry officials blame a flaw related to the engines, which feature the world's largest aircraft propellers.
> 
> © Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.  |



So far I haven't any of our MSM wunderkids here in a Canada pick-up on this. I came across the article in a US-based aviation blog (The Woracle) that can be found here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Retired AF Guy: Our MSM wunderkids also don't bother to subscribe to AW&ST (Sept. 24, p. 40, full text subscriber only):
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/09/24/AW_09_24_2007_p40-11089.xml&query=a400m



> Delivery of the first flight-test TP400 engine will now be nearly a solid year behind schedule at best, and the effects of this delay are starting to reverberate throughout the European A400M airlifter program. At least a half-dozen of the Airbus Military transports are expected to be handed over late.
> 
> The Europrop TP400-D6 had originally been due in November 2006 at Marshall Aerospace, with flight testing to begin in early 2007. That U.K. facility is modifying a Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules for the role...
> 
> ...The A400M contract is a fixed-price commercial pact with delay penalty clauses. A late hand-over of aircraft could increase the financial risk for Airbus-parent EADS and its partners.
> 
> A government program official indicates that at least five A400Ms will not be completed on time. A senior German air force officer notes that they’ve been told the first seven A400Ms will not meet the present schedule.
> 
> Although Germany deliveries aren’t affected as yet, the military is preparing for that contingency, the officer says...
> 
> Moreover, when the first A400M is delivered, the government official indicates, the story will still not be over. The first aircraft will not meet government requirements and will have to be returned to industry for rework, he suggests.
> 
> Concerns have been mounting for months about the serious schedule slippage, although, so far, only one contractual milestone—the start of final assembly—has been missed...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

So I wonder if good old whatisname who's been shilling the A400 in a certain newspaper will be informing his readship of the above.....I wont be holding my breath. just wondering? :


----------



## armyvern

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> So I wonder if good old whatisname who's been shilling the A400 in a certain newspaper will be informing his readship of the above.....I wont be holding my breath. just wondering? :



Yeah, ri-iiight. You're correct; don't hold your breath ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Delays in the A400M?!?!  That's _unpossible_! :


----------



## SeaKingTacco

no, worse...it's _im_believable!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Neverovatno!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

ooops, sorry....didn't mean to interupt you language classes


----------



## MarkOttawa

The hits just keep coming in the A400M's development:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/05/217929/a400m-delays-prompt-europrop-management-reshuffle.html

Rolls-Royce and Snecma have assumed increased responsibility for delivering the Airbus Military A400M transport's TP400-D6 turboprop engine, after ongoing delays forced a top-level management reshuffle at the Europrop International consortium.

The consortium's managing director José Massol left the company with immediate effect on 1 October after holding the post for two years, and was replaced by Nick Durham, formerly director of services and helicopters at R-R's Defence Aerospace division. Snecma chief executive Phillippe Petitcolin has meanwhile been appointed a non-executive chairman to the collaborative venture, which also incorporates Spain's ITP and Germany's MTU Aero Engines.

"These appointments reflect the increased role that Rolls-Royce and Snecma are taking to strengthen the management of the programme," says Europrop. "Together, we will maintain and reinforce our current efforts to provide to Airbus Military the new generation TP400-D6 engines answering the challenging A400M," says Petitcolin. The reorganisation decision was supported by all four Europrop shareholders, the company says.

Airbus Military's flight-test schedule for the A400M has already been pushed back by several months due to factors including a four-month delay to final-assembly activities and the late availability of test engines. Main stakeholder EADS expects the aircraft to make its flight debut around mid-2008, but recently revealed that *a fresh internal audit of the project will report shortly whether an additional schedule slip could be encountered* [emphasis added]...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Genetk44

A number of my friends are working in the aircraft industry...P&W among them....they told me back in June that Airbus was haveing a terrible time with these engines.....among other problems were the fact the engines were breaking down after just a few hours of continious running/ Apparently there's not alot of experience building modern turboprop engines in Europe these days so they were faceing a steep learning curve.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A message received from the person who alerted me to the _Flight_ article above:

"I just came back from a trip to southern France - did the guided tour of the
A380 plant.  3 birds in assembly in Toulouse, maybe 200-250 workers moving
at a very "relaxed" pace - mostly just hanging about talking.

If that is the EADS work attitude, the A400m is in a bigger world of hurt
than the press yet knows.

Sooooooo  glad we got 17's & Jercs.  We'd be waiting forever if we'd bought
the marketing spin from the Airbus Sales folks..."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Retired AF Guy: Our MSM wunderkids also don't bother to subscribe to AW&ST (Sept. 24, p. 40, full text subscriber only):
> http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/09/24/AW_09_24_2007_p40-11089.xml&query=a400m
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa





> The Europrop TP400-D6 had originally been due in November 2006 at Marshall Aerospace, with flight testing to begin in early 2007. That U.K. facility is *modifying a Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules for the role*...



 :rofl:

I think I just peed myself laughing so hard...


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I think I just peed myself laughing so hard...


Now ,now  be nice  We're just poor ignorant backwards& backwoods Canadians they're only suing our stupid government to make us realise  just how superior their high tech euro  uber plane is to any thing flying..................................................that is if it were actually flying .
 Of course in the meantime  the Airbus will go on  :deadhorse:. Perhaps next time they'll use engineers and real management types as opposed to bureaucrats. Until then I will just op:


----------



## Good2Golf

Note that they didn't even use a C-160 Transall!  :


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just in case the Canadian MSM miss it (h/t to _Norman's Spectator_)
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/AFT.htm

Airbus to delay delivery of A400M military transport: sources
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071016/ts_afp/europeaerospacecompanyairbusa400m;_ylt=AuSJNjOg_hPBxD2zZcTA5fl34T0D



> PARIS, France (AFP) - European aerospace manufacturer EADS is expected to decide soon on a delay of several months for the delivery of its military transport plane the A400M, sources said on Tuesday.
> 
> The new delay comes after Airbus said in July that the first flight of the A400M would be later than expected.
> 
> Sources familiar with the matter said delivery of the first A400Ms to the French airforce could be moved back from October 2009 to mid-2010.
> 
> At the end of September, the specialist magazine Air et Cosmos said the French defence ministry was expecting a delay of a year in deliveries.
> 
> Airbus has already been battered by delays in its superjumbo A380 plane, which was finally delivered to its first customer, Singapore Airlines, on Monday.
> 
> Industrial sources said the delay to the A400M was due to "slower than expected" development of the TP400 turboprop engines by the European engine company EPI, made up of France's Snecma, Germany's MTU, Britain's Rolls-Royce and Spain's ITP.
> 
> EADS officials acknowledged at the beginning of the year that there were delays on the assembly line and on the date of the first flight...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I'm...Shocked!

Speechless!

An Airbus project DELAYED?  But that's impossible...tens of Canadian journalists insisted otherwise...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Where C-130J offsets may be going--pie in space?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wspace26/BNStory/National/home



> The Harper government is considering a $45-million boost to a space-tourism project in Cape Breton as one of the regional benefits flowing from a major purchase of military planes, sources have told The Globe and Mail.
> 
> PlanetSpace, the firm that would benefit, has hired Fred Doucet, a senior Conservative official from the Mulroney era, to help seal the deal.
> 
> The project is related to the Canadian Forces' purchase of 17 Hercules C130J cargo planes from U.S.-based manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. To get the plane contract, Lockheed Martin had to promise to spend the equivalent of the $3.2-billion purchase price in the form of regional benefits [and not just for Quebec].
> 
> Sources said Lockheed Martin's proposed list of investments, which was submitted to Industry Canada and is awaiting cabinet approval, includes a promise to spend $45-million over six years on PlanetSpace's project.
> 
> According to its website, PlanetSpace wants to send 2,000 people into suborbital space flights over five years, even though the company has not started accepting reservations for the $250,000 trips.
> 
> The company has estimated it will cost about $150-million to build a launch pad and rocket on its site in Nova Scotia. It's not clear how much money the company already has or where its funding comes from...
> 
> The $45-million investment in PlanetSpace would not be a federal subsidy, but it would be the direct result of federal approval of Lockheed Martin's mandatory plan to provide regional benefits from the aircraft sale...



Check these links for more details on PlanetSpace's projects (and note their emotive names):

http://www.canadianarrow.com/V2History.htm
http://www.planetspace.org/lo/osf.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Hmmm....
Why do I get the impression of Pigs to the trough?
How do you spell:  "Sooooie"!!! pig, pig, pig, pig!!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

No for PlanetSpace; who were the sources for the first story?
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071027/SPACE27/national/national/national/6/6/22/



> Industry Minister Jim Prentice aborted plans yesterday to approve a project to blast tourists into space under Ottawa's regional development program.
> 
> Mr. Prentice stepped in after The Globe and Mail reported that PlanetSpace was in line for a $45-million share of the regional benefits flowing from a major purchase of military planes from U.S.-based manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
> 
> "There have been no discussions between Industry Minister Prentice or any member of his staff regarding Lockheed Martin investing $45-million of its own money in the so-called PlanetSpace space-tourism project in Cape Breton. Nor will there be any such discussions," Bill Rodgers, Mr. Prentice's director of communications, said in an e-mail yesterday...
> 
> Sources said the company had won initial approvals to spend $45-million over six years on PlanetSpace's project.
> 
> But Mr. Rodgers said the government will not play a part in the project under which tourists would pay $250,000 each for a short voyage into space.
> 
> "Space tourism does not qualify as an IRB [Industrial Regional Benefit] under the Government of Canada's procurement policies and Minister Prentice has absolutely no intention of changing that. Space tourism will be left to tourists," Mr. Rodgers said.
> 
> A spokesman for Lockheed Martin said it is up to Industry Canada to approve the company's regional-benefits plan. The spokesman added that Lockheed Martin will "not have a problem meetings its IRB obligations," under which the company must lock in 60 per cent of investments before the contract is signed...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bandit1

Politics will always play a part in any military acquisition - that is the fundamental result of the military being an asset of the Federal government.

What pisses me off more than anything, though, is the current situation in which everyone around the country who has been concious for the last 25 years knows that the Canadian Forces have been the branch of Government which has sacrificed the most so that we could balance our budget.  If politicians think that the Forces of this country exist so that they can be used as bargaining chips for economic development and benefit then I suggest that they think of what life would be like _*without * _ the protection of the men and women who have and who will give their lives for the very air that we all breath each and every day.

Bandit


----------



## MarkOttawa

EADS Announces Charge Estimate for Revised A400M Delivery Schedule	
http://www.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20071105_eads_a400m_delivery.html



> EADS is completing its determination of the charges it will record in the third quarter regarding its recent assessment of A400M delivery delays.
> 
> While the calculations are not yet finalized, EADS now believes it will need to expense between EUR 1.2 billion and EUR 1.4 billion, of which more than EUR 1 billion for Airbus. This estimate is the best that can be established at this point of the programme development, and is *consistent with the delays of 6 months, with a risk of a further slippage of up to a half year, that were announced on 17 October 2007* [emphasis added].
> 
> This figure does *not include new potential issues which could arise from flight testing, engine development and military systems* [emphasis added]. EADS remains in close contacts with its suppliers on these matters.
> 
> The above development forces EADS to discontinue its EBIT guidance for 2007, which will be replaced by an updated guidance on 8 November, along with the disclosure of third quarter earnings. (EADS uses EBIT pre-goodwill impairment and exceptionals as a key indicator of its economic performance. The term 'exceptionals' refers to such items as depreciation expenses of fair value adjustments relating to the EADS merger, the Airbus Combination and the formation of MBDA, as well as impairment charges thereon.)
> 
> The A400M programme features 192 aircraft on order from 9 nations (of which 180 aircraft ordered through OCCAR on behalf of 7 nations)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

CTV's David Akins, bless him, notices:

EADS and program execution
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/4/3333743.html

He's reading AW&ST, probably uniquely amongst Canadian journalists covering defence matters:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/a400m-shocker.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas

You do know he'll be booted out of the press club for that !


