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

Looking Through the Brit Bargain Bin Again[and now Lockheed's]

Can you guys imagine the ramifications of having short aircraft?

Not only could we not haul anything in them (there's a reason the Brits dont want or use 'em), but the fun that would be had at the expense of the Canadians who'd fly and maintain them, but also the Section of Infantry they'd carry around.........

GI 1 "Hey look, it's the Very Special Canadian Forces!!!"
GI 2 "How can you tell it's the Canadians?"
GI 1 "Well, just look! They've got to be the Very Special Forces because they're being dropped off by the Short Bus!"

It would be relentless. And we're a sensitive, touchy feely bunch now aren't we? Imagine the complaints of PTSD which would come out of being teasted by other nations troops because of our Short Buses. I mean we'd have the transport plane equivalent of the Griffon.....Looks cool, but useless. There's a backlog of guys with legit complaints, all we need is someone complaining they need counselling and a med pension 'cause the Brits or Americans made fun of them.....

Sorry for the sassy nature of my post, but I'm going to be SO disappointed if this 'lease' program gets inked. :evil:
 
HH, the "short" J is actually the same length as the E's and H's. The difference in payload between the standard J model and the stretched one is only 2000lbs, that's really peanuts when you're talking about an aircraft with a max takeoff weight of over 150,000 lbs. Now considering the Stretched J, aka the C-130J-30, has a 9,000lb higher max takeoff weight in exchange for a 2000lb increase of payload, I don't think it's that big of an advantage. That means that the aircraft itself weighs 7,000lbs more, not to mention the fact that the J-30 flys 6 knots slower, 2000ft lower and at normal payload it flys 100 nm less than the standard or "short" J's.

I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the transport community, but from just looking at the numbers, I say giddyup.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
 
I'm no expert, I'm even pushing the layman category on this one, I'm just really uncomfortable with the notion that we'd take the used equipt. route again. Subs sink, planes crash, either way. Instead of short term satisfaction, I think we need to look at that heavy lift capability versus equipment we'll likely not need in low intensity conflicts.
 
The big difference between the subs and these J's are that the subs were not used nor maintained adequately for 10 or so years, so how do you figure they will be crashing?
 
Ex-D,

I'm essentially being a smartass on the crashing part. We as a military should ask ourselves why they Brits are willing to bargain basement price out their equipment. Why are they no longer using it? How are their needs different from ours except in terms of numbers, if we're indeed a combat capable force here.....

The subs were inadequately maintained for sure, and who's to say the planes are the same. You're right. However, that doesnt diminish the fact that the Brits want to get rid of them for a reason. Am I the only one who sees the little red flags on this one?

I know the brit higher ups to be bloody ruthless when it comes to their national self interest.....even with ally countries. It's like fishing for Canadians. Hopefully we're turning into the wise old fish in the lake, that's too smart to bite the shiny thing with the hidden hook.
 
Hitman there's a simple answer:

Same as the Canadian one. 

The Brit bureaucrats screwed up.  More jobs to do than money to do them so they have to get rid of gear because it costs a lot to keep gear in storage.  Some other examples? Gasoline powered ATVs and motorcycles bought just before Iraq at exorbitant prices.  Never used.  Immediately sold at discount rates.  No gasoline in the system to run them because everything is now diesel.

Armoured Landrovers needed in Iraq.  Can't find them.  MOD selling off the ones that were being used in Northern Ireland but are now considered surplus to requirements.

Mambas purchased for the Balkans.  Great running condition complete with air-conditioning.  Being sold off.

And so it goes.....

Cheers.
 
The "short" Herc is actually the regular-sized plane which is the predominant type in service around the world today. Almost all of our current E's and H's are "short". So if we're riding the "short bus", so is every other country!

Here is an interesting web page giving some pro's & con's of "short" vs. "long" J-models:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-raf.htm

I personally think if we can establish that these planes are in good condition, we should go for it. They would be in service right away, and are better than anything we currently have. Yes, we need strategic airlift, but we need tactical as well. A reasonable financing option may allow us to afford both.
 
