C130 in trouble?

[StarOfAfrica2]

Wasnt sure if anyone had seen this yet........  (PT 1)

The Flawed Plane Congress Loves

By LESLIE WAYNE, The New York Times

WASHINGTON - It is hard to imagine an airplane with more problems than the C-130J, the latest version of the venerable workhorse the Air Force uses to drop cargo and paratroopers into global hot spots.
     
 · Defense Department's Findings  
   
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.

Still, the C-130J has one important fan: Congress. Powerful members of both the House and Senate want to spend $5 billion to acquire even more C-130J's for the Air Force, at a cost of $66.5 million a plane. For all the C-130J's shortcomings, lawmakers love to buy the plane and dole it out to National Guard and Reserve bases around the country, using its deployment as a justification for keeping local bases open.

But, in what could be the nastiest Pentagon budget battle this year, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has vowed to kill the C-130J as part of a larger plan to upgrade the military. In doing so, he is backed by two recent studies - from the Pentagon's inspector general and from its top weapons tester - that concluded the C-130J is unfit for duty.

"It's going to be a battle royale," said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's comptroller and chief financial officer from April 2001 until May 2004. "In other years, Congress went and put money back in the program in spite of the Pentagon. So it shouldn't come as any surprise Congress would not take these cuts sitting down."

The Air Force and the Marine Corps have acquired 50 C-130J's, at a cost of $2.6 billion, out of a planned total purchase of 117. 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. For the moment, the Pentagon relies on the roughly 485 E and H models for combat missions, while the J version only can fly within the United States.

The Lockheed Martin Corporation, which makes the plane, declined to comment on the fight over the C-130J, but issued a statement suggesting that any final decision about its fate is a long way off. Mr. Bush's 2006 budget only "marks the first step in a process of review and analysis" of Pentagon needs, the company said.

Mr. Rumsfeld's recommendation is also being challenged by the Air Force, which says many of the C-130J's problems have been fixed. The Air Force, worried about a rapidly aging fleet of planes of all sorts, has switched from being cool to the plane to supporting it on Capitol Hill.

"As the administration becomes less enamored of the C-130J, the Air Force has now decided it likes it," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Arlington, Va., that generally supports Pentagon spending.  
   
Across the country, C-130J's sit at Air Force Reserve bases and are assigned to light duty at Air National Guard squadrons since they cannot drop combat troops and heavy equipment because of design deficiencies. Even the specially equipped C-130J "Hurricane Hunters" intended to monitor storms - eight of them have been delivered to Keesler Air Force base in Biloxi, Miss. - are not cleared to fly in hurricanes because of inadequate radar. In Iraq, two C-130J's are part of a demonstration project, but neither is allowed to drop cargo while airborne.

Given all these problems, some military planners, including Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's acting acquisition chief, have questioned whether the military even needs large numbers of cargo aircraft to haul equipment, or whether it could turn instead to high-speed ships and other methods of transportation.

"All this has caused us to re-examine the C-130J," Mr. Wynne said at a recent conference in New York, "and what is the right number of them and whether we can do without them."

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."

The Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Thomas Christie, reported in January that the C-130J was "neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable"' and has "failed to meet operational requirements."

Another problem, identified by Ken Pedeleose, a senior engineer at the Defense Contract Management Agency in Marietta, Ga., where the C-130J is made, is that the planes' engines are so powerful they flatten the craft's propeller blades on takeoff, making it vulnerable to stalls.

This problem also makes it difficult for paratroopers to jump out of the plane without being in danger of being pulled back to the fuselage, said Mr. Pedeleose, whose contentions about the C-130J led to the inspector general's report.

To speed the acquisition process, the Air Force declared the C-130J to be a commercial item even though no commercial market for it exists. This meant that the Air Force was able to bypass federal truth-in-negotiating rules that require a contractor to give the government complete cost and pricing data.

In 1995, a basic C-130J cost $33.9 million. By 1998, it had risen to $49.7 million. Today, the cost is $66.5 million a plane, with some versions edging close to $90 million.

"The whole idea behind a commercial purchase approach is that you would reduce red tape and reduce the cost of the plane," said Danielle Brian, executive director at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that monitors government contracts. "And here you have costs going through the roof."

For all its problems, the C-130J remains popular in Congress for a few simple reasons. It is largely manufactured in Georgia, long the home state of powerful members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, among them former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat, and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a Republican.

Beyond that, C-130J's have given lawmakers a reason to keep National Guard and Reserve bases open, even as government reports have said this allocation makes no military sense.

"You can base a bunch of C-130J's at an installation and keep alive a squadron at a base in a member of Congress's district that was slated to be shut down," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, an antispending government watchdog group. "Or you can move them around to a base that is scheduled for closure and you have a brand new reason to keep it open."

Indeed, when the Pentagon originally asked for $2.6 billion to buy C-130J's, lawmakers authorized $4 billion.

In Congressional testimony last month, Mr. Rumsfeld said that "at $66.5 million, this aircraft has become increasingly expensive to build and maintain," especially compared with simply modernizing older C-130 models. Mr. Rumsfeld had prevailed over Congress in past years in killing weapons systems like the Comanche helicopter and the Crusader artillery system. This time, however, he has indicated he might soften his position in the face of opposition.