----------



## MarkOttawa

But the physical National Press Club is no more:
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2007/may/23/lunch/

Though it lives on, in a Sheraton kind of way :
http://www.pressclub.on.ca/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Looks like more and more of EADS' future customers are slipping quietly away in the night.



> Lockheed Martin Receives Contract for C-130J Super Hercules Airlifters for Norway
> 
> 
> (Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued Nov. 7, 2007)
> 
> MARIETTA, Ga. --- Lockheed Martin has received an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) from the U.S. government valued at $304 million for the purchase of four C-130J Super Hercules airlifters, plus initial spares and training, for Norway through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.
> 
> The UCA initially funds 50% of the program and will allow Lockheed Martin to begin long-lead acquisition of production materials. A fully definitized contract for the Norwegian aircraft is expected to be signed early next year.
> 
> "We are proud to provide the Royal Norwegian Air Force with a new airlift fleet," said Ross Reynolds, vice president of C-130 programs for Lockheed Martin. "As the first FMS order for the C-130J, this marks yet another important milestone in the history of the world's most versatile airlifter."
> 
> The Norwegian Super Hercules will be the longer fuselage, or "stretched" variant of the C-130J, similar to those being delivered to the U.S. Air Force. Deliveries to Norway will include one aircraft in 2008, one in 2009 and two in 2010.
> 
> The first two aircraft for Norway are already in production and were originally destined for service with the U.S. Air Force. As a result of Norway's urgent need to replace its nearly 40-year-old C-130s, the Norwegian government arranged with the U.S. government for early delivery. The second two aircraft will be built specifically for Norway.
> 
> Lockheed Martin and Norway signed a separate agreement in August for an industrial cooperation program that fully meets Norwegian requirements for the C-130J procurement.
> 
> The C-130Js that Norway will receive are capable of generating much greater operational efficiencies than the 1968-vintage C-130Hs that Norway has been operating. The C-130J can fly farther, faster, with more payload and higher reliability. The new aircraft will enable Norway to fully meet its national airlift mission requirements as well as those in support of international organizations such as the U.N. and NATO.
> 
> 
> Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs over 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2006 sales of $39.6 billion.


----------



## geo

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Looks like more and more of EADS' future customers are slipping quietly away in the night.



Now the question is.... "when does Canada get into this action?"
Our older Hercs can't be any younger than Norway's


----------



## newfin

Geo is right.  It looks like the Norwegians have been able to queue jump and acquire aircraft that are already under construction.  Why is it taking so long for our government to sign a contract for C-130J's and CH-47's?


----------



## geo

I believe that, in our case, instead of buying straight "off the shelf" like we did for the C17s, we're asking Lockheed to "Canadianise" the darned things.  Need to write up all sorts of specs,  supplier has to figure out how much each mod will cost, etc, etc.....

How to complicate something that was proven to be sooo easy!


----------



## MarkOttawa

newfin, geo: Plus the bloody Industrial Regional Benefits.  I sure hope their queue jumping doesn't bump us back when we finally sign a contract:

Pie Pork in space, or why the C-130Js are taking so long  (read till the end)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/pie-in-space-or-why-c-130js-are-taking.html

And why were the Norwegians able to do this so fast compared to us?



> Lockheed Martin and Norway signed a separate agreement in August for an industrial cooperation program that fully meets Norwegian requirements for the C-130J procurement.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Mark,
Given that we have had a long and beneficial relationship with Lockheed Martin (CF18 + old Hercs) tweaking the regional industrial benefits should not be holding back procurement.  Changing the specs will.

100$ says that the Norwegians didn't start asking for a C130"N".   They are getting a basic "vanilla" C130J as seen used by the USAF


----------



## MarkOttawa

It just got a whole lot worse for the A400M (and likely European governments):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7060786



> PARIS, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Stung by a 1.4 billion euros ($2.05 billion) earnings hit, Airbus parent EADS has called for an audit of engine makers it blames for the costly delay of the A400M transport plane.
> 
> A year after its earnings were rocked by charges from the delay of its Airbus A380 superjumbo, EADS on Thursday was forced to report a similar charge on its biggest military plane, sending the company into a quarterly loss.
> 
> Chief Executive Louis Gallois put blame for a six to 12 month delay in Europe's biggest current military programme on the Europrop consortium led by France's Safran and Britain's Rolls-Royce, and gave them three weeks to produce a new timetable.
> 
> "There remains a question mark" over the A400M project, Gallois said on BFM Radio, adding any further problems with its huge turbo-prop engines would trigger more costs.
> 
> "We are worried by the engine situation. This engine had problems in the first trials and we are waiting for the engine makers to reassure us," Gallois later told stock market analysts.
> 
> "They have told us they will give us a precise timetable on the availability of the engine at the end of this month and we are anxiously looking forward to it. We are going to propose an audit on the engine programme because we want to know exactly where we stand."
> 
> Europrop International, which includes ITP of Spain and MTU Aero Engines of Germany, said it was working closely with Airbus...
> 
> The 2003 order for 180 planes by a government consortium called OCCAR was Europe's biggest single arms purchase contract.
> 
> "We have not begun to talk to OCCAR and the governments, but I wish to begin in the next weeks to make them fully aware of the situation and to see what kind of *solution we could find to share the burden* [emphasis added]," Gallois said.
> 
> Management of Europrop has been overhauled after companies that had originally competed fiercely to build the engine failed to work together smoothly, privately blaming each other for its faults.
> The EADS provisions are based on a minimum delay of six months with the risk of a further delay of another six months to the A400M, as announced by the company last month.
> 
> *"If we were to go beyond that because of the engine, obviously there would be extra costs, because a year's worth of development costs us between one and 1.5 billion euros."* [emphasis added]



They should have got the engines from P&WC.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FRFLA.htm



> On 30 April 2003, Airbus chief executive Noel Forgeard declared that the Pratt & Whitney Canada engine offer was around 20 per cent cheaper than its European rival, and would be choosen now if there was no "political dimension” to the decision.
> 
> On 6 May 2003, Airbus declared that it had choosen the TP400-D6 as the engine for the A400M. This was after EPI had made substantial last minute price and contractual concessions. Also, heavy political pressure from France probably played its part in tilting the balance towards the European solution. The decision was approved by teh [sic] EADS Board of Directors under Manfred Bischoff and Arnaud Lagardère.


 
That political decision alone should have removed the plane from any Canadian consideration unless it were some miracle world-beater which it clearly ain't.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> It just got a whole lot worse for the A400M (and likely European governments):
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7060786
> 
> They should have got the engines from P&WC.
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FRFLA.htm
> That political decision alone should have removed the plane from any Canadian consideration unless it were some miracle world-beater which it clearly ain't.
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well.... all I can say is that the A400s are going to have some really, really expensive engines.

Then again, P&WC have a working design.  They could either sell the working plans OR build and sell working engines - and save Airbus' little heinie


----------



## MarkOttawa

Wonder if our IRBs would benefit if this goes ahead:

Lockheed Offers USA a $6B C-130J Deal
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-offers-usa-a-6b-c-130j-deal-04174/#more



> The Hill magazine reports that Lockheed Martin is lobbying the US Air Force to buy an additional 120 C-130J aircraft, under an offered multi-year contract worth more than $6 billion.
> 
> The USAF has about 20% of its C-130E/H Hercules fleet on the ground or under significant flight restrictions right now, and has been pleading to be able to retire them instead of spending time and maintenance dollars on aircraft that will probably never fly again. This percentage will continue to grow as the hours continue to pile up. Meanwhile, the C-130Js are performing well in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their performance suffers much less from the heat and high altitude than C-130E/H versions. US Special Forces are also looking to renew their aging C-130 specialty aircraft and gunship fleet, but they worry that platforms like the C-130 won't be survivable 15 years from now.
> 
> Both groups have made noises lately about a competition that could involve Airbus' recently-delayed A400M, which breaks through the 20-ton cargo barrier that has stymied several US armored vehicle programs. Those rumblings, and the delay, may have handed Lockheed both motive and opportunity to make its proposal….
> 
> Lockheed's offer reportedly involves 120 C-130J aircraft in different configurations between 2011-2015, at a production rate of 24 airplanes a year. This would double its existing production rate, and extend the line's guaranteed operating period from 2010-2015.
> 
> Costs per C-130J-30 would reportedly drop from $60-70 million in current FY08 dollars to $50.4 million in constant FY08 dollars; the KC-130J tanker variant would be $51.8 million, and a shortened version (which was disqualified from the Joint Cargo Aircraft competition) would be $47.8 million. In real dollars with inflation et. al. factored in, this could rise to about $60-65 million per plane between 2011-2015...
> 
> DID Analysis: Understanding the Offer's Context
> 
> With Airbus A400M production unlikely to begin at any serious level before 2011, and 190 orders already on the books that must be filled, Lockheed's 2011-2015 deal offers the US military immediate relief for its aging force, before the competition can realistically deliver an alternative.
> 
> The important thing, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, is to raise the size of the USA's C-130J fleet high enough that competitive alternatives become too expensive due to the scale of duplication required for training, logistics, maintenance, et. al. An additional 120 aircraft would almost certainly achieve this goal, locking in a much larger volume of long-term orders, while keeping the production line open long past 2015 for other international customers...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

It would also give the US and Lockheed a window to "allow" vested interests to buy additional 130J's, because friendly country's beaureaucrats' are busy picking nits rather than getting on with the job of ordering planes


----------



## Genetk44

;D   HAHA...I wonder how many bigwigs at EADS are crying in their soup that they have not gone with P&WC for the engines ;D


----------



## Bograt

The first pipe out of YPG has been selected at the last wings grad. (Nov. 14th? 07)


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the blog of a certain journalist; does sound a bit tricky to me:

C-130J MAINTENANCE TO BE DIVIDED INTO 6 CONTRACTS BUT WILL THE END RESULT BE A MESS?
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2007/12/13/c-130j-maintenance-to-be-divided-into-6-contracts-but-will-the-end-result-be-a-mess.aspx



> I just got this in from some industry contacts. It seems that the C-130J package goes to Treasury Board for approval today (or Friday). It has been a long-time coming…..it was more than a year ago that the government announced its intention to buy tactical transport aircraft for the Canadian Forces. And even if the deal is inked by the spring (as the military hopes) Lockheed Martin still has up to 36 months to deliver the first aircraft.
> 
> I’m told by industry types that the package (proposed by ADM Materiel Dan Ross and Lockheed Martin) and going to Treasury Board today includes the in-service support (ISS) arrangements that in the view of some defence officials could prove to be very problematic. There will be six different work packages for the ISS. Each package would be competed to industry as a separate contract.
> 
> As it was explained to me, this method would earn the Conservative government maximum votes as 6 different contracts could be directed to firms from specific particular regions (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia mainly).The contract wealth would be spread across the country. The PR spin would involve various ministers making contract announcements, gaining publicity,etc.
> 
> Whether this makes sense from a military or Defence Department point of view is open to a lot of debate. It could give DND types major management headaches; 6 different contracts and companies to deal with instead of one.
> 
> In the area of training and simulation, the government has made it much easier. CAE is up for that contract, which makes sense for many in the Canadian Forces as CAE is the main training/simulator provider for the C-130J.
> 
> By the way, CAE today announced it signed two contracts with the Dutch with a combined value of $60 million. CAE will be designing two full-mission simulators (FMS) for the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) as well as provide comprehensive maintenance and support services. CAE will design and manufacture one C-130H FMS and one KDC-10 FMS. The Dutch operate the Lockheed Martin C-130H as a medium-lift transport aircraft, and the KDC-10 as a tanker and strategic transport.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I read the rest of his website and he appears to be very anti-conservative and anti PM Harper. What's his problem?