Allen said:
They would be in service right away, and are better than anything we currently have.

See: http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=2130

"The C-130J has so many flaws that it cannot fly its intended combat missions. It is unable to drop heavy equipment, operate well in cold weather or perform combat search-and-rescue missions. Paratroopers cannot jump out of it without risk of banging up against the fuselage."

"The planes are the latest version of the celebrated C-130 Hercules E and H models, now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and previously used in Kosovo and Somalia. Yet, the J model of the C-130 Hercules, which shares fewer than 30 percent of the parts of the earlier workhorse models, is a pale version of its predecessors, according to Pentagon reports."

"The inspector general's report, issued last July, found deficiencies in the aircraft that, if left uncorrected, could "cause death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems." The report concluded that "Lockheed Martin has been unable to design, develop or produce a C-130J aircraft that meets contract specifications in the eight years since production began."
 
Well, Sam69, assuming all of that is true, what's the alternative? Continue to fly increasingly unreliable E's & H's? Ask Lockheed to reopen the H-model production line? Buy relatively newer used H's? Wait for A-400M (or perhaps AN-70) to become available? Eliminate tactical airlift altogether?

None of these options seem very palatable. Also, I find it surprising that all of these problems are coming out of the US just now. The J must have been flying for almost a decade, why didn't anyone note these problems before? AFAIK, none of the foreign users of C-130J have been this dissatisfied with their purchases. Does this mean the US AIr Force has higher standards?
 
Allen said:
Well, Sam69, assuming all of that is true, what's the alternative?

Here is one option: push ahead with FW SAR replacement as planned (and approved) and buy 6 C-17s (as has been widely recommended). This will allow you to retire all of the 19 E models (the oldest of the bunch). The remaining Hs (13) are retained to provide the tactical lift (intra-theatre) and the 17s provide the strategic lift (inter-theatre).

I think it is a mistake to consider the J a simple form, fit, function replacement for the existing C-130s. As was stated, part commonality is about 30% between it and the existing 130s. And, as the Marines found out, it really amounts to introducing a whole new aircraft into the inventory (along with the associated issues). Most importantly, at the end of the day it does nothing to solve the recognized deficiency that the CF has with strat air lift. The CF is then left to try to buy, borrow, or steal strat lift from a dwindling commercial fleet that is becoming increasingly more expensive and less reliable as it the average age of the fleet increases.

Sam
 
Well, your suggestion seems reasonable enough, assuming there is something decent available to replace the H's when the time comes.

As much as I would like to see the C-17 in CF service, everyone seems to think it is beyond our price range. Plus the CDS seems averse to buying outright.
 
Allen said:
As much as I would like to see the C-17 in CF service, everyone seems to think it is beyond our price range. Plus the CDS seems averse to buying outright.

I agree that both of your points are probably reasonably indicative of current perceptions. However, I also believe that a detailed analysis of the total cost of ownership of a fleet of 6 C-17s compared to perhaps buying and operating 19 replacement C-130s would show that the C-17 is actually less expensive and offers a great deal more capability.

Sam
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Doesn't Britain have an armed forces exponentially larger than ours?   I don't see your point.

I don't think so I read that theirs is around 100 thousand our is like 84 thousand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
civvy3840 said:
I don't think so I read that theirs is around 100 thousand our is like 84 thousand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Royal Navy: 37,590
Royal Marines: 4,800
Royal Auxilirary: 2,300 (civilian)
Army: 111,780
Royal Air Force: 52,804

Canadian Forces: ~62,000 (all three environments)

HTH,
Sam
 
..and now the Americans are offering, well Lockheed anyway,
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4c3af4c9-d5b9-401d-afad-56ffa1bfcc74&rfp=dta&page=1


Canada offered deal on planes
Military can lease new Hercules for cost of maintaining old ones
 
a journalist
CanWest News Service

Monday, March 28, 2005

OTTAWA - A U.S. aerospace giant says it can give Canada a deal on new transport planes, delivering the newest model C-130 Hercules to the air force for about what it costs to keep its older Hercules fleet flying.

