fltsload Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The Air Force has proposed killing the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), aiming to replace it with a less expensive alternative, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference. Calling the decision “largely an affordability issue,†Schwartz said service brass have pitched the idea to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Under that pitch, the AMP effort would be replaced with one that would fit airlifters with “stand-alone integrations†as opposed to the planned across-the-board avionics upgrades. Boeing had been the contractor the AMP program but was expected to compete against Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems for a new contract. Industry officials at the conference had little to say, noting the companies with a stake in the AMP program were only informed of the service’s proposed approach shortly before Schwartz talked with reporters. “The bottom line is we couldn’t afford it,†said Schwartz, whose flying career focused on conventional and special operations C-130s. He said OSD still must approve killing the AMP effort before the new plan is enacted: “No decision in this town is final.†The price of an installed C-130 AMP kit is about $9 million. Boeing was aiming to get those costs down to about $7 million, the air service’s desires price target, according to media reports. Boeing developed AMP and installed the cockpit overhaul in three planes in order for the service to evaluate the changes. The Air Force spent more than $1.5 billion over the past 10 years developing the AMP system as a way to extend the life of its aging C-130 fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc130pfe Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 That just aint right. How much is a J-model compared to 9 mil. Seems like a good idea to me. You also get rid of the nav so that is even more savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkyTestTech Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 After working on the AMP program the last 3 years I hope they kill the program and rebid the contract. The operators might like it but for us MX troops it is a nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyclark Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 They never listen to maintenance. Then, when the aircraft breaks, guess where the $hit rolls downhill to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 They never listen to maintenance. Then, when the aircraft breaks, guess where the $hit rolls downhill to? Now there are 3 orphan acft, , what is to become of them? What a waste, RZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEC130 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Better now than later. As much as some people hate the "J", its the way to go. Its more than just the amp, what about the price of the centerwing box. Add all these bandaids up and its not cheap to keep these birds flying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Now there are 3 orphan acft, , what is to become of them? What a waste, RZ ...and a simulator. When I first heard about "AMP", I thought "a lot of money for marginal capability improvement; not much bang for a lot of bucks". I betcha most of the work being done trash haulin' these days could be done just fine by "A" models with a couple cheap INS or GPS sets installed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronc Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Better now than later. As much as some people hate the "J", its the way to go. Its more than just the amp, what about the price of the centerwing box. Add all these bandaids up and its not cheap to keep these birds flying. Is it true that some of the Js are in for wing boxes also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herkMx Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 HerkyTestTech, What's the scoop with it being an AMP nightmare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INS/Dopplertroop Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Scuttlebutt I heard while at Marietta plant (C-5 side) was that they struggled terribly with getting the software right (J and AMP). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkyTestTech Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 HerkyTestTech, What's the scoop with it being an AMP nightmare? Torque Cal is a 15 min job on a legacy bird, on the amp birds its a two day job because Boeing has to write software to upload to the computers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEC130 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Is it true that some of the Js are in for wing boxes also? As of recent the J will come off the production line with the ESL (Extended Service Life)wing box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaprad Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Is it true that some of the Js are in for wing boxes also? I doubt it, the boxes we're putting on the planes now are J model boxes with some "mild" modification to fit right. I think they were designed not to crack like the old ones. Of course they redid them in the 80's not to crack like the old ones, so time will tell. I do know there were a few J-birds that had bad nutplate on the wings a few months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) After working on the AMP program the last 3 years I hope they kill the program and rebid the contract. The operators might like it but for us MX troops it is a nightmare. You know, the short-sightedness of people kill me. Do you not realize that for the past 3 years, this program has been in developmental test??? It's your damn job to identify what mx procedures work & don't work, then validate procedures to make it work better. I've beat my head in the wall with some folks on the AF side out there that things don't appear out of a big modification program with zero bugs. The lack of foresight & stubborness of some people are having awfull effects on this program. I kept hearing gripes from AFOTEC & AMC T&E folks that this mod doesn't do anything to make me go faster or carry more. No SH!T, that wasn't the idea in the first place! Go find yourself a C-17. I understand now that there are units out there having to park airplanes because they can't get repairs to, or replacements for engine gages or flight instruments. That is one of the primary focuses of the AMP...increase realiability & maintainability of the instrumentation...and it does this very effectively. You want to see band-aid? Just wait til you see what they'll have to do to the fleet if AMP cancels. You can't navigate or talk your way through Europe anymore without an AMP modification on the legacy fleet. Other major airspaces are coming soon. How do you replace a fleet of over 200 in a span of 5 years if you don't think you can spend a little money right now?? Ok, I'm tired of typing, but I can go on a while bashing the AF incompetence on the AMP. In two weeks, the AR ANG pilots (who haven't flown the AMP) can operate it better than MOST AF pilots who have been flying it for 3 years. How's that for dedication on the part of the Edwards "team"? I hate to imply individual people being at fault (although there are a few) in this...it's primarily a leadership issue out there. Edited September 17, 2009 by AMPTestFE typos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) You know, the short-sightedness of people kill me. Do you not realize that for the past 3 years, this program has been in developmental test??? It's your damn job to identify what mx procedures work & don't work, then validate procedures to make it work better. I've beat my head in the wall with some folks on the AF side out there that things don't appear out of a big modification program with zero bugs. The lack of foresight & stubborness of some people are having awfull effects on this program. I kept hearing gripes from AFOTEC & AMC T&E folks that this mod doesn't do anything