----------



## geo

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I read the rest of his website and he appears to be very anti-conservative and anti PM Harper. What's his problem?



Well.... splitting the maintenance 6 ways is a bit of a problem in itself. Isn,t it?


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Well.... splitting the maintenance 6 ways is a bit of a problem in itself. Isn,t it?



Although I like it better if we can fix our own vehicles, I am puzzled by your reply?  I can see Avionics being sent to the 'best' "Maintainer".  Airframe to the best "Maintainer".  Engines to the best Aero engine Maintainer/Manufacturer.   etc. etc.  Are you trying to tell me that there is one company only in Canada that is a specialist in everything related to aircraft?  Please don't say Bombardier.


----------



## cameron

Another point the reporter very conveniently overlooks is that the C130 has proven itself over at least four decades to be one of the most if not the most reliable, versatile and rugged airlifters.  The A400M is an unknown entity, we have no idea how reliable it will be.  With reporting like this is it any wonder that the CF always has an uphill battle convincing politicians and taxpayers to give it decent equipment?


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Please don't say Bombardier.



Or IMP  :threat:


----------



## geo

George... Pls don't put words in my mouth.
I have no particular love or investment in Bombardier.  They do make decent aircrafts in Quebec & Ontario... ditto on Trains.  If they had the better product, I would expect them to be considered on their competence & value added to the product... but, if Lockheed Martin is the best contractor to look after some or all of the aircraft, then fair consideration should be given to them.
Pratt & Whitney?
Boeing?
etc, etc, etc.......


----------



## George Wallace

geo

You worded that in a way that it sounded/looked like contracting out to the 'best' in six fields of Aircraft Maint was the problem.


----------



## geo

Heeey.... it IS possible that a six way split IS the most sensible way to do things... if that is the case, then they should proceed - if it isn't.... then it's time to think this over again.

The users should have the last word or certainly a senior word on this.


----------



## aesop081

C-130J is built by Lockheed-Martin thus ISS should be done by........Lockheed-Martin.

You buy a new Mitsubishi car, you dont take it to Pontiac for maintenance do you ?



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Heeey.... it IS possible that a six way split IS the most sensible way to do things...



Even though it is possible, i do not believe for second that this idea is anything but politicaly driven.


----------



## GAP

If that is the political price that has to be paid to overcome the government being slammed in the polls, as one Canadian, I can live with it.


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> If that is the political price that has to be paid to overcome the government being slammed in the polls, as one Canadian, I can live with it.



Well, maybe YOU can live with it. But i assure you that overly complicated maintenance arrangements do nothing but hinder operational availability of an aircraft fleet. If you had to do your job in one of thse aircraft, you might not be so willing to live with it.


----------



## observor 69

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, maybe YOU can live with it. But i assure you that overly complicated maintenance arrangements do nothing but hinder operational availability of an aircraft fleet.



If the military was free of political expedients and allowed to operate it's logistics with "best practices" I don't think we would be looking at splitting an aircraft into six maintenance channels. Criticism of the military as being inefficient has been around as long as the interference of politics on military decision making.


----------



## aesop081

My opinion only but

1st and 2nd line for the CC-130J should be done by military technicians at the Sqn level with some support at the Wing level. TLIR should be done by the OEM (in This case L-M)


----------



## Haletown

depot level maintenance cannot be done by LM alone as they are not experts in the engines they buy, the electronics they use etc.  LM are airframers

six locations actually seems low for a complex new aircraft.

What we need is the ILS report that specifies the Maintenance model, the Spares model, the FEMECA report etc.  Only then can we judge if the deal is good/bad/indifferent


----------



## GAP

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, maybe YOU can live with it. But i assure you that overly complicated maintenance arrangements do nothing but hinder operational availability of an aircraft fleet. If you had to do your job in one of thse aircraft, you might not be so willing to live with it.



You are right, I don't have to live with it. Given that, I am looking at the political reality....I would rather see more of this government with a majority continue to increase the equipment of the forces over the long term, than the alternative.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The shame is that, if the blog post is accurate, politics have delayed the contract since June 2006:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/c-130j-13-months-to-issue-request-for.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

This is how aircraft are maintained folks.  As Haletown mentioned - 6 is not a high number.

Lockheed Martin assembles aircraft in an assembly plant - they don't make engines, sub-systems, avionics suites, etc.

The props will be contracted out to one company, the engines to another, engine sub-systems to another, avionics to another, etc etc - the list goes on (and on).  This is a fact of life - nothing to see here, everybody go about your business.

The Buffalo sends it props and engines out to France and California for 3rd line maintenance.


----------



## Bandit1

> *Military cargo planes get Treasury Board approval*
> 
> By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> OTTAWA - The Defence Department's long-awaited and controversial purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane has been approved by the federal Treasury Board, defence sources say.
> 
> A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.
> 
> Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of 17 C-130Js received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin.
> 
> The in-service support portion of the deal will be the subject of further discussions, said one source familiar with the agreement.
> 
> Officials at National Defence declined comment, and it's unclear whether the federal cabinet needs to review the package again.
> 
> But in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press last week, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said he understood the cargo plane was in the final stages of approval.
> 
> Three of the older Hercules have already been retired after exceeding their flying life and "we'd like to put the other ones to bed as quickly as possible," Hillier said.
> 
> "With the old C-130s, we're spending more to keep them flying but their operational availability is going down."
> 
> He compared the existing fleet to a 1981 Ford Taurus that is constantly in the shop for repairs.
> 
> "You spend a thousand bucks to keep it running, take it back out and something else breaks and you put it back in," he said.
> 
> "I know this because I had a Ford Taurus."
> 
> Defence sources said the government was running out of time to make up its mind because Lockheed Martin's price for the project was set to expire at the end of the year.
> 
> Often described as the workhorse of the air force, Hercules transports have flown tens of thousands of soldiers into and out of Kandahar during the last two years. The cargo plane is also a principal resupply lifeline, dropping containers of ammunition, food and medical supplies to NATO combat units throughout southern Afghanistan.
> 
> The Defence Department refused to explain why in-service support for the C-130Js has been left open for discussion, but it is clear a storm is brewing among Canadian defence contractors, who increasingly feel left out.
> 
> As military aircraft become more sophisticated and fewer are being purchased, many Canadian aerospace firms have downsized and discontinued separate production lines. Instead they now rely on the Defence Department to buy maintenance data, such as technical drawings, up front from the aircraft-maker, most of which are foreign-owned.
> 
> The system has had problems, notably the purchase of the CH-149 Cormorant helicopter from AgustaWestland. Federal bureaucrats negotiated technology licences on a piece-by-piece basis, resulting in a part and maintenance nightmare for Halifax-based IMP Aerospace, which has the support contract.
> 
> Since the Conservatives announced sole-source deals with both Lockheed Martin and Boeing, there has been a change in practice. The government intends to contract in-service support directly with the aircraft-maker, but require them to spend money in Canada on industrial offsets - something that will generate work, but not to the same degree as the old system.
> 
> The Public Works Department has been working feverishly to persuade the skeptical aerospace industry of the merits of the new approach, but companies have demanded to see the terms in writing.
> 
> The purchase of new C-130s has also prompted a repeated storm of criticism over the way it was handled and the choice of aircraft itself.
> 
> The Conservative government decided early in its tenure that it was going to deal exclusively with Lockheed Martin for the air force's medium-lift transport planes.
> 
> Rival European aircraft-maker Airbus Military complained publicly and took the unusual step of putting its case before the House of Commons defence committee, saying its yet-to-be-tested cargo jet was being unfairly excluded from competition.
> 
> Concerns about the sole-sourcing arrangement were also fodder for opposition parties during question period.
> 
> Critics also pointed to a variety of teething pains, including problems with the cockpit glass, radar glitches and props that have been easily damaged by what's considered ordinary wear and tear.
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/12/19/4732582-cp.html


----------



## karl28

Hopefully now the military can finally get these planes built and delivered without any more delays .
 I am a firm believer that if the military needs a piece of kit let them have it there shouldn't be an endless debate about it .


----------



## MarkOttawa

More of the same regarding A400M (subscriber only):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst



> News Breaks
> Europe
> Another Delay
> _Aviation Week & Space Technology_
> 12/24/2007, page 12
> 
> The first flight of the A400M’s TP400 engine has slipped further, to the second quarter of 2008 from the first. Following delivery of an engine to Marshall Aerospace for integration on the C-130 testbed and a review of the program schedule, the Turboprop International consortium developing the massive engine announced the change.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More of the same regarding A400M (subscriber only):
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_.jsp?channel=awst
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Wow...at this rate, the A400M will get of the ground only after the Space Shuttle's replacement hits the skies (and beyond).  Good thing those united Europeans were too proud to have Pratt and Whitney Canada uses their decades of turbo-prop experience to help these guys out of a bind...  :

Oy!  

G2G


----------



## geo

at this rate, we can consider the A400 as a replacement for our C130Js


----------



## MarkOttawa

geo: Maybe :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080105/bs_afp/germanyfranceaerospacecompanyeads



> Sat Jan 5, 9:39 AM ET
> 
> BERLIN (AFP) - The European aerospace giant EADS is facing new problems with its A400M military transport plane which could delay its maiden flight expected in July, a Germany weekly reported.
> 
> "There are still loads of unanswered questions," a senior EADS executive told the Wirtschaftswoche weekly in its edition to be published Monday.
> 
> *The problems do not only concern the plane's engines but also the fuselage and the wings* [emphasis added], the executive said.
> 
> The A400M, the most important military industrial programme ever carried out between European partners, was launched by seven countries in May 2003, but it is already six months to one year behind schedule due to technical problems.
> 
> The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company said in November that it was going to have spend between 1.2-1.4 billion euros (1.8-2.0 billion dollars) to deal with the delays.
> 
> The A400M aircraft is Europe's response to the ageing C-130 Hercules transporter, produced by the US firm Lockheed. EADS has said it will have greater airlift capacity and range than both the Hercules and the Transall, another ageing but widely used military transport plane.



If the engine first flies (on a C-130 testbed) in the second quarter of this year I sure wouldn't want to be on an A400M making its first flight in July!  I'm willing to bet early next year at the earliest, if that isn't too early, if you know what I mean.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ironduke57

Well for the Transall it took around 10 years between start of the development and delivery of the first final plane.
For the A400M we are just a bit in the 5 year.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Haletown

So another delay.  When will the delays end??  

Engine problems continue, now airframe issues.  At what cost ??

In November  2007 EADS announced:

"A400M delivery delays to cost EADS up to €1.4 billion
By Craig Hoyle

EADS will confirm, on 8 November, the full scale of an up to €1.4 billion ($2.0 billion) charge linked to the development and flight-test delays that have affected its delivery schedule for the nine-nation Airbus Military A400M transport.

At best, the penalty for the third quarter of 2007 will be €1.2 billion, it says, with Airbus to carry over €1 billion of this total.

"This estimate is the best that can be established at this point of the programme development, and is consistent with the delays of six months - with a risk of a further slippage of up to a half year - that were announced on 17 October," EADS says."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/05/219133/a400m-delivery-delays-to-cost-eads-up-to-1.4-billion.html


So what is the cost overrun now ??

Thank goodness we did not buy these things.  Despite the concerted effort by some MSM journalists to push for them, the government made the correct decision in getting a mixed fleet of 17's 130J's.


----------



## Haletown

"Sat Jan 5, 9:39 AM ET
hmmmmm  "loads of unanswered questions"

Sounds like a low risk solution to CG airlift needs.