If the Canadian Forces were to redirect the money now spent to maintain and operate its E-model Hercules fleet -- some of which are 40 years old -- it could finance the leasing of Hercules C-130Js, the latest generation of the aircraft, officials with Lockheed Martin proposed in a recent pitch to the federal government.
The Lockheed plan is the latest spin in an ongoing debate within military and industry circles over updating Canada's air transport fleet.
Over the years, the air force has made little headway in replacing its ageing Hercules, the backbone of the Canadian military's transport fleet. The Liberal government has been reluctant to pay for new planes, which could cost as much as $2-billion.

A proposal to buy new Boeing C-17 Globemaster transport jets was shot down by then-defence minister John McCallum in 2002 because of the cost of the huge aircraft, estimated at more than $200-million apiece.
But Boeing has now proposed a lease arrangement similar to its deal with Britain's Royal Air Force, which the company says would cost Canada nothing after taking into account the savings in scrapping the expensive-to-operate older Hercules.
Lockheed Martin also argues that leasing brand new C-130Js would mean no large up-front bill for the Canadian government. "How the lease is structured is entirely up to Canada," said Peter Simmons, a Lockheed Martin spokesman. "But it's a very cost-effective way of getting a very efficient fleet very quickly."
Similar arrangements, using money spent on maintaining older planes, could be used to purchase new Hercules aircraft outright, Mr. Simmons added.

However, critics say the C-130J is unreliable and not capable of doing the job -- a claim disputed by Lockheed Martin.
Mr. Simmons said his company's presentations on leasing or buying new C-130Js have been greeted favourably by the Canadian government and military. He noted there is a high level of concern about replacing the Hercules fleet. One study done by defence analysts warned that by 2008 the military could be without a means of transporting its troops and equipment if it does not begin replacing the Hercules soon.
"Canada has done yeoman's work in maintaining that fleet," Mr. Simmons said. "But ultimately, just pure, simple reality sets in and the aircraft will start grounding."

Canada operates 32 Hercules aircraft. Many have the distinction of recording the highest number of flying hours of any military Hercules in the world.
The Canadian Forces spends about $75-million a year on repairs, maintenance and the purchase of spare parts for its Hercules fleet. Another $25-million is spent on upgrades for the planes on items such as electrical and engine systems. The figures provided by the military are for the entire Hercules fleet and did not break out the costs to maintain the older aircraft, which have been plagued with cracks in their wings and other problems.


The C-130J has been the subject of several U.S. government reports that have questioned the plane's reliability. One report issued last year determined the aircraft is not capable of performing many of its planned missions.
Critics have also cited problems with the plane's engines, and there has been a move by the U.S. Congress to shut down the C-130J production line, but that is being reconsidered by the Bush administration.

Mr. Simmons said the reports questioning the C-130J's reliability were based on outdated information and that the airplanes used by the United States and Britain have been performing beyond expectations in Iraq and other overseas missions.
Other C-130Js are flying with the Australian and Italian air forces.
"The absolute proof is the reality, and the reality is that the aircraft is operating incredibly efficiently in theatre," Mr. Simmons said. "Now we're demonstrating its capability and what it can do, and it's speaking for itself."


 
Sam69 said:
Royal Navy: 37,590
Royal Marines: 4,800
Royal Auxilirary: 2,300 (civilian)
Army: 111,780
Royal Air Force: 52,804

Canadian Forces: ~62,000 (all three environments)

HTH,
Sam

I was wrong... :)
 
Interesting... sounds like the M1 tanks and HMMVs for a dollar deal we had a while ago
 
Back
Top