Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[aesop081]

My $0.02 on the palletised approach.

The reality is that the entire processing power of a CP-140 is easily exceeded by a single modern PC.

My watch has more memory than FRED does ! But AIMP will take care of that  :

 

[Inch]

Good points Sam, my big beef with this roll on roll off mission kit is weight and balance problems. The aircraft gets a new weight and balance done on it when it's painted, how is moving over a thousand pounds of equipment around going to affect the CofG? I have read all kinds of accident reports of aircraft taking off with the CofG out of limits or the aircraft overloaded. I'm not saying I'm too lazy to do a weight and balance calculation before every flight, but it's a whole lot easier with less variables.

Beyond what it does to the flight characteristics, as a front ender I think we could care less what's behind us as long as the aircraft responds to control inputs in a normal manner.

 

[aesop081]

I have nothing against the palletized/modularized conceot per say, i have seen it for ABCC and AEW uses but to make an airplane cargo/MPA, to me would make an aircraft that can do 2 jobs but neither of them very well.   from what i can see so far in the MPA world, it has unique challenges and eqpt/mission requirements that would be difficult to intergrate and remove/reinstal...... For example....the MAD system to be compensated depends on what eqpt is currently running on the A/C, the ESM system requires several antenas that a   transpost A/C doesnt need, would constantly instal/ remove these to save weight for TAL missions ? I'm not saying it can't be done, just questioning its effectiveness. Even with more modern computer systems and avionics......

 

[Sam69]

I should clarify my earlier statements.

First, when I alluded to the "back-end union" I want to be clear that I recognize that not all Navs and AESOPs are members of the union; just like I recognize that not all pilots are members of the "pilot's union." I hope I didn't offend any warriors out there with my broad brush comment.

Second, I think that the idea of turning a Herc into a MPA is fundamentally unsound. Sure it could be done, but it would result in an aircraft that would be slower, more costly, and come at the expense of losing a mobility asset at a time when we simply do not have enough mobility assets. As well, since certain parts of the mission system would have to be fixed to the airframe (RADAR, MAD, and EO for example) you have also added unneccesary weight to your mobility platform. And, of course, the added fitted equipment only complicates your maintenance problem, risking lower availability. Obviously, this is also ignoring the added training, currency, and proficiency requirements for your pilots who now have to be combat ready on two widely divergent mission sets.

Third, with palletised mission systems I think you would see two or three standard configs and the CofG would be pre-calculated for each of these configs thereby saving Inch from any onerous calculations  : (just giving you a hard time Inch - use Excel like the rest of us).

 

[Inch]

Third, with palletised mission systems I think you would see two or three standard configs and the CofG would be pre-calculated for each of these configs thereby saving Inch from any onerous calculations   : (just giving you a hard time Inch - use Excel like the rest of us).

That's what I want to hear!

I figured as much, but I wanted to throw that out there for the non-pilot types that may not understand the significance of messing around with weight and balance.

Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.  ;D

 

[aesop081]

That's what I want to hear!

I figured as much, but I wanted to throw that out there for the non-pilot types that may not understand the significance of messing around with weight and balance.

Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.   ;D

;D

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My 2 cents on the whole "just use off-the-shelf laptops" to run your mission systems on a "plug-and-play aircraft".

Speaking with the instructors at CFANS, they have had nothing but trouble with the computers on the CT-142 Gonzo since they went to COTS.  It would seem that the commercial circuit boards are not up the constant vibration and often just quit working, thus causing a DNCO and a lost trip.  AESOP081 can confirm whether or not the problem has been fixed, but it seems to me that in certain areas, we need to buy MILSPEC...

As for "plug and play sensors"- Sam, when was the last time that you did a full functional after the sonar was removed and reinstalled in a Sea King?
How well did that work out for you?
In my experience, it has never been less than a 2-3 day job of getting the sonar to run properly after sitting in a crate in the hangar for a few months.  Maybe I have just been unlucky...

Cheers!

 

[aesop081]

i can confirm that the CT-142's back end training system, although a good idea, is tempermental at best.   The system keeps crapping out for both hardware problems and more often for software problems.   Thats what happens when you put a microsoft-based product into an airplane   ;D

And don't get me started about the 99-channel in the aurora !

Edited for spelling......damned INCOS screws up my typing at home   ;D

 

[Zoomie]

Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.   ;D

If in Excel you mean Flight Engineer, then I agree whole-heartedly Inch...    We plank drivers just spin the props and turn gas into noise...

