Jump to content

Air Force looks to cancel C-130 AMP program


fltsload
 Share

Recommended Posts

Speakinging about short sighted, the SCNS goes though one card except for two things! I don't know if it's the same now but I never had confidence in that system to not really let me down. Over halfway to Lajes is a bad time to lose your nav systems. At least we had a sextant.

Ge Dave did you ever go past Lajes?

RZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scuttlebutt and rumors from those outside of this program is entertaining. Truth is that the s/w, hardware, and the integration has performed great. As with any mod, there are "issues" and those who think it is not worth it. The Test Tech statement is also enlighting. It sounds as though you never worked Thuds, F-4's, or any SOF acft. Can anyone point out any safety of flight issues? Anyone seen or experienced the full capabilities of this mod? Oh, and J's need a s/w fix to fly NATO legally. Yep, I've been w/the program since 01.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lockeed had nothing to do with this, other than making a couple of things harder for Boeing.

My reference to Lockheed was for the J-model. They didn't take a big enough leap forward to eliminate crewmembers.

People just really can't comprehend how difficult the software development is,
Might be easier if they didn't start from the 737 airline software for a tactical mission...

I know the end AMP was quite good from everyone I know who was personally involved (which wasn't many). Even the TF system came around and by most accounts was good. But it took a lot longer to deliver and cost way more than promised. Worth it? I don't know - not my decision. I won't be around long enough to see it in all likelihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COTs LRU's = lower development cost. The production s/w was watered down by the AF. Each/every item, button, capability, function, location was approved by both crew and mnx before they were implemented. If anyone who has personnel knowledge of anything that is below the WSS then you should stand up and make yourself known to the SPO's and not whine here. If you are qualified from an AMP perspective then let it rip. I've talked and interacted with all the system/design engineers and whenever there has been a fix proposed they seek the advice of those who operate and/or maintain the acft. As far as the cost, well with each meeting someone else from the USG wants to "piss on the tree" to leave their mark, therefore the previous decision now becomes void and we relive the whole thing again. This takes time and time is money. Each time someone sez "I don't like it" or "that's not what I'm used to seeing/doing" equals $$$. T&E, SDD, EMD, whatever you call it, what did the lawn dart folks spend on the F-16, 22, or 35? So until you fully understand the capabilities at your fingertips you're just moving your fingers on the keyboard. But hey, Norty has the final say, dang shame that this may get shelved after so much time/money has been spent since the 80's on this mod. Ya'll be safe out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scuttlebutt and rumors from those outside of this program is entertaining.
Well Herb I try my best to be entertainin:D Lord only knows that's about all I'm good fer since I retired:rolleyes:

I try to stay out of the fray since I'm a luddite at heart but sometimes I jest get drawed in!!sigpic1892_3.gif

Hope things still going good for you.

Dan

zombie.png

Edited by Dan Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boeing tried to do this on the cheap buy using 737 software to do a tactical airlift. I could go into upteen dumb things that Boeing did trying to do this cheaply. Then have the audacity to tell our crew members things like they didn't know how to talk on the radio. Every problem that was brought up, Boeing answer was that "they designed it like that and it meets the requirements". I worked this program for over 4 yrs and I've been in the flight testing business for over 25 yrs and this was the WORST program I've ever seen, hands down. I've never been keen on the "J", but I have to admit it's financially irresponsible to spend this kind of money and actually loose capability. Weight, range, CG etc etc. Killing the program is the smart thing. I'm just surprised someone is actually willing to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boeing tried to do this on the cheap buy using 737 software to do a tactical airlift. I could go into upteen dumb things that Boeing did trying to do this cheaply. Then have the audacity to tell our crew members things like they didn't know how to talk on the radio. Every problem that was brought up, Boeing answer was that "they designed it like that and it meets the requirements". I worked this program for over 4 yrs and I've been in the flight testing business for over 25 yrs and this was the WORST program I've ever seen, hands down. I've never been keen on the "J", but I have to admit it's financially irresponsible to spend this kind of money and actually loose capability. Weight, range, CG etc etc. Killing the program is the smart thing. I'm just surprised someone is actually willing to do it.

There is no loss of range, no real increase in weight (I think maybe a couple of hundred pounds total), or as I'm aware of any CG problems. The operating weight of the test aircraft are in the 85K range (including test instrumentation)...very similar to the fleet. I'm not sure where this came from. Working this program & seeing how we operated really put a downturn on my view of the capability of the AF to get anything done, that's for sure! As far as why they picked the FMS, I'd say it was far cheaper to make the existing system work, than build a completely new system that replicates 80% or more of the functions. Remeber, one of the requirements is for it to operate in modern civilian airspace, so I can't disagree on their choice to use a system that does just that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing how we operated really put a downturn on my view of the capability of the AF to get anything done

Amen to that!

Good example is the new rescue helo that we will never see, the got what they needed to begin with (CH-47) then the whining came into play with the maker of the H-60 saying "but we can replace your MH-60's that dont work at high alitudes with brand new 60's that still wont work at high altitudes and all of a sudden the contract is canceled and the warfighter dont get what he needs, so that corporate greed can try to squeeze more pocket cash.

Dan

WindowsPanel.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/10/defense_c130_avionics_100209/

Source: Panel to discuss fate of C-130 AMP

By John T. Bennett - Staff writer

Posted : Friday Oct 2, 2009 9:44:59 EDT

A high-level Pentagon panel could decide as soon as Oct. 2 whether to pull the plug on the Air Force’s C-130 avionics modernization program, an industry official says.

