Author Topic: The CC-130-J Hercules Merged Thread  (Read 157709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2006, 17:24:28 »
C1Dirty: Yes.  See:

C-130J: That was last year for both Conservatives and Liberals
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,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

Quote
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

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2006, 17:32:43 »
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?

Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 312
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2006, 21:54:44 »
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. 
Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline RiggerFE

  • New Member
  • **
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
  • If it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2006, 22:38:29 »
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.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 28,182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,413
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2006, 00:24:12 »
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

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline CTD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 504
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2006, 00:44:28 »
Would you guys keep flying Buffs or do you have a preferance?
I am just curious, I think the plane is amazing.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 28,182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,413
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2006, 12:05:02 »
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.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Jammer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2006, 12:22:46 »
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.
What could possibly go wrong?

Offline Daidalous

  • Member
  • ****
  • 955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 174
  • Ex- Forester
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2006, 12:34:35 »
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.:(
Member of The Frozen Chosen

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2006, 13:44:32 »
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.

Offline Gramps

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2006, 13:47:28 »
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?
An object at rest cannot be stopped.

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2006, 13:50:15 »
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.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2006, 19:22:37 »
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

Quote
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?

Quote
...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

Quote
...
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

Quote
'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





Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 26,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,648
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2006, 19:41:24 »
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?
Chimo!

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2006, 23:19:42 »
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 ......

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2007, 20:30:36 »
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

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2007, 17:22:14 »
 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

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2007, 21:42:50 »
Warning: A public relations agency for both Lockheed and Alenia supplied this link.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2488758&C=europe

Quote
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/index.php/topic,53631.msg509474.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
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 15:11:09 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Green On!

  • Guest
  • *
  • 5,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2007, 21:41:36 »
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.
1 minute warning...15 sec...5 sec...

Offline Globesmasher

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2007, 22:46:39 »
..... 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.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2007, 16:05:27 »
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.

 


Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2007, 16:33:38 »
about 200 will enter service in eight European air forces beginning in 2009.

Yeah, right.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,732
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2007, 13:25:47 »
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/
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2007, 14:21:46 »
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

Quote
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

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,957
Re: C-130J selected
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2007, 14:48:27 »
Quote
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......
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe