Jump to content

USAF Axes C-130 AMP Upgrades


FEC130
 Share

Recommended Posts

USAF Axes C-130 AMP Upgrades

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

The U.S. Air Force has effectively canceled the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Phase II for the C-130 Hercules, allocating no money in the 2012 budget request nor in the Pentagon’s Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP).

The Boeing-led program was to have improved communications, navigation and air-traffic man¬agement systems on special-mission C-130s, in¬cluding EC-130s, LC-130s and most MC-130s.

Without the modifications, the planes will not meet stringent international and domestic air-traf¬fic control standards due to go into effect around 2020.

The service had previously reduced the number of planes to be modified from 166 to 102.

“In the FY12 [budget proposal], the Air Force did not fund Boeing’s [Communications, Naviga¬tion, and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management] solution (AMP Phase II) for the AF’s C/AC/EC/HC/LC/MC-130 Special Mission fleets,†the service said in a statement.

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Insti¬tute, Arlington, Va, called the move a precursor to a formal termination notice.

“They wanted to cancel it out in 2009; it was just too expensive,†Goure said.

But Congress must ratify the Air Force decision, and some sort of agreement could be reached for the legislative body to keep the money flowing, Goure said.

Goure said that Boeing is likely to fight the ter¬mination of the program, which comes after a string of other cancellations, the most prominent being the C-17 airlifter.

“I think they’ll put pressure on the administra¬tion,†he said.

Boeing had not responded to requests for com¬ment by press time.

The Air Force had opted to replace those air¬craft with new Lockheed Martin C-130Js, accord¬ing to Air Force budget documents.

But, Goure said, the program was expensive and required extensive rework of the aircraft’s cockpit, and it was not clear whether the Air Force depots could handle that much work.

The current long-term plan is to replace the HC-130 and MC-130 fleets with C-130J derivatives, but the Air Force has not yet decided what to do about upgrading its other older C-130s.

“The Air Force is investigating options for up¬grading the legacy aircraft that will not be recap¬italized prior to 2020, when the much stricter In¬ternational/[Federal Aviation Administration] air¬space mandates go into effect,†the service’s state¬ment said.

Goure said the Air Force would like to go with a less expensive upgrade plan. Ë

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few problems with this article:

1) I can't find it on the Defense News website, and multiple Google searches have only found it here.

2) The 2012 DOD Budget Proposal came out in February. Copies are available online. Why is this news now?

3) On page F-7B of the 2012 DOD Budget Proposal, there is a specific FY2012 request for $235,635,000 under the line item "C-130 AMP".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having the same problems Jansen...seems every year some new "news" pops up that we're cancelled again. I was initially thinking that since the funding is a year behind (we're using funds from FY 10 for FY 11), that the funding peeps were just making an adjustment somewhere. I think that when congress directs the DOD to proceed, that should have been the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks to me like someone put together a very convincing fake. Dave Majumdar does write for Defense News, and Dan Goure really is an analyst at the Lexington Institute. If I wasn't aware of the DOD budget I might've bought it. The USAF requested funding in February; that would've been the time to cancel it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys

I just called a friend of mine who works on the C-130 AMP program. He can let me know if it is fake.

Rg Glenn

Uh, AMPTestFE works on the program, and I'm pretty sure he would've heard about it. Unless your friend is a lot higher up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not that things make much sense in this world, but....

If the C-5 AMP program went through...even with a class A mishap directly related to the AMP design/training...

And the AF is bidding up an AMP mod to the KC-10...

Why in the world would you consider cancelling the one AMP program that so far, has gone better than the C-5??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this from one of the guys at Boeing. There are 13 Reserve sqdns (only 2 with J's) soon to be 23 ANG UE Sqdns (only 3 with J's). They all will be out of business after 2020 without AMP. AF will never buy enough replacement J's. AMP may be ridiculously over priced, my opinion, but without it goodby ARF.

