Metalbasher Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Interesting thought process... Congress set to cut C-130 AMP funds, OSD postpones key decision. August 10, 2009—One of the three C-130 avionics modernization program test aircraft sporting its new digital cockpit dropped by Hickam AFB, Hawaii, last week on a Pacific region tour designed to provide an evaluation of its integrated systems as it flew across international datelines. Testing with the third AMP-Herk began ahead of schedule this spring, and USAF already had given Boeing a low rate initial production contract last fall for the first two LRIP AMP kits. However, there is some question at this point whether Congress will continue to fund the C-130 AMP, in which USAF planned to upgrade about 221 Hercules (the three test aircraft and 218 others currently in H2, H2.5, and H3 configurations). The current LRIP plan called Boeing to provide 26 production kits and install them on 11 aircraft, with the remainder installed by Air Force depot technicians and some by other as-yet-determined companies. However, both defense appropriators and authorizers zeroed the C-130 AMP dollars in the 2010 defense budget request, despite expressing some support for the program. According to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Air Force will not be able to execute 2008 and 2009 funding until sometime this summer, obviating the need for any more funding until 2011. Both committees, and the House Appropriations Committee, removed $209.5 million for the C-130 AMP in the 2010 defense budget request. All three committees cite the program's one-year delay in starting production as proof it doesn't need the 2010 funding. However, according to defense analyst Loren Thompson, the lawmakers are making decisions based on outdated information about "problems that don't actually exist." And yet, OSD may be reconsidering its support for the program, having recently delayed the Milestone C decision that would have permitted continued production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I give up trying to figure out what is going on in DC..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If Peelousi had her way everybody would have their personal gulfstream5 dumb spendomatics Typical elitist's RZHill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff Millen Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 As I have stated for years I think they should station a C-130 squadron near DC and anytime one of those elected folks wants a ride call the USAF... Hell they are doing their best to shrink our great military to a small in-effective force.... When I joined back in 1958 our military was big and strond and backed up at home with the Guard and Reserves....NO One used to mess with us..they feared us...now every little s__t wants to poke at us and see what we will do. And the Reserves and Guard are being screwed with back to back rotations. Sure happy that I'm old retired but I'm worried for my grand kids. Muff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalsmoke Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 We have got to start the "Re-elect No-one" campaign and start over. All I can say now is work like hell and hide your money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 What money, Hell all I've got left is "change" RZ Hill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nobody should really be surprised about this crap, all I got so say is keep your powder dry and fix bayonets - its all starting to come down around our ears:D Oh yeah!! Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Heard the rumors at least annually since I've been involved. One problem is that decision-makers are being fed "opinions" about the system from people who are supposed to be objectively evaluating the system against contract requirements, not what it is they THINK the airplane should do. These same folks don't take the time or want to exert the effort to learn how to operate the airplane effectively, but don't waste any time bashing it! There's one AMC TES person who'd rather live his days out in an old E-model than to accept the technological advances this system provides, this bias is evident in everything he says & reports. Luckily, I think his credibility has been lost at AMC...I hope. Hell, the former AFOTEC commander in charge of the C-130 evaluation section gave up trying to learn the AMP altogether! This person just went TDY to get their flying & checkrides done. What an example to the rest of the unit, huh? The lack of big-picture thinking from these folks is really having it's effects on the AMP, which I'm sorry to say. I am biased, yes. I can see the clear advantages this system will bring to the fleet. I also see the stubborness of the folks who are stuck in the dark ages...they will fight progress 'til the end. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTII Raven Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I've hear of another possible breach is in the offing. AMP isn't the only program to suffer from a lack of knowledge of a system, for whaterver reason, by AFOTEC, especially the Edwards dets. To be sure there are many good people in AFOTEC and I've worked with several over the years but the ingnorance of some is breath taking. The requirements that drove the need for AMP haven't gone away. The merits of particular portions of the solution under test can be discussed but the validity of the need or the solution cannot IMO. Heard the rumors at least annually since I've been involved. One problem is that decision-makers are being fed "opinions" about the system from people who are supposed to be objectively evaluating the system against contract requirements, not what it is they THINK the airplane should do. These same folks don't take the time or want to exert the effort to learn how to operate the airplane effectively, but don't waste any time bashing it! There's one AMC TES person who'd rather live his days out in an old E-model than to accept the technological advances this system provides, this bias is evident in everything he says & reports. Luckily, I think his credibility has been lost at AMC...I hope. Hell, the former AFOTEC commander in charge of the C-130 evaluation section gave up trying to learn the AMP altogether! This person just went TDY to get their flying & checkrides done. What an example to the rest of the unit, huh? The lack of big-picture thinking from these folks is really having it's effects on the AMP, which I'm sorry to say. I am biased, yes. I can see the clear advantages this system will bring to the fleet. I also see the stubborness of the folks who are stuck in the dark ages...they will fight progress 'til the end. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.