Too bad we bought the C17 instead  ;D



BERLIN (AFP) - The European aerospace giant EADS is facing new problems with its A400M military transport plane which could delay its maiden flight expected in July, a Germany weekly reported.
ADVERTISEMENT

"There are still loads of unanswered questions," a senior EADS executive told the Wirtschaftswoche weekly in its edition to be published Monday."

rtr @   http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080105/bs_afp/germanyfranceaerospacecompanyeads_080105143900;_ylt=Aj3w4KXOejMBYaMEr09bn5CmOrgF


----------



## cameron

You know what the funny thing is?  The same people who are complaining because the A400M isn't given consideration would be the first to criticize the government and DND for wasting money if it were selected and the CF were left waiting for years for an undelivered plane


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

geo said:
			
		

> at this rate, we can consider the A400 as a replacement for our C130Js


I think you might be on to something ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

About, I must say, freaking time:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/01/15/pf-4774816.html



> The air force's $4.6-billion purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane will be made final Wednesday, after months of delays, wrangling and hand-wringing among defence contractors, defence sources said.
> 
> More than a year ago, the Conservative government invoked a national security clause in procurement legislation and negotiated exclusively with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin to buy 17 C-130J transport planes.
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/c-130j-13-months-to-issue-request-for.html
> 
> Replacement of the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was part of a massive rearmament drive launched by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor in 2006 [well, the Liberals had actually decided for all practical purposes to buy the Jerc in November 2005--link at post no longer up].
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005272.html
> 
> Defence and industry sources say the contract to buy the aircraft was approved by the federal cabinet last month, just before the aircraft-maker's pricing schedule expired.
> 
> The program has been held up over concern about the 20-year, $1.7-billion maintenance portion of the contract.
> 
> In addition to building the planes, Lockheed, as prime contractor, would also be responsible for the maintenance contract - something that has upset Canadian defence contractors.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier will announce the purchase Wednesday at a high-profile event at the Ottawa airport, but they will give themselves up to 12 months to negotiate the support deal, said defence insiders.
> 
> A senior government official said Public Works has been demanding that 75 per cent of the long-term maintenance work be carried out by Canadian defence contractors. The other 25 per cent can be done by U.S. firms.
> 
> "We've negotiated very firmly," said the source.
> 
> If Public Works is able to achieve the three-quarters Canadian-based maintenance levels, it will amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian companies."
> 
> Delivery of the first aircraft is expected within 36 months...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

So... the planes start arriving when?
Last airframe in our hands by which date?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> So... the planes start arriving when?
> Last airframe in our hands by which date?



Exactly! What these bureaucrats seem to forget is that we have aging airframes that we are nursing along to keep the missions going at the moment. We need these planes ten years ago and we need to start seeing if we can do something similar to what we did to get the C17s.....see if we can jump the que!


----------



## Haletown

release says 36 months


----------



## Haletown

just released  . .

"
Conservatives sign $1.4-billion cargo plane contract

MURRAY BREWSTER

Canadian Press

January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM EST

OTTAWA — The air force's long-awaited purchase of the Super-Hercules cargo plane became a reality Wednesday as the Conservative government formally signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.

The purchase of 17 C-130J planes is worth $1.4-billion, with *delivery of the first aircraft in the winter of 2010*.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said at a news conference that a maintenance contract is still being negotiated, for completion by 2009.

The Hercules procurement has been mired in controversy almost from the moment it was announced 17 months ago by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080116.wcargoplanes0116/BNStory/National/home


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the official release;
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519



> *Schedule*
> 
> A Request for Proposal was issued in August 2007. The purchase contract, valued at $1.4 billion U.S. was awarded on 20 December 2007. The first aircraft is to be delivered within 36 months of contract award. The last aircraft will be delivered within 60 months of contract award.



Lots of pork and politics:



> Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract.
> 
> “We are continuing to make sure Canada’s aerospace and defence industries obtain maximum benefit so they can build and sustain capacity to support these aircraft over the long-term,” Mr. Fortier said. “Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits – well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude.”



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

Haletown said:
			
		

> just released  . .
> 
> "
> Conservatives sign $1.4-billion cargo plane contract
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> January 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM EST
> 
> OTTAWA — The air force's long-awaited purchase of the Super-Hercules cargo plane became a reality Wednesday as the Conservative government formally signed a contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.
> 
> The purchase of 17 C-130J planes is worth $1.4-billion, with *delivery of the first aircraft in the winter of 2010*.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said at a news conference that a maintenance contract is still being negotiated, for completion by 2009.
> 
> The Hercules procurement has been mired in controversy almost from the moment it was announced 17 months ago by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor."
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080116.wcargoplanes0116/BNStory/National/home



Well praise the Lord

P.S. Concerning the maintenance contract, while i'm all for supporting Canadian industry and Canadian workers, *the first priority should be getting the best available equipment to our men and women in arms as soon as possible.  Having equipment that allows them to execute their difficult and dangerous tasks as efficiently and safely as possible should be paramount.  Anything else could be taken into consideration after*


----------



## belka

It's nice to see that the Air Force is finally modernizing into the 21st century, with the new transports and helicopters coming. I just hope they haven't forgotted about the fighters.  :


----------



## karl28

Well this is good news I sure hope there are not any delays in getting these badly needed planes to the CF .  Does any one know if the Government has announced the chinook contract yet ?  Also is there  any information on weather or not  they are any closer to naming the Fixed wing SAR replacement or is the CF just going to have to make do with 17  ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

karl28: Chinook:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66492/post-662494.html#msg662494



> No contract till the end of 2008; I smell pork problems (from the C-130J contract announcement):
> http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519
> 
> *Quote
> 3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters (Chinooks)*
> 
> *Procurement process*
> 
> In July 2006, PWGSC issued an Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) on MERX, the government’s electronic tendering service.
> 
> An ACAN signals the government’s intention to award a contract to a specific supplier for a specific requirement. Other suppliers then have an opportunity (at minimum 15 days) to submit a Statement of Capabilities clearly demonstrating how they can meet the mandatory requirements set out by the government.
> 
> This method of procurement fosters competition by giving suppliers the opportunity to respond to the government’s requirements before a contract is awarded. It is typically used when the government believes there is only one supplier or product capable of meeting its needs. It is also open and transparent by letting suppliers know the government’s intention well in advance of any contract award.
> 
> *Schedule*
> 
> A Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued to Boeing by the spring of 2008. Contract award is expected by the end of 2008. Under the RFP, Boeing will be required to meet all of the high-level mandatory requirements including delivery of first aircraft 36 months after a contract is awarded. The last aircraft will be delivered within 60 months of contract award.
> 
> *Trade agreements*
> 
> This requirement was excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization – Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO – AGP) and the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).



See this section at the news release; no listing for fixed-wing SAR, so no definite procurement plan has been approved:

*Backgrounder
Major Military Procurements*

See these two posts at _The Torch_:

Fixed-wing SAR replacement: "we’re putting proposals in front of the government to that end" (note the "soon" in July)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/fixed-wing-sar-replacement-were-putting.html

Keeping the Buffalos flying
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/keeping-buffalos-flying.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28

MarkOttawa 


 Thanks for the links they will give me some  reading to do on my days off  greatly appreciated .


----------



## MarkOttawa

Jercs to be based at Trenton (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=866429&auth=Luke+Hendry



> After long decades of service, CFB Trenton's workhorse airplanes are getting exactly what they need: reinforcements.
> 
> Federal ministers announced a contract to buy 17 new C-130J Hercules transports for $1.4 billion.
> 
> *The planes are to begin arriving in the winter of 2010* [emphasis added].
> 
> As a navigator, Col. Mike Hood, commander of 8 Wing-CFB Trenton, was among a crew flying one of the base's older Hercules that flew to Ottawa Wednesday.
> 
> He compared the effect of the announcement to the recent arrival of the CC-177 Globemasters in Trenton.
> 
> "It's a real morale booster," said Hood.
> 
> "People want to be part of an organization that has the best equipment [and] great capability. This is just the next step."
> 
> Though older Hercules models are flown elsewhere in Canada, *Hood said the new J-models will be based in Trenton* [emphasis added].
> 
> "The C-130J is meant to replace the C-130 doing the tactical airlift role," said Hood.
> 
> Tactical airlift - the process of delivering people and cargo with relatively short flights under often difficult situations - is what keeps Trenton's 436 Transport Squadron working constantly.
> 
> The Hercs are also flown by Trenton's 426 Transport Training and 424 Transport and Rescue Squadrons, but the bulk of the Canadian tactical airlift flights in Afghanistan and around the world are handled by 436 Squadron.
> 
> Hood said *crews must now train in the United States to fly the J-model, possibly as early as this summe*r [emphasis added].
> 
> "While it looks like a C-130 on the outside, on the inside it's a very different aircraft than the one we've been flying," Hood said.
> 
> "It can fly higher, go longer, and carry more than the one we've been flying."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Just an update on the C-130J in general

The C-130J: New Hercules & Old Bottlenecks
12-Mar-2008 14:50 EDT
Article Link

The C-130J “Super Hercules” Hercules program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy – and recently, of a full program restructuring. Most American planes rely on the US market as their base, and then seek exports, but the privately-developed C-130J was different. Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Italy were all ahead of the curve, and have been operating the privately-developed C-130J for several years. By the time the plane finally reached “initial operating capability” for the US military late in 2006, these faster-moving foreign customers were already banding together to create a common upgrade set for their serving fleets. A number of variants are currently flying in transport (C-130J), stretched transport (C-130J-30), aerial broadcaster (EC-130J), coast guard patrol (HC-130J), aerial tanker (KC-130J), and even hurricane hunter weather aircraft (WC-130J).

Canada, India and Norway recently moved to join the global C-130J customer base. In America, meanwhile, some momentum is building. C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace a US tactical transport fleet that’s flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. 

Despite early concerns from critics, the C-130J has demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that represents a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. The key question is, does it break the key limitations that have hobbled a number of US Army programs? This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines that issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and makes note of present and emerging competitors. The latest news includes a delivery to the US Coast Guard, and a maintenance contract from the Marines…
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6

Danish C-130J-30 video of a beach landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOGBuPRxozQ


----------



## geo

Nice Short take off there T6.
Makes a STOL proud   Just goes to show WHY the Herc is so good at what it does.


----------



## Dissident

Pass me the barf bag.

Impressive. I do wonder what was the takeoff weight.


----------



## hauger

Nifty.  They kinda hung it on the props, didn't they.

I wonder what it'd be like to fly in one of those.  Can't wait till Canada starts getting them.


----------



## PMedMoe

Excellent take off!!  Would've loved to have been on it.

Don't show that to the flight crews, who knows what ideas they'll get!!


----------



## geo

LOL, LOL not the same thing but, I remember years ago when the NORDAIR pilots would turn around at the Frobisher Bay terminal building and take off using the taxiway as their runway.  Betcha the Boeing boys didn't have that in mind when they built the 737


----------



## PMedMoe

I was thinking more along the lines of  "Oh, the plane's broken down.  Why yes, we do just happen to be on a beach...."


----------



## cameron

HOLY $HIT BATMAN!!!!!!! ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You so don't want to get stuck and have the tide come in!


----------



## geo

Colin P said:
			
		

> You so don't want to get stuck and have the tide come in!



Ohhh the paperwork that that would entail >


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> LOL, LOL not the same thing but, I remember years ago when the NORDAIR pilots would turn around at the Frobisher Bay terminal building and take off using the taxiway as their runway.  Betcha the Boeing boys didn't have that in mind when they built the 737



They used to have lotsa fun in Ft Chimo/YVP as well.  Many of the NORDAIR 737 jocks earned their spurs on their NAI & NAK F27's flying DEW Line laterals, so they knew the area well.

Saturday was a day of extra sections into the big mine up the coast and then last flight they would head back to Montreal with a few hundred pounds of mail & COMAT.  They wind  up those old 737's and as soon as they had lift, they'd wheels up/flaps up and roar down the runway at 30 feet and then over the village at 200 ft, do a steep turn & climb out with a wing waggle.

