• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The CC-130-J Hercules Merged Thread

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
 
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
 
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







 
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 :)
 
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
 
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
 
;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
 
The first pipe out of YPG has been selected at the last wings grad. (Nov. 14th? 07)
 
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
 
I read the rest of his website and he appears to be very anti-conservative and anti PM Harper. What's his problem?
 
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?
 
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.   ;)
 
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?
 
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.......
 
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. 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top