C-130J flunks evaluation.

Elite Brain

New Member
The C-130J cargo aircraft essentially flunked its initial evaluation by the Pentagon’s top independent tester, Tom Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Christie’s new report dubs the C-130J as “neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable,” and notes that the Air Force intends to deploy the aircraft despite “limited capabilities” to the Central Command early this year, before it completes the second phase of operational testing.

Christie’s report was released just after the Pentagon leaked a proposal that it intends to terminate the C-130J cargo aircraft program. The C-130 Hercules has become a legend in military transport. However, the program to develop the C-130J, an aircraft that is “70 percent” different than previous models, has been characterized by inefficiency, waste, and a misguided acquisition strategy that doubled its original cost. In fact, none of the 50 or so aircraft already acquired by the Air Force had been certified as combat ready, according to a highly critical audit last summer by the Department of Defense Inspector General.

Though the cost-cutting measure is a good idea, in upcoming months, the Secretary of Defense appears headed for a dogfight with several members of Congress who are acting on behalf of defense contractors and in their own political self interest, rather than looking out for the taxpayers and the nation’s fighting men and women. Earlier this month, 24 U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Bush asking that he not allow the C-130J program to be eliminated.

The Senators’ letter disingenuously touts the merits of the original legendary C-130, not the “J” model. But Christie’s report said the C-130J “has more than 70 percent new equipment, relative to previous C-130 models,” and some have even said the C-130J should even have a new name of its own because it is so different than the original C-130.

Among the criticisms contained in Christie’s report:

-- Problems confronting the C-130J include “funding of logistics support and training systems; hardware, software and technical order deficiencies; manufacturing quality; subsystem reliability; failure to meet required measures of system effectiveness; and resolution of documented deficiencies."

-- Major aircrew workload issues remaining include cargo loading and constraint requirements.

-- The aircraft’s defensive systems have yet to demonstrate that they will work properly and the aircraft’s airdrop mission has yet to be evaluated by Christie’s office.

-- Issues still confronting the weather reconnaissance version of the aircraft include radar performance in hurricane reconnaissance missions, propeller anti-ice protective cover peeling, and excessive vibration.

The Project On Government Oversight investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends)


Click here for a copy of the Senators’ Jan. 13, 2005 letter to President Bush
 

Salman78

New Member
C-130J is an excellent transport aircraft and has been ordered by many new and existing customers to replace and/or support their existing C-130 fleet.
This is just political crap. C-130J's are already operational & serving USAF.
 

ronrizz

New Member
Thomas Christie's evaulation of any weapon's system is of the test data that the military provides him. He in no way does any of the testing himself. In the case of the C130J I have first hand knowledge from a crew member that was involved in the testing of a C130J on loan from the ANG at Keesler AFB MS. The testing scripts were drafted from existing C130E and H operational and airdrop procedures. Because the J is so different a lot of the testing could not be accomplished because the test scripts were not applicable to the J. It is as has already been stated a very different plane. So if you think Christie is personally in the J to observe its performance - think again. I swear he lives in a different planet when it comes to the plane and factual performance and reliability that the J has already proven in the past 6 years alone.

To date the Royal and Australian AF have used the J's in austere and combat environments logging 10,000 hours. Their extensive use of the J proves what it can do. They've been using it for airdrops and combat - no problem.
There are several ANG and USAF Reserve units in the US that have deployed with their Js in combat environments.
To date two active USAF Js have proven themselves with expeditionary forces in Iraq right along side the E's and H's. No sand problems, no supply problems, and no maintenance problems have grounded them. In fact, next to the E's and H's a single J can carry almost as much cargo as two Es or Hs and do it faster. The AMC HQ at Scott AFB wrote a good piece about it's performance. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=288 and http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=278

The J has been a good example of spiral development done well. Rumsfeld and Christie talked about the virtues of this development concept and have tried desperately to apply it to the Missle Defense system and other weapons programs. But they neglect even to consider it for the J - an entirely different plane right?

This grief on the J is a political ploy I'm sure to force Lockheed to come down on the price of the Js.
 
Last edited:

ronrizz

New Member
Oh look, more empirical evidence...

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009772

The jist of the story:

In December, the 815th Airlift Squadron team deployed to Southwest Asia to become part of a joint airlift mission. Working with active-duty and Air National Guard Airmen, they put the J-model through its paces in a combat theater.In December, a squadron team deployed to Southwest Asia to become part of a joint airlift mission. Working with active-duty and Air National Guard Airmen, they put the J-model through its paces in a combat theater.

“The amount of erroneous information out there about the new aircraft amazed me,†said Maj. Jeff Ragusa, an aircraft commander and tactics pilot. “Crews who fly the H- and E-models out here had a lot of false impressions about the J-model.

“This surprised me even more considering how long we have been flying this aircraft,†he said. “When we got here, people thought we were not qualified for tactical missions, and said they had heard the aircraft couldn’t even land on (a dirt)landing zone which is something I personally have done many times.â€

Mission planners said they quickly realized the capabilities of the J-model. Airframe enhancements, new engines, digital instruments and a condensed crew all contribute to the effectiveness of the aircraft.

The aircraft's larger cargo compartment and increased engine performance allow twice as much cargo weight to be carried on each mission, said Capt. Dan Windham, a pilot deployed with the squadron.

...planners said it makes mathematical sense to use the longer aircraft. Fewer sorties could mean fewer risks to aircraft, crews and troops. While minimizing potential risks ranks above and beyond cost benefits, the Js have also contributed to substantial savings in that arena, officials said.
Where's Thomas Christie's wisdom now?
 

ronrizz

New Member
C-130J flunks evaluation - more reasons to bring on the J's

I think it's very clear given the current posts here that two many individuals are judging the J with old information. What's scarry is that high end people such as Thomas Christie at the Pentagon are mis-informed.





E's are getting old and need replacements. Because the Pentagon gave the White House poor advise, W proposed the J be cut from the budget. From the AF Times Feb 10 http://ebird.afis.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20050211351287.html
The Air Force has grounded much of its fleet of C-130E Hercules transports because of cracks in the wings, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper said Thursday during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.



Among the affected planes are a dozen that had been flying missions into Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem with the E-models comes at the same time the Pentagon wants to cancel more purchases of new C-130Js and the Defense Department is in the midst of overall review of air, land and sea transport needs.



Actually, the problems with the E wings have been known long before the first J rolled off the assembly line. Christie and company should have known that and considered that when making inputs to the White House.



Cancelling J production costs more than accepting delivery. From the Atlanta-Journal Constitution Feb 11th: http://ebird.afis.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20050211351316.html



An Air Force general says the Pentagon may continue C-130J Hercules production in Marietta because huge cancellation penalties could more than offset any savings.



"I'm not sure at the time that we did these calculations at the end of December that we were fully informed about the costs of canceling the program," Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. "Those costs will be probably more than we anticipated."



Again, the Pentagon should have known about a contractual stipulation such as this before giving advise to the White House. And even accepting delvery of the J's is not a bad thing because it has been proven that the J is performing today as advertised.
On the side, it worries me that the Pentagon can miss the mark on accurately overseeing weapon systems like the C130J when there are so many issues that contribute to it and over many many years. In the end, and at the 11th hour, they make what is clearly a knee-jerk response to a White House request to cut money spending. Yet, they make decisions on troop utilization that occur in a much more rapid time frame. - Scary.
 
Top