Stuff they'd  get fired for in Montreal !!


----------



## geo

Ahhh the "wild west" days of flying in the great white north... I remember them well.

I remember a 737 come down in Nanasivik with a very heavy part that was going up to the mine at Little Cornwallis Island.
The pilot landed hard and blew something like 3 tires.  They had 1 spare on station ..... so they threw everything off the plane (passengers & cargo), flew the plane empty (after installing the 1 spare) up to Resolute where they picked up another spare & returned to Nanasivik to continue service (they said it was OK to fly passengers with 1 blown tire).  The Heavy part had to wait a few days


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhh the "wild west" days of flying in the great white north... I remember them well.



  Amen bro . . .  very fond memories of may unique people & places.  Always makes me smile when I think back.

Getting a craving for a hit of "DEW Line Wine" for some reason    :blotto:


----------



## geo

Shudder!


----------



## Im Not Telling

I just put on a Blue uniform 2 months ago and I've been wearing green for 7 years.  So I've heard the C-130J is more like flying a big pig then the old Herc and was wondering if it was needed that badly.  I know we have an aging fleet and updating is needed but with the few 17's we have would it not be just as effective to buy newer versions of the older Herc insted of the J which I understand has a longer fuselage making it harder to manipulate.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haven't heard that at all.  In fact, the opposite.  Having flown on a RAF J in theatre, I'd say that is an unfounded concern.

G2G


----------



## Zoomie

Your comments are akin to saying that you really liked the 1980's version of the mini-van and can't stand the current 2008 model- we should just buy new 1980 mini-vans because they worked for us?

The J-model Hercules is the model of aircraft that is being milled and produced currently - there are no other versions out there for our purchase.  We have CF aircrews in the US right now undergoing training on the J-model - they are coming, be afraid...


----------



## beenthere

The extended fuselage is nothing new nor does it affect performance.  As far as being needed badly--- definitely.  Several of the older ones have developed some structural problems that would cost more to repair than the aircraft is worth.


----------



## Im Not Telling

See this is why a silly ex-land guy asked the question.  And trust me I understand stress over time with usage of equipment and replacement cost in relation to purchase of new equipment.  I asked because I had a few people tell me the pilots didn't like them so I figured I'd ask and see what I came up with because after reading an article in IDG there was a difference in what I was being told.


----------



## Good2Golf

Im Not Telling said:
			
		

> ...I asked because I had a few people tell me the pilots didn't like them so I figured I'd ask and see what I came up with because after reading an article in IDG there was a difference in what I was being told.



I.N.T., that's part of the problem from the "hear it from a friend2" phenomenon.  Unless it was a Herc pilot telling you the J was a piece of crap, I would be wary of what "a few people" tell you.  

G2G


----------



## hauger

Funny...I've heard a couple "J" performance rumours (all leaning towards the lacking).  My conspiracy theory is it's the FE's and the Nav's trying to talk down the machine, maybe with some help from the Tanker and SAR Herc guys.

True the "J" isn't a hornet in TAL clothing, and I'm willing to bet the C-17 is a might faster than the "J", but I think "pig" might prove a bit harsh and unrealistic a description of it's performance.


----------



## aesop081

hauger said:
			
		

> Funny...I've heard a couple "J" performance rumours (all leaning towards the lacking).



See the post above yours.


----------



## hauger

yes, yes, yes, I get it, rumours bad.  I don't trade in rumours, personally I find keeping up with the gossip a bit annoying.  Having said I've heard negative rumours doesn't mean I believe or spread said rumours, just that I've heard them kicked around.  

A lesson to everyone though....rumours are bad.  When the guy telling you the rumour has never flown a "J", I'd not put too much stock in what your hearing.

My conspiracy theory still stands


----------



## Globesmasher

hauger said:
			
		

> Funny...I've heard a couple "J" performance rumours (all leaning towards the lacking).  My conspiracy theory is it's the FE's and the Nav's trying to talk down the machine, maybe with some help from the Tanker and SAR Herc guys.



LOL!!  That is probably true!!  The J model does not come with a crew compliment (or even seats) for the NAV or for the FE, so your conspiracy theory may hold some truth!!



			
				hauger said:
			
		

> True the "J" isn't a hornet in TAL clothing, and I'm willing to bet the C-17 is a might faster than the "J", but I think "pig" might prove a bit harsh and unrealistic a description of it's performance.



You cannot compare the two.  The C-130J and the C-17 are apples and oranges.  That's like comparing a pickup truck to a semi.
There is no comparison to draw between the two - they are quite different.
Of course the C-17 is faster than the C-130.  The C-17 is designed to cruise at Mach 0.76 or 445 kts true, and the J is deisgned for just over 360 kts true.  Turbo fan versus turbo prop.  They cannot be compared to one another in terms of speed, range or altitude.

The C-130J can do things that the C-17 cannot and, likewise, the C-17 can do things that the J model cannot.

You can only compare the C130J to the older models of the C130.  And, since I have flown the E, the H, HT-90s and H-30 and the J model Hercs let me tell you from first hand that the J model (including the C130J-30 stretch version) is NOT lacking for power.  It far outclimbs, outperforms and outcruises the E and the H models.  It also accelerates quicker - the landing gear speed is still the same, so one had better clean up quick and watch the speed, or else the gear will be oversped relatively quickly.

This is the right thing for Canada:  a mixed fleet of C-17s and C130J hercules.  NOT one or the other - we need BOTH.

Just my 2 cents - from a guy who has flown both the C-17 and the C-130 ................ extensively.


----------



## beenthere

Now, there's a rumour that you can take to the bank.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yeah, but thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of experience on 17s and 130 notwithstanding, you should see the rumours fly after 'Smasher after a few margaritas!  In fact, wasn't that place you hung out, actually called that? :cheers:


----------



## beenthere

http://p099.ezboard.com/General-discussion/fc130herculesheadquartersfrm2 Try this. It's the general discussion board. There's also a board on technical issues and one on history. The general discussion board is where all of the crying takes place over navs and oilers who are faced with being put out to pasture. It also has some really good stories about Herkie goings on past and present. The tech board gives some great examples of all of the knowledge that has been accumulated over the years. That kind of information exchange has been going on for years in the Herc. world and Bob Daley who runs the whole thing is truly Mr. Herc.


----------



## GAP

The C-130J: New Hercules & Old Bottlenecks 
Article Link

Most American planes rely on the US market as their base, then seek exports. The privately-developed C-130J “Super Hercules” was different. Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Italy were all ahead of the curve, and have been operating this heavily redesigned upgrade of the popular C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for several years. By the time the C-130J finally reached “initial operating capability” for the US military late in 2006, these faster-moving foreign customers were already banding together to create a common upgrade set for their serving fleets. A number of variants are currently flying in transport (C-130J), stretched transport (C-130J-30), aerial broadcaster (EC-130J), coast guard patrol (HC-130J), aerial tanker (KC-130J), and even hurricane hunter weather aircraft (WC-130J).

Canada, India and Norway recently moved to join the global C-130J customer base. In America, meanwhile, some momentum is building. C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace a US tactical transport fleet that’s flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. 

The C-130J program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy in America – and even of a full program restructuring in 2006. Some early concerns from critics were put to rest when the C-130J demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that represented a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. A valid follow-on question might be: does it break the bottleneck limitations that have hobbled a number of multi-billion dollar US Army vehicle development programs? 

This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors. The latest news includes a new MC-130J variant to compete for US Special Operations Command’s solicited requirement – which has now come through via a significant order…
More on link


----------



## geo

Hmmm June & July 2010 instead of December 2010... better than nothing I guess.

It'll take time to recertify our aircrew to fly the J version anyway so these two advanced copies will be a little help


----------



## geo

thanks for the update GS

Keep em flying


----------



## daftandbarmy

I've done many jumps from the SHERC - Stretched Herc C130-J - in years past and they are excellent aircraft (even if they do make me sick at low level  )


----------



## observor 69

Canada’s First CC-130J Closer to Completion

During the evening of December 7th, the first two of Canada’s 17 CC-130Js moved to the front of the production line in Marietta. The CC-130J on the left in the photo below is the first and is in the position for interior trim. The CC-130J on the right is in the final assembly position. The aircraft will be delivered in the spring of 2010.

http://cc-130j.ca/2009/12/08/canadas-first-cc-130j-closer-to-completion/


----------



## karl28

Wow great news be glad to see them on Canadain soil .


----------



## KJK

It looks like the first one is out of the paint booth.  

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/press_photos/2010/c130j_canadian-paint.jpg

KJK


----------



## fire_guy686

KJK said:
			
		

> It looks like the first one is out of the paint booth.
> 
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/press_photos/2010/c130j_canadian-paint.jpg
> 
> KJK



Lookin good.


----------



## belka

Are they going to keep it gray or repaint it the standard green color that's common with the current hercs?


----------



## fireman1867

Current Hercs are painted dark Grey with Light Grey markings. CF opted to paint the J the same as the C-17 ie USAF light matte grey with darker markings.


----------



## FoverF

I seem to recall that the initial production C-130Js had a kind of shrink-wrapped plastic anti-corrosion coating instead of paint. This reduced weight, and was supposed to last longer, but I think I heard that it was shelved pretty early on in the program. 

Does anybody know anything else about this?


----------



## hauger

I've never heard of the shrink wrap.  That doesn't mean it's not true, just never heard of it.  I have to imagine it wouldn't be practical though, I'd guess damage to the finish from, say, landing on a gravel runway might be a bit hard to patch.  Neat idea though.


----------



## SuperAVS

I'd agree that it wouldn't seem practical. Might have started off as a good idea, until they realized it was easier(and cheaper) to just paint. The whole shrink rap sounds like a really tough job, even with the increased resistance.

I'm interested to see what the fuel bays look like. I've heard rumors of a mesh-gel-sponge inserted into all the tanks to increase fuel capacity?? Sounds like scuttle-butt, but who knows...man did walk on the moon right?


----------



## newfin

First flight for our first CC-130J:

www.cc130j.ca


----------



## GAP

C-130J deal nets $2.3bn offset package for Canada
By Stephen Trimble
Article Link

In return for the $1.4 billion acquisition of 17 C-130J airlifters by Ottawa, Canadian aerospace industry will reap $2.3 billion in offsets over the life of the contract, Lockheed Martin says.

A $1.5 billion package of "industrial regional benefits" already approved covers the next six years. This offset arrangement requires Lockheed to accept Canadian companies as suppliers of spare parts and services for the C-130Js, as well as for a variety of other aircraft programmes.

Cyclone Manufacturing, for example, will build detail parts and assemblies worth $22 million for the P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft, Lockheed says.

The agreements also cover several programmes that are not directly affiliated with the C-130J or even Lockheed.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy

The ask (NPP attached):  "To assist the Department of National Defence (DND) in renting accommodation in the most economical manner, it is the intention of the Government of Canada to solicit offers from accommodation properties in the form of daily rates for Bachelor/Studios with Kitchen, One Bedroom Suites with Kitchen or Two bedroom suites with kitchen. The accommodation supplier will make every effort to offer accommodation to DND within close proximity to the AFBs in Marietta GA, Little Rock AR and Oxnard CA."

The winner:


> .... Supplier Information:
> EXTENDED STAY DELUXE ATLANTA MARIETTA
> 2225 INTERSTATE NORTH PARKWAY
> ATLANTA
> Georgia
> 30339
> United States
> 
> (....)
> 
> Amount  	$334,000.00 USD"


----------



## Nfld Sapper

News Room
Arrival Of The First CC-130J Hercules
MA – 10.023 - June 3, 2010

Trenton, Ont. – The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, accompanied by other dignitaries, will welcome the arrival of Canada’s new CC-130J Hercules tactical airlift aircraft. 

WHERE: 8 Wing, Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ontario 
WHEN: Friday, June 4, 2010 
TIME: 11:20 a.m. CC-130J Hercules flypast; 12:00 p.m. arrival ceremony 

Following the arrival ceremony, there will be a media opportunity with Minister MacKay and Major-General Tom Lawson, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, as well as a conducted media tour of the aircraft. A media opportunity with the air crew and 8 Wing Commander, Colonel Dave Cochrane, will also be offered. 

Media wishing to attend are required to pre-register no later than 8 p.m. on Thursday, June 3, either online at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/media/contact-eng.asp or by calling the DND Media Liaison Office at 613-996-2353/1-866-377-0811. 

Media are requested to arrive between 10:15 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. on June 4, and should report to the 2 Air Movement Squadron Passenger Terminal, off Highway 2.


----------



## karl28

Congrats to the air force hopefully these new planes will serve them as well as the old ones did and are continuing to do so .


----------



## Haletown

Excellent news.

They fit right in with their big brother C17's.


----------



## WingsofFury

Our 2nd CC-130J is here now and doing flights.  These shots taken yesterday at CFB Trenton.


----------



## WingsofFury

And one of the SAR H models...man I'm going to miss the smoke.


----------



## DexOlesa

Don't smoke as bad do they? Interesting. Just wont look right I agree 8)


----------



## Zoomie

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> And one of the SAR H models...man I'm going to miss the smoke.



They're not going anywhere anytime soon - so no worries.


----------



## captloadie

What is the rationale in switching to the 600 series of numbers instead of the 300 series?


----------



## dapaterson

Different AC type in a number of ways, thus 600 series.  Or, at lesat, that's my take on it.

(Or someone in Ottawa needed "Leading change" points on a PER...)


----------



## Jungle

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Or someone in Ottawa needed "Leading change" points on a PER...)



And I believe that is one of the main reasons the CF are not going through a change of culture, but living in a culture of change !!

The PER should read: "Leading change, when necessary and after careful planning and consideration"


----------



## WingsofFury

Zoomie said:
			
		

> They're not going anywhere anytime soon - so no worries.



That's good to know - any idea on how many frames are going to be saved for SAR, and is there any chance they'll be used if the Buffalo is phased out??


----------



## newfin

What happens to these aircraft as soon as they are received by the AF?  Do they undergo a period of testing before they are able to fly their first mission?  I haven't read that 601 was used operationally yet.


----------



## WingsofFury

From my understanding (limited) the crews have been training on it so far.

That training has involved some night flights as well as practice cargo drops.


----------



## WingsofFury

Taxiing out to active for a training drop at an unknown location yesterday - it sure is one long aircraft!


----------



## hauger

Good shots....taken from the passenger terminal?

As a note, 602 was nowhere near Mountainview yesterday.


----------



## WingsofFury

Looks like I'll have to take back the beer I was going to send to my buddy for the advisement...lol

And yes, Sir, they were taken from the passenger terminal as she was taxiing by on her way out.  I also have a shot of her arrival, but it looks like one of the others already posted here. 

Cheers!


----------



## Haletown

nice picture . . couple of ours in the lineup 


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/photo-op-c-130j-family-photo.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy

From the  DND News Room:

New J-model transport aircraft lands at CFS Alert

Sept. 21, 2010

The new CC-130J Hercules and its crew from 436 (Transport) Squadron of 8 Wing Trenton, Ont., landed at Canadian Forces Station Alert for the first time on September 20, 2010. The aircraft participated in a regular re-supply mission and also transported two drums of hazardous waste out of the North.

Of the 17 new J-models, purchased by the Canadian Forces from Lockheed Martin, three have been delivered since June 2010 and two more are expected by the end of this year.

CFS Alert maintains signals intelligence facilities to support of Canadian military operations. Signals intelligence is conducted remotely, using the equipment and facilities located Alert. It is located on the northern tip of Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, and is the most northerly inhabited location in the world.

Photo Credits: Maj Brent Hoddinot.


----------



## Jorkapp

I was on the Boxtop ground crew when it landed. It looks like a nice bird.


----------



## old medic

New Hercules aircraft to land in Afghanistan before year’s end
Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News 
03 October 2010

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Hercules+aircraft+land+Afghanistan+before+year/3617187/story.html



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — After nearly half a century, the Canadian Forces’ vintage C-130 Hercules fleet of is about to get a dramatic upgrade.
> 
> The first of 17 stretched C-130J models of Hercules aircraft the Harper government ordered nearly three years ago at a cost of $1.4-billion is to begin flying combat support missions in war-torn southern Afghanistan by the end of the year, several months earlier than originally planned.
> 
> “It’s a generational leap,” Maj. Mark McCullins said of the new aircraft. “Having a J model is like having an extra engine on the Hercules,” which could prove to be a critical advantage in Afghanistan, where extremely hot temperatures and the high altitude make takeoffs with heavy loads especially tricky.
> 
> The new Hercules, which can fly faster and further and carry about 25% more cargo than the aircraft it is replacing, may also be a boon to recruiters trying to attract the computer generation, said Maj. McCullins, who has flown 300 hours as a test pilot on the new variant and runs Canada’s current Hercules fleet based in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which is comprised of the much-less-capable E and H models.
> 
> “It should appeal to kids who want to fly because it has a fully digital cockpit and a head’s up display that is similar to that of an F-22 fighter,” he said, referring to the most sophisticated jet flown by the U.S. Air Force.
> 
> A few of the current fleet of Hercules already have an astounding 45,000 hours on their airframes. However, because of their age, nearly two-thirds are out of service at any time for maintenance. The J models, which have distinctive bent black propellers, are expected to much less maintenance than the aircraft they’re replacing.
> 
> Six of the new tactical airlifters are already being tested at Canadian Forces Base Trenton in Ontario. The order, from Lockheed Martin, is to be completed by the end of 2012.
> 
> The E models, which were purchased in the 1960s, are to be retired. The H models, which are somewhat younger, are to be assigned to search-and-rescue duty and in-air refuelling duties in Canada.
> 
> As recently as two or three years ago, almost no J model Hercules aircraft flew out of Kandahar. But most Hercules now flown from the airfield by the United States, Britain and Australia are the new models that Canada will also soon be flying.


----------



## karl28

Glad to here that the new J are working out well for the airforce .


----------



## RedFive

I made a number of searches with no results, so apologies if this has been answered before.

Looking at the pictures of both Canadian and American C-130Js, they have a distinctive black patch at the bottom of the vertical stabilizer. What is the purpose for this? Is it a high-wear area? Or is there some kind of instrument under there? It doesn't appear to be on older C-130 models.

Again if this has been answered somewhere else, or it's the wrong place to ask, apologies.

Red


----------



## Haletown

RedFive said:
			
		

> I made a number of searches with no results, so apologies if this has been answered before.
> 
> Looking at the pictures of both Canadian and American C-130Js, they have a distinctive black patch at the bottom of the vertical stabilizer. What is the purpose for this? Is it a high-wear area? Or is there some kind of instrument under there? It doesn't appear to be on older C-130 models.
> 
> Again if this has been answered somewhere else, or it's the wrong place to ask, apologies.
> 
> Red



this might be the answer   . . .  

"The twin HF antennas that run from the vertical stabilizer to mounts on either side of forward fuselage on all C-130 variants up until now are also deleted, that antenna is now likely inside the black dilectric panel at the base of the C-130J's vertical stab."

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/kit_it_2643.shtml


----------



## WingsofFury

RedFive said:
			
		

> I made a number of searches with no results, so apologies if this has been answered before.
> 
> Looking at the pictures of both Canadian and American C-130Js, they have a distinctive black patch at the bottom of the vertical stabilizer. What is the purpose for this? Is it a high-wear area? Or is there some kind of instrument under there? It doesn't appear to be on older C-130 models.
> 
> Again if this has been answered somewhere else, or it's the wrong place to ask, apologies.
> 
> Red



It's actually a de-icing patch.  While flight testing, it was discovered that for some reason that area became vulnerable to ice up, as such they created an internal heating mechanism which inflates with bleed air and then it balloons up to break up any ice on the stab.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

News Room
Arrival of CC-130J Hercules Tactical Aircraft in Afghanistan
NR - 11.001 - January 1, 2011

OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces are proud to welcome today their first deployed CC-130J Hercules tactical aircraft into operational service at Kandahar Airfield in support of our UN-mandated, NATO-led mission to Afghanistan. 

“This Government has an incredible record of providing our men and women in uniform with the necessary tools to do the job that is asked of them,” declared the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, during his recent visit with Canadian Forces members serving in Afghanistan. “These impressive new aircraft – which were delivered on budget and ahead of schedule – will serve Canada and Canadians well for years to come,” he said. 

“The quick introduction of the J-model Hercules in Afghanistan clearly demonstrates the Air Force’s flexibility to sustain vital airlift mission in the complex environment of high-intensity joint operations,” said Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Chief of Air Staff. “Our air wing operations in Afghanistan highlight the value of an agile and expeditionary Air Force.”  

The CC-130J provides additional capability and reliability, and will help ensure our continued success in operations thereby helping the Air Force to meet its goal of being the “best in class” for its size, while remaining highly interoperable with our allies. 

“The operations in Afghanistan clearly show that the men and women of the Air Force are expertly trained, extremely professional, and highly motivated to make a vital contribution to operational success,” said Colonel Paul Prévost, Commanding Officer of Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) Air Wing.

The first CC-130J Hercules tactical aircraft arrived in Canada on June 4, 2010, six months ahead of the original scheduled delivery date. The Air Force team demonstrated its agility, flexibility and professional capabilities by readying the aircraft and its crews for deployment to Afghanistan in less than seven months. Training, maintenance and operation procedures needed to be adapted to the specific characteristics of this aircraft, while ensuring an efficient and effective implementation schedule that will facilitate safe, effective, and sustained operations.
The new CC-130J Hercules aircraft will belong to the Tactical Aviation Unit (Task Force CANUCK), which is part of the JTF-Afg Air Wing. This tactical aircraft will be used for missions such as intra-theatre transport of troops and cargo, battlefield illumination, and drops of combat packages. A second CC-130J Hercules aircraft will deploy to Afghanistan in late Spring 2011. 

All 17 CC-130Js will be based at 8 Wing Trenton, along with the future Air Mobility Training Centre that will house the equipment and personnel required to train the operators and maintainers of the CC-130J Hercules aircraft. 

-30-

Note to Editors / News Directors:

For more information about the use of the CC-130J in Afghanistan, please contact the Media Liaison Office at: 1-866-377-0811 or 613-996-2353. 

For more general information about the airframe, please visit the Air Force website: www.airforce.forces.gc.ca

Imagery is available at the Operation ATHENA 2010 image gallery: http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca


----------



## MarkOttawa

A400M looks to have limited sales potential even when C-17 line shuts down--but what about Embraer's KC-390 (civil jets have done rather well, at Bombardier's expense), and others?