Already, 14 senators have written a letter to President Bush objecting to the proposed cancellation, while 15 representatives from Georgia signed a similar plea. Several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee also had a breakfast last month with Mr. Rumsfeld, in which they urged him to relent.

As part of that effort, many members of Congress, along with some officials in the Air Force, have begun a campaign arguing that it would be almost as costly - $2 billion in termination fees, they say - to end the program as to keep it going.

But Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a critic of the C-130J who plans hearings on the program, has said information from Lockheed showed termination costs are in the $300 million to $400 million range.

Still other critics say Congress should consider canceling the C-130J for cause because it has failed to meet contract specifications, in which case Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Md., would get no termination payments.

Backers of the C-130J say termination is not in the cards. "You have very strong support on the Hill to restore the program to its original level," said Clyde Taylor, a military legislative assistant to Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican who is a member of the Armed Services Committee. "Most states have at least one based there."

[StarOfAfrica2]

Representative Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican, recently termed opponents of the C-130J "hand-wringing bed-wetters" and predicted that the administration would reverse course.

The Air Force, too, is painting a rosy picture. "The J's are a critical part of the modernization of a very old fleet of models" said Gen. Paul Fletcher, the Air Force's deputy director of plans and program. "We've worked through the issues that have been raised."

Doug Karas, an Air Force spokesman, said the Pentagon's investigative reports were based on outdated data. "There will be tests this summer, and after that, the Air Force expects the C-130J will be fully mission capable," Mr. Karas said. "We've worked on fixing and updating."

Adding pressure on Mr. Rumsfeld is the Air Force's announcement - made just days after Mr. Rumsfeld decided to kill the C-130J - that it was grounding 30 of the older C-130E versions because of cracks in the airplane's structure and was putting 60 others on restricted flight status.

While the supporters say these cracks demonstrate the need to buy more C-130J's, critics find these problems suspiciously convenient.

"This is a cynical attempt," said Ms. Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, "to stop this cancellation."

[Chairboy]

I'm given the choice of deciding between two opinions as to the usefulness of this aircraft.

1. That of a legislative body who is deciding based on paperwork.

or

2. That of the flying body that actually has and uses the aircraft.

Not...  so tough a call as I might have suspected.

[GtoRA2]

Star,
 Have you heard more of whats wrong with it?

 That artical kinda glosses over the why's behind the trouble.



I thought the C-17 was a C-141 and C5 repplacement?

[Kegger26]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Star,
 Have you heard more of whats wrong with it?

 That artical kinda glosses over the why's behind the trouble.



I thought the C-17 was a C-141 and C5 repplacement?

The C-17 is not a C-5 replacment. The C-5 is due to stay in production for a few more years to come.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GScholz
I thought the C-17 would replace the C-130?

Not a chance. The C-17 is a far larger aircraft.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Been trying to track down more than just the one article from the Times, and havent had much luck yet.  My understanding is that in typical beauracracy fashion, the J model had teething pains and no one got in a hurry to fix them.  It has more powerful engines than the other models, and from what I've read it causes too much stress on the airframe when loaded.  Lockheed was trying to find a way to "fix" the ones already delivered without having to scrap the whole thing and replace them.  If the Air Force says its fixed, and trusts it to do the job..........well, they are the ones responsible if it falls apart in the air and kills people.  I guess if they are willing to back that up, it's probably fixed.  You never can tell in these deals between the Miltary and Congress when it comes to appropriations though.

[Dnil]

this was hashed out a while back on the AGW boards.  Had a guy involved with the program and working in atlanta give us some infor plus a c130 driver.  

Their view is the J model is just fine and its basically a story to sell papers.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Glad to hear it

[AWMac]

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.

BS BS BS

I never hit the fuselage in all my years jumping.

BS BS BS

I was an Air Movements NCO.  We dropped all kinds of equipment.

BS BS BS

We had Mass Tacs in the Winter at night.  C130's worked just fine.

Smells like someone in DC wants to line their pockets with $$$$$.

[GtoRA2]

AWMac
 Was that all in the new J model ?

[Wolfala]

If I remember correctly - the problem with the J resulted from the 6 blade prop creating a vibration that they could not isolate and dampen out. That would shorten the fatigue life of many components. But i'm not 100 % certain - just the scuttle butt from MC130 drivers down at Hurlbutt.

Wolfala

[Otto]

A stories about Aviation in the New York Times are the reason it dosen't have a Comic Section.

[Raubvogel]

This is a bogus story. I was in an ANG unit for a while that was transitioning from the H to the J model. The J model is light years ahead of the H in mission capability. It can climb faster, carry more, and has much greater range. Where the H model is relying mostly on 1950s technology, the J model is cutting edge...glass cockpits, composite techology, etc. It has it's share of warts like any new airframe...because that's basically what it is, a new airframe. Give it time and it will serve as well as its predecessors.

[Cobra412]

I'll have to take a drive down the flightline to see if the Js are doing any drop testing.  I know our C-17s have been doing it for some time now.  It would be fairly easy to tell if they were actually doing tests on this.  

The C-17 uses a large checkerboard pattern on the side of the airframe covered with a chalk like substance.  When they toss a dummy out if it impacts the checkboard they can see exactly where it hit.  They also have cameras mounted to film the drop.  If the J is doing this type of testing it should have the same exact thing on the side of it.