 

[a_majoor]

I didn't realize this woudl get so involved. My idea was more to the effect that if the Airforce was to need "x" transports, "y" AWACS/JSTARS/Refuelers and "z" surveillance planes, then instead of buying 3 separate airframes, buy a common airframe (the transport) to purchase enough airframes and lower the unit cost, with the added advantage(?) of having a large internal area in the cargo bay for all the kit needed for the other jobs.

I suppose this would mean that the airframes for surveillance could have some fairly drastic mods, but I'm thinking this might be limited to a different nose cone mounting the radar or sensor turret, and the racks and pallets would be hard mounted inside the airplane 90% of the time. I don't know what to suggest about the weapons and sensors, hard points under the wings would give you a very limited load, but cutting a hole in the botton would present a few problems as well.....

 

[aesop081]

.... but I'm thinking this might be limited to a different nose cone mounting the radar or sensor turret, and the racks and pallets would be hard mounted inside the airplane 90% of the time.

Don't take this in a bad way but may i suggest that you take a long hard look at the aurora/orion/atlantique 2 and maybe you would rethink that statement !!

 

[aesop081]

let me put it to you this way:

Do you think that we could make the MLVW into an EFFECTIVE surveillance platform if we palletized the coyote's recce suite ? Would it do either job well ?

 

[Zoomie]

Do you think that we could make the MLVW into an EFFECTIVE surveillance platform if we palletized the coyote's recce suite ?

Excellent comparison my friend...

Quite frankly any transport option out there would be too slow and cumbersome in the MPA community.  Yanking and banking at 300' AWL requires some finesse and an airframe up to the task.  If you take a transport behemoth down there you get a repeat of the Nimrod's performance at the CNE many many moons ago.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

Regarding the C-130J...

The Pentagon's inspector general in a 34-page report blamed the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, for 33 deficiencies in the planes.  They are especially concerned about problems in the aircraft's computers and missile defense systems. There were even reports of propellers breaking down and cracking in bad weather.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=260411&page=1

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

Canadian options

The company is also in discussions with the Canadian Department of National Defence regarding the lease of C-130Js, said Lockheed spokesman Peter Simmons. They have "had several meetings over the last couple of years" on various options of replacing Canada's current CC-130 fleet with new C-130s. "Leasing is one of the many options that we've offered them [but] the substantive detail of a lease offer is recent" with the first meetings at the end of 2004 and "then it kind of gained momentum at the beginning of this year", he said.

A lease arrangement would be structured to meet Canada's requirements. The details of the number of aircraft, the timeframe of delivery, and type of lease "is entirely at their discretion", said Simmons. The C-130Js on offer would be new production stretch version combat delivery aircraft. "We've given them a whole range of schedules in terms of aircraft delivery and numbers and length and terms of the lease, etcetera, so that they can look at that and make it fit with their own budget."

Canada has a fleet of 32 CC-130 aircraft, but according to Simmons the number one priority is to replace the 19 CC-130E aircraft, which have been in service for 40 years, have over 40,000 hours on them, and are becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. He argued that rather than spend scarce resources on maintaining the old fleet, it is more cost effective to put the money into leasing new aircraft.

The Canadian Air Force is being tight-lipped about the discussions. Spokesperson Major Lynne Chaloux said: "It would be premature to speculate whether this is a viable option for the Canadian Forces." Maj Chaloux noted that the air force is "in the process of determining its holistic air mobility requirements [tactical and strategic airlift], and expects them to be finalised sometime after the new defence statement is issued". She added that "the C-130J will be considered as one of a range of options".

 

[Sam69]

Speaking with the instructors at CFANS, they have had nothing but trouble with the computers on the CT-142 Gonzo since they went to COTS.  It would seem that the commercial circuit boards are not up the constant vibration and often just quit working, thus causing a DNCO and a lost trip.  AESOP081 can confirm whether or not the problem has been fixed, but it seems to me that in certain areas, we need to buy MILSPEC...

As for "plug and play sensors"- Sam, when was the last time that you did a full functional after the sonar was removed and reinstalled in a Sea King?
How well did that work out for you?
In my experience, it has never been less than a 2-3 day job of getting the sonar to run properly after sitting in a crate in the hangar for a few months.  Maybe I have just been unlucky...

I can't speak directly on the Gonzo implementation because I have no experience with that aircraft. However, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think the current systems are bulletproof. I've seen the 123 dump its load on many occasions. I mean, really, just about everything in the SK is milspec and what kind of MTBF do we see on systems like GHARS? Sonar? Radar? I've heard nightmare stories about the current CP-140 back-end as well. The reality is that you can have good or bad implementations of either COTS or MilStd equipment. I know, for example, that the Panasonic Toughbooks have endured a great deal of abuse and seem to keep on working.