to make me go faster or carry more. No SH!T, that wasn't the idea in the first place! Go find yourself a C-17. I understand now that there are units out there having to park airplanes because they can't get repairs to, or replacements for engine gages or flight instruments. That is one of the primary focuses of the AMP...increase realiability & maintainability of the instrumentation...and it does this very effectively. You want to see band-aid? Just wait til you see what they'll have to do to the fleet if AMP cancels. You can't navigate or talk your way through Europe anymore without an AMP modification on the legacy fleet. Other major airspaces are coming soon. How do you replace a fleet of over 200 in a span of 5 years if you don't think you can spend a little money right now?? Ok, I'm tired of typing, but I can go on a while bashing the AF incompetence on the AMP. In two weeks, the AR ANG pilots (who haven't flown the AMP) can operate it better than MOST AF pilots who have been flying it for 3 years. How's that for dedication on the part of the Edwards "team"? I hate to imply individual people being at fault (although there are a few) in this...it's primarily a leadership issue out there. Hmmm...so developmental cost has been 1.5 billion dollars; that's 1,500 million dollars if I remember right, and the cost per airplane to do the mod is nine million dollars. What exactly is it that the current fleet--at perhaps Dyess, for example--can't do in their present configuration? Is that right--that they are not allowed to fly in Europe? Anywhere in Europe? This is incredible! Almost as incredible as the amount of money and time spent on the AMP program, with almost nothing tangible to show for it! Off with their heads! What exactly is the time frame of the whole AMP scheme? From original idea to present? First I heard of it was more than eight years ago. They can't figure this stuff out in eight years? Must be tougher than rocket science...or brain surgery...(maybe they need some). My$0.02 Edited September 17, 2009 by Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) The fleet in Dyess, for example, does not have the navagational capability (nor does any other non C-130J) that is/will be required by what used to be known as GATM. The legacy slick fleet does not have the capability to tune ATC radio frequencies that are required to fly above FL190 in Europe. The legacy C-130 fleet has been flying through Europe on waivers...waivers that from what I've been told, won't been extended any further. This is a safety of flight issue with the frequency spacing and required navigational performance (i.e. precision navigation). Other airspaces like the Pacific & Far East will be soon to follow. You want to blame someone for the time & money it's taken for this program? You'd better look at the Air Force. Nearly all delays, cost overruns, etc. have been due to someone new at AMC or AFSOC coming up with new requirements for this thing to do. AFSOC drove the cost up on the thing because of the capabilities they needed above & beyond the slick fleet....then bailed on the program! Eight years is a long time, I agree. But it's far better than the 15yrs it took to get the C-130J operationally capable (still can't fly SKE in the weather)! And the C-130J was not under the flailing management of the DOD procurement system. The AMP is about 90% ready to go operational, in my opinion. If someone makes the mistake of cancelling this program, I'll be bitterly dissapointed in the capability of the leadership within the Air Force. Not because I like the mod, because it's the right thing to do at the right time. This crap makes the 20 years I served my country seem like a waste. Edited September 18, 2009 by AMPTestFE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Oh well, we are getting good at grinding up airplanes for beer cans---first for center wing issues, next for avionics issues. Should be good money in the C-130 scrap business. Based on how the current administration is throwing money around, a few more trillion here or there for new airplanes shouldn't raise too many eyebrows. The question of "How are the taxpayers going to respond to this?" doesn't even seem to be a discussion item on the hill anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 They could certify SCNS (and the AFSOC) nav systems to fly in Europe if they wanted to. AFFSA doesn't want to. The capability is there - we do it every day. The radios? That's easy - 8.33KHz spacing is nothing new. SCNS software update and a new radio (depending on the radio you have currently, may just need the software). None of the RVSM stuff really and truly applies to Herks - we don't fly that high. RNP is the big thing - the tolerances aren't that tough right now - easily attainable with your standard Litton/Honeywell RLG - the question is certification... Believe me, I get it. DT&E is SUPPOSED to find problems - that's what it's there for. Even OT&E EXPECTS to find problems. Truthfully, I've never believed in adapting an airways software package to do tactical airlift. Too much trick-f**King the system. When you eliminate crewmembers, you've got to take a quantum leap forward in technology - neither the J, nor AMP really did that. I've seen cockpits (in simulator testing I did 10 years ago) that would've run rings around either from a tactical perspective. If you want to talk about short-sightedness, talk about it to the engineers at Boeing and Lockheed as well as USAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaprad Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 JSTARS are having the same issues over flying in Europe. Last I read in the base paper was they were updating the radios to become compliant. Just doesn't seem to me that we need all these pretty lights for a few things. Granted I think AMP looks good, but I just don't really see how it's very necessary. By the time all the planes are modded I'm betting they're going to be going to the bone yard just like the 141's and A-6's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkyTestTech Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 If you want to talk about short-sightedness, talk about it to the engineers at Boeing and Lockheed as well as USAF. Well said US Herk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Lockeed had nothing to do with this, other than making a couple of things harder for Boeing. The engineers at Boeing, not having C-130 experience, rely on the AF "experts" to help them. This process has been somewhat hindered by those who feel that if the product isn't perfect the first time out, then it should be scrapped. People just really can't comprehend how difficult the software development is, and just how good Boeing did from the start. It a shame when people who are so closely involved with the program can't see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkyTestTech Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Lockeed had nothing to do with this, other than making a couple of things harder for Boeing. Why should Lockeed help Boeing after Darleen Druyun gave the AMP contract to Boeing illegally. If I was Lockeed I would not help someone (ie. Boeing) with something they cheated me out of, or did you forget about that Pete? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/33b-rebid-for-c130-avionics-0451/ http://www.seattlepi.com/business/213499_gaoreport25.html Edited September 19, 2009 by HerkyTestTech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in WV Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Who said Lockheed should help Boeing? I only said they didn't have anything to do with the AMP, and that they wouldn't cooperate by selling Boeing certain items. Don't read too much into things, whoever you are. And Dave, I agree with you. I've had multiple failures of SCNS in my flying days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 In the early days, SCNS= Sorry Crap Nav System. RZ 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.