Targeted for termination by Air Force brass several weeks ago, the C-130 program is expected “to be discussed [Oct. 2] by the DAWG,†Mike Harris, Boeing’s vice president for weapon system modernization programs, said Oct. 1, referring to the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group.

Boeing is the prime contractor on the multibillion-dollar avionics enhancement project.

Harris said Boeing executives expect the DAWG will hear support to keep the modernization effort alive from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That’s because OSD “has a vested interest in the AMP†because it opted to recertify the program as vital to national security after technical problems caused the effort to exceed legal cost growth caps, Harris said.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz announced in mid-September that the service was planning to kill the modernization program and replace with a less-expensive alternative.

“The bottom line is we couldn’t afford it,†Schwartz said. He said OSD must first approve killing the AMP effort before the new plan is enacted. “No decision in this town is final.â€

Calling the decision “largely an affordability issue,†Schwartz said service brass has pitched the idea to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The price of an installed C-130 AMP kit is about $8 million per plane today, Harris said. Following Pentagon desires, Boeing has been working to get those costs down to about $7 million per plane, the air service’s desired price target.

Harris said the AMP program “is very much on a glide path to meet†the $7 million-per-plane mark.

Air Force officials are mulling a new upgrade approach that would fit air lifters with “stand-alone integrations†as opposed to the planned across-the-board avionics upgrades, the air chief said at that time.

Harris told Defense News he doubts the Air Force would save money by going with a new approach. Billions already have poured into development work on the current AMP architecture. Since that stage of any complex defense program typically is the most expensive, Harris said the Air Force would “assume a lot of development risk†by seeking a new avionics suite for its C-130 fleet.

“That should worry a lot of people,†Harris said, noting the Air Force already “has spent $1.4 billion in development.†He said four government studies all have concluded the current AMP program is the “most cost-effective solution to this.â€

Boeing has for years been the contractor for the AMP program, but it is expected to compete against Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems if the program is kept alive.

The Air Force delayed a key milestone decision for the program several months ago, citing budget constraints. House and Senate versions of 2010 Pentagon spending legislation then cut funding for the AMP program; the Senate version expresses support for the current plan, but urges the department to carry out the slipped milestone decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the days when I worked at Det 4 at the Lockheed facility in Ontario CA. We could go from drawing board to flight test in a matter of days instead of years. If there was a problem with a herk I could always count on an engineer, technician, production manager and program management to be at the plane working to find the best and most economical solution. When we turned over a plane from mod to home station it had already accumulated multiple test flights and at least one customer acceptance flight (often 2 or 3). We always included maintenance in the turnover and continued support after delivery with anything that came up.

I have one question to all out there in the C-130 world... what ever happened to the C-130A that was modified at Crestview Aerospace with a low-power DC flight deck and COTS displays??? I believe it was a private endeavor and just faded away but it had 5VDC LED lighting and consumed a lot less power than any other C-130.

One last note... Go check out www.bluemountainavionics.com and tell me what you think here. Very cool stuff at a very low cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the days when I worked at Det 4 at the Lockheed facility in Ontario CA. We could go from drawing board to flight test in a matter of days instead of years... When we turned over a plane from mod to home station it had already accumulated multiple test flights and at least one customer acceptance flight.

That's the Big Safari way baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article following the DAWG meeting on October 2, 2009.

Inside the Air Force - 10/9/2009

Despite procurement funding cuts . . .

SENATE DIRECTS AIR FORCE TO CONTINUE C-130 AVIONICS UPGRADE PROGRAM

Senators this week approved legislation directing the Air Force to continue funding a multibillion-dollar C-130 cockpit modernization program that service leadership wants to kill in an attempt to pay for other initiatives that are internally considered a higher priority.

The provision -- included in the Senate’s fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations bill -- encourages the Air Force to enter the production phase of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program “at the earliest possible date,†according to an Oct. 6 report on the legislation.

“Given the AMP’s performance and progress to date, the committee believes the Air Force should move forward expeditiously to provide this needed capability to Active, Guard, and Reserve Air Force pilots,†the report reads. “The Committee encourages the Air Force to schedule and complete Milestone C.â€

At the same time, the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group (DAWG) discussed the AMP program on Oct. 2, according to industry and military sources. Alternates to AMP, including scaling back the number of modifications performed, were discussed at that meeting.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense must sign off on the program cancellation, especially since it recertified the effort after a spending breach a number of years ago.

The C-130 AMP program is designed to replace the vintage dials and gauges in the cockpits of legacy Hercules cargo haulers with new digital multifunction displays and equipment. The upgrade allows the aircraft to fly in international airspace and helps reduce life-cycle sustainment costs.

The Air Force canceled a July-scheduled Defense Acquisition Board meeting, where the service originally intended to seek the Milestone C authority, which would have allowed the program to enter production.

“This is largely an affordability issue,†Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last month. “If there was more money, we probably would not choose to do this.â€

Instead, the Air Force will perform “stand-alone installations as opposed to highly integrated ones†so the aircraft can meet international airspace mandates, according to the four-star.

To that end, congressional defense committees have chopped more than $200 million in procurement funding for AMP in their reviews of the Pentagon’s FY-10 budget. This week, House and Senate conferees approved the cut in their review of the FY-10 defense authorization bill.

Despite the procurement reductions in FY-10, Boeing should be able to stretch out its FY-09 funding to keep its suppliers up and running, according to an industry source.

Three Air Force C-130s have received the new cockpit mods and completed developmental flight testing in July. -- Marcus Weisgerber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...