A400M, KC-390 Will Reshape Transport Market
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/01/24/AW_01_24_2011_p60-261396.xml



> The military transport market will see production of almost 900 new aircraft over the next decade, but the raw numbers obscure major changes in the landscape. Production of the Boeing C-17 could end, leaving the strategic transport market to the Airbus Military A400M, while the Lockheed Martin C-130J will face a challenge for the tactical sector from Embraer’s new KC-390.
> 
> In the absence of Congressional funding for more U.S. Air Force aircraft, Boeing has restructured C-17 production to be economic at a lower rate but cannot hope to keep the line going indefinitely on export orders. Forecast International projects the last C-17 will be delivered in 2016, leaving the A400M as the only large Western transport capable of the strategic airlift mission...
> 
> The ultimate size of the market for the A400M is an open question. Like the C-17, the aircraft is a niche product...
> 
> The difficulty for Airbus Military is that, while less expensive than a C-17, the A400M is still too costly for all but the most well-heeled of the world’s militaries. Big aircraft need big budgets, and much of the world is cutting defense expenditures and rationalizing or pooling strategic transport capabilities.
> 
> The current sweet spot in the transport market is favors smaller aircraft, in the space largely owned by Lockheed Martin’s C-130J. The international replacement market for older model C-130s is expected to grow in coming years, and several manufacturers are developing designs aimed at replacing the large numbers of older C-130s and aging Soviet-era Antonov An-12s expected to be retired by air arms around the world.
> 
> Brazilian manufacturer Embraer is developing the KC-390 to meet a 28-aircraft Brazilian air force requirement to replace its C-130s, but is doing so with an eye to expanding its presence in the military aircraft market. The KC-390’s interior dimensions are similar to those of a C-130J-30, but its jet engines will enable it to cruise higher and faster. Embraer and the Brazilian government formally launched the program in April 2009 with a seven-year, $1.37-billion development contract including two prototypes. Since then, Brazil has secured commitments from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Portugal and the Czech Republic to negotiate participation in development and production and place orders for the KC-390. First flight is tentatively scheduled for 2013, with deliveries to begin in 2015.
> 
> China’s Harbin, meanwhile, has been working for several years on the Y-9 design, a four-engine turboprop with modern avionics that closely matches the C-130J in size and payload...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Looks like something that could compete in the FWSAR category - giddy up.


----------



## WingsofFury

I agree with Zoomie - maybe in the FWSAR category, although Brazil already has 20 C-105A for SAR.

It looks to me like it's another "block" of countries that are considering its purchase, which is good for them, but I don't think it'll be a threat to the current fleet of J's Canada has purchased.


----------



## Bass ackwards

I am admittedly out of my lane here but I thought pure jet (turbofan) engines were a definite no-no on something that was going to be bouncing in and out of gravel/dirt/clay/whatever airfields. 
I know there are commercial  jet airliners specially fitted to operate off gravel strips, but would such a modification still be effective on an aircraft meant to be used as hard as the Hercs are ?


----------



## aesop081

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I thought pure jet (turbofan) engines were a definite no-no on something that was going to be bouncing in and out of gravel/dirt/clay/whatever airfields.



You would be mistaken.


----------



## Bass ackwards

CA, 

How do they prevent engine damage from crap getting sucked in on rough fields ?

(not arguing, just genuinely curious)


----------



## aesop081

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> CA,
> 
> How do they prevent engine damage from crap getting sucked in on rough fields ?
> 
> (not arguing, just genuinely curious)



I'm not sure but i would imagine that the engines are mounted in such as way as to reduce the risks of ingestion to a sufficiently low probability.


----------



## Occam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You would be mistaken.



Holy crap!  I guess that would rule out a go-around for a little while, eh?


----------



## Bass ackwards

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm not sure but i would imagine that the engines are mounted in such as way as to reduce the risks of ingestion to a sufficiently low probability.



Fair enough, thanks.
That (really neat) photo pretty much shot down my theory.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Correct me if I'm wrong CDN Aviator, but wouldn't that picture be of a take off, not a landing ?

I mean, isn't all the crap behind caused in great part by the jet blast (thus take-off) while the engines would otherwise be reversed on landing (and not putting up such a mess). Also, the front wheel does not seem to be putting up much in terms of dust.

Just asking. Awesome picture though!


----------



## aesop081

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong CDN Aviator, but wouldn't that picture be of a take off, not a landing ?



Thats how it looks to me but in the end, it still shows that a jet can operate from that environment. I mean, if it is taking off from there, it must have landed there prior to that as well. i don't think Boeing builds these things at dirt strip airfields.

For what it is worth, rough field ops is no picnic on a Herc either. The RAF had to add rubberized coating to certain areas of theirs to reduce the damage being done by sand.

You can see it here in line with the props and below the rear ramp area. Saw it on one at RAF Lyneham and i had to research it to figure it out.


----------



## Zoomie

We're more concerned during Take-off when it comes to ingesting FOD.  The engines are at full power and the ground speed is low - ripe time to suck up gravel etc.  

Prop aircraft are not perfect at flying on gravel either - just like what my AESOP friend mentioned - stirring up rocks on take off is a bad thing, this is done relatively easily with large diameter propellers.  I've never been concerned about gravel ingestion during landing - usually the airplane settles nicely and slows down quite quickly.


----------



## pylon

Great video of the C17 landing on a dirt strip. Should answer most of the questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diX3x6ffvSA

kc


----------



## NavyShooter

pylon said:
			
		

> Great video of the C17 landing on a dirt strip. Should answer most of the questions.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diX3x6ffvSA
> 
> kc



Definitely shows the benefits of landing into the wind....


----------



## DexOlesa

Boy, that would not be kind on the paint job. However, with the engines mounted high on a c-17, as shown in the video, very little would get kicked up by reverse thrust. Most dust and debris comes off the wheels.


----------



## WingsofFury

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Most dust and debris comes off the wheels.



Concur - when I was up at Alert the front tire kicked up a rock about 12"x12"x2" thick which almost took out some of the sensors on the bottom of the plane.


----------



## a_majoor

Jet powered transports might be sensible for very large nations like Brazil or Canada, where distances between places are equal to what most nations consider "strategic", but I always thought that props gave you better fuel economy and were better when it came to making sudden changes in thrust (having to do a go-round or making sudden stops on the runway.)

Actually, since there was a lot of talk back in the late 90's about how cargo size was constrained by the generic "C-130" template (trucks and AFV's being designed to shoehorn into the available space of the C-130; apparently this led to lots of bad compromises with the US FFV program), wouldn't it make more sense to design the next generation of tactical airlifter with a bigger, roomier cargo bay (and the ability to lift heavier loads)?

The C-130 has outlasted at least two and possibly three generations of "replacements", maybe the evergreen Herc could be recast with a larger or wider fuselage attached to the proven wings/tail avionics (probably a lot more difficult than that, but I'll let the qualified people shoot at that one...)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpts from round-up article at _Defense Industry Daily_:

Embraer’s Multinational KC-390 Tactical Air Transport Program   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Embraer-Launches-KC-390-Tactical-Air-Transport-Program-05380/



> Design changes; Configuration done; IAI bidding for project role; New plant in Portugal. (Feb 25/11)
> 
> Global competition in the 20-ton air transport segment continues to intensify, with Brazil’s launch of its KC-390 program. Embraer figures reportedly place the global C-130 replacement market at around 700 aircraft. In response, it will develop a jet-powered rival to compete with Lockheed Martin’s C-130J, the larger Airbus A400M, Russia’s AN-12 and its Chinese copy the Yun-8/9, and the bi-national Irkut/HAL MRTA project. Smaller aircraft like the EADS-CASA C-295M, and Alenia’s C-27J, may also represent indirect competition.
> 
> Embraer will now seek to extend its efforts and markets by crafting a jet-powered medium transport with a cargo capacity of around 25 tons, that can be refueled in the air, and can provide refueling services to other aircraft by adding dedicated pods. The KC-390 has become a multinational effort, and could even become a transatlantic project…
> 
> *Feb 25/11*: Embraer has frozen the configuration of its KC-390 tanker/transport, and plans to begin the joint definition phase in May 2011, once final decisions are made on major sub-contractors. Aviation Week describes a full scale mockup at Embraer’s plant in Sao Jose do Campos.
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa740522f-7aae-40d7-a7cd-a643073898a8&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
> 
> Recent changes include longer wings (now 35.06 m), to enable slower 120 kt flight for helicopter refueling with the hose-and-drogue pods. Some customers are reportedly interested in a refueling boom as well, and Embraer is looking into this but doesn’t have a design it likes yet. The most unusual feature may be a movable pressure bulkhead that retracts into the roof and descends to seal the cargo cabin. While it shortens the cabin to 12.78m, it would allow high altitude airdrops from the space behind, without depressurizing the entire cabin.
> 
> *Jan 5/11*: Flight International reports that IAI and Synergy’s EAE joint venture is offering cockpit avionics and aircraft self-protection systems for the KC-390, under a 2009 cooperation pact.
> http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/05/351498/iai-offers-systems-for-embraers-kc-390-programme.html
> 
> IAI already has a presence in Brazil, supplying radars and maintenance services, and rumors of electronic intelligence or airborne early warning system KC-390 variants would play to IAI strengths. It’s worth remembering, however that both Embraer (ERJ-145 based R-99A) and IAI (Gulfstream G550 based CAEW) already have established AWACS offerings based on efficient, long endurance business jets. This makes the business case for an E-390 AWACS offering problematic for both parties...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

Does anyone know how many have been delivered so far and how many of the older "H" models have been retired?


----------



## Sparkplugs

newfin said:
			
		

> Does anyone know how many have been delivered so far and how many of the older "H" models have been retired?



There are 11 J-models here in Trenton as of today, and I can't be entirely positive, but I believe that 4 H-models have been recently (within the last 1.5 years) retired.


----------



## Haletown

a fun day at the office is when you give bitchin betty a workout . . .

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmq4w8_c-130-hercules-demonstration-extreme_tech


----------



## tomahawk6

Order almost complete   :camo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/6521788643/in/set-72157601431962312/lightbox/


----------



## GAP

Nice series of pics....thanks.


----------



## Good2Golf

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Boy, that would not be kind on the paint job. However, with the engines mounted high on a c-17, as shown in the video, very little would get kicked up by reverse thrust. Most dust and debris comes off the wheels.



...until the groundspeed becomes low and there is a danger of letting the reverer dustball pass forward of the engines, which would be a very bad thing, hence guarded against.

regards
G2G


----------



## Haletown

what Globesmasher said . . .  we need two aircraft and these two work exceptionally well together.

Add in some slightly used C27J's form the USAF retirement yard and we'd have a  triple whammy.  Use for SAR and easily re-purposed  to general aviation uses on an as required basis  . . that common cockpit is  a big advantage.


----------



## Haletown

RCAF serial# 130616 . . .  one more to go


----------



## HB_Pencil

Haletown said:
			
		

> what Globesmasher said . . .  we need two aircraft and these two work exceptionally well together.
> 
> Add in some slightly used C27J's form the USAF retirement yard and we'd have a  triple whammy.  Use for SAR and easily re-purposed  to general aviation uses on an as required basis  . . that common cockpit is  a big advantage.



Unfortunately, those are going to the US Coast Guard it seems.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump .....







  vs







C130J for the Win!


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/01/07/defense-departments-love-affair-with-super-hercules-continues.html?cmpid=NL_SciTech

*US Defense Department's love affair with the Super Hercules continues*

By Allison Barrie  Published January 07, 2016  FoxNews.com

NOW PLAYING - Video at link

The Defense Department is set to expand its fleet of Super Hercules aircraft, a hi-tech workhorse that mixes versatility with toughness.

The DOD is awarding Lockheed Martin a contract worth more than $1 billion to build 32 of the C-130 Super Hercules. It is part of a $5.3 billion contract to eventually provide the U.S. Air Force with 78 of these aircraft - 30 MC-130Js, 13 HC-130Js and 29 C-130J-30s and the U.S. Marine Corps six KC-130Js.

 “We are proud to partner with the U.S. government to continue to deliver to the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Coast Guard the world’s most proven, versatile and advanced airlifter,” said George Shultz, vice president and general manager, Air Mobility & Maritime Missions at Lockheed Martin. “This multiyear contract provides true value to our U.S. operators as they recapitalize and expand their much-relied-upon Hercules aircraft, which has the distinction of being the world’s largest and most tasked C-130 fleet.”

Considered the standard tactical aircraft, the C-130J can deploy in tough battle situations as well as extreme environments including Antarctica. The aircraft can carry payloads upwards of 42,000 pounds. According to Lockheed’s calculations, it can transport 92 combat troops, 64 paratroopers - or it can handle a combination of the two up to the maximum weight.