As for the SK sonar, we both know that it was never designed to be a PnP system. And yet, we often seem to try to use it like one, which suggests that it would be in our best interests to spec that capability in our future aircraft.

Sam

 

[Sam69]

I didn't realize this woudl get so involved. My idea was more to the effect that if the Airforce was to need "x" transports, "y" AWACS/JSTARS/Refuelers and "z" surveillance planes, then instead of buying 3 separate airframes, buy a common airframe (the transport) to purchase enough airframes and lower the unit cost, with the added advantage(?) of having a large internal area in the cargo bay for all the kit needed for the other jobs

I take your point a_m and salute your intentions 

But, I believe that the Herc is reall best suited to the transport role and would it involve too many compromises to seriously consider it as a MPA.

Sam

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I can't speak directly on the Gonzo implementation because I have no experience with that aircraft. However, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think the current systems are bulletproof. I've seen the 123 dump its load on many occasions. I mean, really, just about everything in the SK is milspec and what kind of MTBF do we see on systems like GHARS? Sonar? Radar? I've heard nightmare stories about the current CP-140 back-end as well. The reality is that you can have good or bad implementations of either COTS or MilStd equipment. I know, for example, that the Panasonic Toughbooks have endured a great deal of abuse and seem to keep on working.

As for the SK sonar, we both know that it was never designed to be a PnP system. And yet, we often seem to try to use it like one, which suggests that it would be in our best interests to spec that capability in our future aircraft.

Agreed.  Bad implementation of a piece of equipment, either MILSPEC or civvy spec is the same.

123 load dumps are generally heat related.  Fix the heat and you fix the problem, in my experience.  Or maybe I have just been lucky and not lost alot of ASN-123s.  While not a complete fan of the 123 and some of it's really clunky user-interface, I have found it pretty robust and better than nothing at all.

Were the GHARS, sonar and radar always unreliable, or just lately as they got rather "senior"?  I have only been around Sea Kings since 1999.  I have noticed GHARS going u/s at a faster rate, but radars and sonars seem about the same to me.  Could this just be an age issue?

Sam, even with PNP written into the contract, I have got feeling that most complex sensors don't like being taken out of boxes and strapped onto airplanes and vice-versa.  I have a feeling that we will end up with some sort of calibration or test-flight issue each time we add a sensor.  Finally, I guess if you have too many PnP systems, how do you stay current or trained on all of them?  How do you configuration manage aircraft on a Sqn?

Always a pleasure reading your work, Sam!

Cheers!

 

[Sam69]

I agree with your analysis SKT.

But, call me a pie-eyed dreamer, why can I take a portable HD, spinning at thousands of RPM with tolerances measured in microns, that has a static tolerance of 320+Gz and hot plug it into a USB 2.0 or 1394 bus with not even the smallest burp. Time and time again. But we can't take a piece of equipment like  a sonar, which really isn't that tight on its tolerances and even get it to work after days of intensive maintenance work by highly skilled techs. It leaves me believing that we have the wrong model on how to do things.

Sam

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry to interrupt Gobsmacked and Aesop.

Here's a prospect - US Senate has apparently financed 6 more C-17s that are "surplus to requirements" - Wonder if there is a deal possible there?

Pork-barrel for Boeing: Senate Amendment to Keep C-17 Cargo Jet Production Line Open 
 
 
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Nov. 10, 2005)
 
 
The Senate today approved by a vote of 89-8 an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would give the Pentagon authority to annually purchase at least six new C-17 cargo jets at a cost a total of roughly $1 billion despite the fact that a new airlift requirements study concluded there is no need for the aircraft. 

"This is just another gift to a defense contractor, the latest attempt by Congress to force the military to purchase weapons it doesn't even need," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller. "Congress is looking out for the defense industry, but not the needs of our military." 

The amendment sponsors include the senators from states where the aircraft is manufactured and assembled, and where the engines are produced. 

C-17 manufacturer Boeing Company has been threatening to close down its C-17 production line in 2008 if there are no new orders for the airlifter. At present, the Air Force has orders for a total of 180 C-17s. 

The amendment approved today also includes an earlier provision that authorizes the purchase of 42 C-17s if there is a need. However, the revised version will allow the annual purchase of six of the aircraft even if there is no need. 

The recent year-long study of airlift needs by the Senate Armed Services Committee and all military services concluded that the current fleet provides sufficient capacity to support the National Military Strategy with low and acceptable risk. 


Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption in order to achieve a more accountable federal government. 

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16746179.1131732850.Q3TfcsOa9dUAAGglTnk&modele=jdc_34