Though one of the biggest aircraft in operation, it can be landed in tiny spaces from a dirt strip in the jungle to a landing strip on snow – where it often will be equipped with skis. It is also fast, managing to reach speeds of 417 miles per hour with a range over 2,000 miles. It can also climb to 28,000 feet.

But this aircraft is not only transporting troops and supplies. More recently, it’s being equipped with state-of-the-art equipment that allows it to be used in special operations, armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

It’s also increasingly taking on missions far beyond the battlefield – delivering tens of thousands pounds of relief supplies, conducting search and rescue operations and taking part in firefighting.  When deploying to fight fires, the aircraft leverages the Modular Airborne Firefighting System that can drop 3,000 gallons of water, or a fire retardant - within five seconds.

Related: Cold War-era weaponry in pictures

Hercules first took flight in 1954 and more than 2,400 Hercules have rolled out since then and the aircraft has supported the US military for 60 years. There are 11 variants of the C-130J.

The popular aircraft flies for 16 nations and 19 different operators. The Super Hercules global fleet has flown more than 1.3 million flight hours.
_
Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world covering the military, terrorism, weapons advancements and life on the front line. You can reach her at wargames@foxnews.com or follow her on Twitter @Allison_Barrie._


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump - 

Thoughts on logistics and international trade.

Suppose the Prime Minister opts to support the UN through logistics, engineering and medical services.
Suppose the Prime Minister, as part of this effort were to complete the Operational Support Hub network envisaged by Natynczyk back in 2010 (Kingston - Jamaica, Cologne, Dakar, Mombasa, Kuwait, Singapore, Busan - together with Esquimalt, Trenton and Shearwater).

Would there be useful business for additional cargo aircraft?

If yes then which.

CC-177 line is closed - there may be one or two units unspoken for but.....

So that leaves Airbus 400M and Herc.
There is also a sidebar discussion here to be had about the FWSAR aircraft and its potential role as a cargo lifter.

Lets take a look at the Airbus.  It isn't a C-17 but it is bigger than the Herc and has longer legs and can carry a LAV-6.

If the Canadian government were to purchase the Airbus machine, would that be a sufficient consolation prize for that portion of the Montreal aerospace community not involved in the F35 that the F35 could be favourably sold to the supporters of the Prime Minister's faction?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if most long range resupply could be done by leased/rented cargo aircraft like a 747? The C-17 could provide vehicles movements and such, but a lot of the day to day stuff could go standard airfrieght.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if most long range resupply could be done by leased/rented cargo aircraft like a 747? The C-17 could provide vehicles movements and such, but a lot of the day to day stuff could go standard airfrieght.



That too, and leave the C17s and the C130s for tactical lift?


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF already uses standard shippers.  There's an array of considerations that goes into selecting the appropriate method for transportation, by land or by sea or by air, by military or by contracted transportation.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump









						Lawmakers protect C-130 fleet, push for new propellers in annual legislation
					

The Air Force wants to retire 13 older C-130Hs and bring in five new C-130Js.




					www.airforcetimes.com
				




A trend?

The US Army asks for more transport ships (JHSV) and commissions them into Army service.  
The US Navy claims them and puts them into the Merchant fleet under contract - but at least keeps them operating.

The US Army asks for more transport aircraft (C27J) and commissions them into Army service.
The US Air Force claims them and discharges them stating that they can do the job with the existing C130 fleet.

The US Air Force now down-sizing its C130 fleet.

The US Air Force also shut down the production line on the C17s, heavily used to support the US Army and Special Forces.

One might be tempted to add the A10 to the trendline.

Jointery seems to continue to be problematic.


----------



## armrdsoul77

In depth video walkaround of HC-130J.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The new standard to judge Tactical Airlift aircraft by is; "How many refugees involved in a hasty evac can we cram into it?"


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin Parkinson said:


> The new standard to judge Tactical Airlift aircraft by is; "How many refugees involved in a hasty evac can we cram into it?"


A C-17 is big, but you’d be able to squeeze more people into a C-5 or an AN-124. A bit of a moot point, however, as all three airframes are out of production. If you want more lift, your best option is probably more C-130J. Buying some Airbus A400M might also be an option; it does seem overly complicated to have A-400M in addition to C-17 and C-130J, but that’s how the RAF do it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To bad they didn't mothball the C17 production line and reopen it


----------



## PuckChaser

Davis-Monahan AFB has a bunch of C-17s, and they regularly bring aircraft out of mothballs for Foreign Military Sales. Too bad they'd be super useful, our last government was only interested in buying old aircraft if they were useless.


----------



## CBH99

PuckChaser said:


> Davis-Monahan AFB has a bunch of C-17s, and they regularly bring aircraft out of mothballs for Foreign Military Sales. Too bad they'd be super useful, our last government was only interested in buying old aircraft if they were useless.


If by our ‘last government’ you mean under Harper, it was the opposite.  17 new C-130J Super Hercs, 15 new Chinooks, 5 new C-17s, and a few small but useful birds for SOFCOM.

If by 25 used Australian legacy Hornets, which had to be upgraded just to be in our service, and 15 new SAR aircraft which didn’t make much sense in any way other than lowest bidder… sadly that last government is still our current government 😕😔


----------



## CBH99

Ostrozac said:


> A C-17 is big, but you’d be able to squeeze more people into a C-5 or an AN-124. A bit of a moot point, however, as all three airframes are out of production. If you want more lift, your best option is probably more C-130J. Buying some Airbus A400M might also be an option; it does seem overly complicated to have A-400M in addition to C-17 and C-130J, but that’s how the RAF do it.


If we are talking lift in regards to people (how many flights will it take to move X number of people to a general theatre) - would more Hercs or more Polaris (let’s skip ahead and go with A330) make sense?


Closing down the C-17 line was short sighted.  I’m sure they could have found a way to keep that production line going, even if minimal or slowly. 

I understand the USAF had 240+ of them in service when the decision was made, and plenty more being restored and refurbished also.  Boeing built 5 additional aircraft prior to closing the line completely, and all 5 aircraft sold fairly quickly.

Strategically I do believe it was short sighted though.  Even just from a strategic business perspective - if something happens and countries need to upgrade or replace their airlift capabilities, Lockheed and Airbus can answer the call.  Boeing can’t.  (Boeing was also under piss poor management at the time, which may have played a factor.)

In a coalition context, C-17s seem more valuable than fighters, and reinforces whether you are a serious player or not.  Can you fly your people out of situations like Kabul?  Or do you have to call someone else to do it?


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> In a coalition context, C-17s seem more valuable than fighters, and reinforces whether you are a serious player or not. Can you fly your people out of situations like Kabul? Or do you have to call someone else to do it?


At some point, someone told me that a coalition context, there are tons of shooters.  There are never enough spotters (ISR platforms), transports, and tankers.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> At some point, someone told me that a coalition context, there are tons of shooters.  There are never enough spotters (ISR platforms), transports, and tankers.


I can’t remember where I heard that, but I remember someone explained that to me also.

Fighter jets are actually one of the cheapest ways to contribute to a coalition operation.  They are also fairly safe in terms of risk, so countries can be seen to be active participants without having to accept higher risk

-  The pilots, aircrew, and ground crew/technicians are all getting paid whether they are deployed or not.  If deployed, they are paid more - but the salaries get paid regardless.  

-  The jets use fuel all the same, whether they are flying in the air above Iraq, Cold Lake, Alaska, Europe, etc.

-  Unused munitions that are going to expire either need to be expended, or retired/disassembled.  So whether it is a training target on a range, or a real target in an AO - preference is to use the ordinance.  


Having fighter jets taxiing around with missiles and bombs visible, and some good camera work of them taking off to “go do some good thing somewhere” looks awesome, always.  Government looks good, military looks good, helps with recruiting, national image, etc.  

Heavy movers & strategic airlift, along with dedicated ISR and EW assets, are usually in short supply.  

Not many countries bother to invest in a proper EW aircraft, or a dedicated C2 platform - so the ones that are participating in a coalition are usually a decent chunk of what’s available in total.  

Lose an F-16 due to aircraft failure or enemy fire?  Probably fairly easy to send in a replacement in short order.  Lose a C-17, or refuelled that isn’t USAF?  Not so much.  


(Can’t remember where someone was explaining this to us.  But it was while we were down in the US, and the person explaining it was involved in coordinating hanger space for repairs/maintenance for coalition aircraft operations.  Made sense when he explained it.)


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:


> and 15 new SAR aircraft which didn’t make much sense in any way other than lowest bidder…  😕😔


I don't believe Airbus was the lowest bidder, one of the controversies with the procurement and 16 aircraft plus one maintanence demonstrator


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> I don't believe Airbus was the lowest bidder, one of the controversies with the procurement and 16 aircraft plus one maintanence demonstrator


Sorta. There was some confusion/controversy because the optional maintenance extension, if exercised, put the airbus bid over budget. Skies article


----------



## cf100mk5

Get your fishing rods....










						It Looks Like A C-130 Seaplane Is Finally Happening
					

Air Force Special Operations Command says it needs an MC-130J on floats and it looks like it has a plan to get it.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

cf100mk5 said:


> Get your fishing rods....
> 
> View attachment 66515
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It Looks Like A C-130 Seaplane Is Finally Happening
> 
> 
> Air Force Special Operations Command says it needs an MC-130J on floats and it looks like it has a plan to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



We did some TEWTs in Norway, centred on the battles along the coast during the German invasion of 1940, and it was interesting to see how the Germans successfully deployed seaplane based troops to continually 'outflank' the allied road block positions.

They're pretty weather dependent though, moreso than other aircraft I would assume.


----------



## dapaterson

Harbour Air is Canada's secret strategic air reserve.


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> We did some TEWTs in Norway, centred on the battles along the coast during the German invasion of 1940, and it was interesting to see how the Germans successfully deployed seaplane based troops to continually 'outflank' the allied road block positions.
> 
> They're pretty weather dependent though, moreso than other aircraft I would assume.








						AirHistory.net - Airlift into Narvik
					

History and photos of the airlift in support of German invasion troops in Narvik, Norway, in April-May 1940. Besieged by Allied troops, the Germans in Narvik did not control an airfield. The Luftwaffe used seaplanes and airdrops to deliver supplies and reinforcements, and boldy sent a squadron...




					www.airhistory.net


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Harbour Air is Canada's secret strategic air reserve.



As long as the Turbo Otter can match the performance of the Do-26 


German 2nd Mountain Division at Narvik Part II​
Nord-Norge hoisted the German flag as it came within sight of Hemnesberg, where it docked at 1900 hours on May 10. However, the German attack had started shortly before then when two Do-26 seaplanes landed a small group of men from Co 7 of the 138th Regiment, commanded by Lieutenant Rudlof, at Sund, a short distance east of Hemnesberg. Another five seaplanes bringing in additional troops from Co 7, about 70 in all, followed shortly. The seven seaplanes made multiple trips to Hemnesøy, bringing in equipment and supplies.

There was a Norwegian squad-size security force in the Hemnesberg harbor area along with approximately 30-35 British troops from the 1st Independent Co. These forces opened fire on the Germans before the ship reached the pier. The mountain troops stormed ashore, covered by fire from the machineguns on the steamer, and they launched a full-scale attack on the small British/Norwegian force when German aircraft appeared overhead and dropped bombs. The fighting was sharp and at close quarters but the British and Norwegians were eventually driven out of the village, leaving most of their heavier equipment behind. Five Germans and eight British soldiers were killed and a larger number were wounded.









						German 2nd Mountain Division at Narvik Part II
					

Operation Wildente (Wild Duck) While Feurstein’s initial advance was rapid, Group XXI had noted with concern that resistance had stiffened on April 7 and that it took Feurstein’s forces four days t…




					weaponsandwarfare.com


----------