From Boeing:

Below is an article that came out in the Defense News. The title is misleading as the C-130 AMP Phase I (221 C-130H2/2.5/3 aircraft) continues to march forward. Two (2) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft are at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) having AMP installed, one (1) Development Test & Evaluation (DT&E) AMP2 (H2.5) aircraft is at Little Rock AFB, AR preparing for Initial Operating Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) and its two (2) brothers AMP1 (H2) & AMP 3 (H3) aircraft are finishing up some TCTO & Software updates in California and then will join those two (2) DT&E aircraft at Little Rock to prepare for IOT&E. IOT&E commences in January 2012. Maintenance & Flight Crew Training continues at Little Rock. Furthermore, LRIP 3 & 4 aircraft will be inducted to WR-ALC in August & September 2011.

You have to read the whole article as it pertains to only Phase II of AMP – (102 H1/EC/LC/MC/AC-130 aircraft). The February 11 FY12 PB did fund Phase I of the program but left out the previously Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) 2 Phase II Program. Boeing has not received any official termination of the Phase II program – just not funded is all we have been told and have known for months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your statement regarding C-5 AMP interesting. So did you work C-5 AMP and are talking about the 3 April 2006 crash of 84-0059?

That is the crash I'm referring to, yes. No, I did not work that program at all.

I think maybe "directly" may be abit harsh. The accident board did find both those as causes though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this from one of the guys at Boeing. There are 13 Reserve sqdns (only 2 with J's) soon to be 23 ANG UE Sqdns (only 3 with J's). They all will be out of business after 2020 without AMP. AF will never buy enough replacement J's. AMP may be ridiculously over priced, my opinion, but without it goodby ARF.

From Boeing:

Below is an article that came out in the Defense News. The title is misleading as the C-130 AMP Phase I (221 C-130H2/2.5/3 aircraft) continues to march forward. Two (2) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft are at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) having AMP installed, one (1) Development Test & Evaluation (DT&E) AMP2 (H2.5) aircraft is at Little Rock AFB, AR preparing for Initial Operating Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) and its two (2) brothers AMP1 (H2) & AMP 3 (H3) aircraft are finishing up some TCTO & Software updates in California and then will join those two (2) DT&E aircraft at Little Rock to prepare for IOT&E. IOT&E commences in January 2012. Maintenance & Flight Crew Training continues at Little Rock. Furthermore, LRIP 3 & 4 aircraft will be inducted to WR-ALC in August & September 2011.

You have to read the whole article as it pertains to only Phase II of AMP – (102 H1/EC/LC/MC/AC-130 aircraft). The February 11 FY12 PB did fund Phase I of the program but left out the previously Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) 2 Phase II Program. Boeing has not received any official termination of the Phase II program – just not funded is all we have been told and have known for months.

Bob, that makes the most sense to me as well. Most everyone is not aware of the different phases of the program. We knew awhile back in '06 or '07 when AFSOC pulled out that phase 2 was on thin ice. Their puchasing the MC-130J just reinforces that thought. Too bad AFSOC was involved from the start...they drove many of the requirements that were responsible for the cost increases. We paid Boeing to design the AMP for all variants, and they did...most don't know this. They just attribute the cost to the slicks.

Overpriced? Who really knows. I do know that while 8 or 9 mil won't even buy many whole airplanes, it also isn't enough to just maintain a single large one over a few years. Just remember..even the mighty J isn't capable of flying a GPS approach here in the good 'ole USA. I can do that in a beat up old Cessna 172 with a current database. The J's block 7 upgrade is coming to fix issues like this, and they're using AMP components too. What do you think something that "small" costs per plane? Bottom line...you want to fly airplanes anywhere in the world, you better be ready to spend some money.

I had an interesting discussion this morning. An older FE was bashing the J (and AMP) on how they're hard broke if a computer goes down. My comeback was...isn't an H1 hard broke as well if you lose an oil pressure gage? His concern was our overreliance on a computer. My point was that we reley pretty damn heavily on a single analog gage too. (that's 70 years old in design) Ok, off the soap box...

AMP3 was supposed to stay at Edwards for awhile though...not sure how long. AMP1 is scheduled to arrive at The Rock on May 18th. It's getting its "ACF" preflight & engine runs today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the crash I'm referring to, yes. No, I did not work that program at all.

I think maybe "directly" may be abit harsh. The accident board did find both those as causes though.

I worked C-5 Avionics 34 years. I was involved with all the major C-5 Avionics mods, from the Air Force side, to include C-5 AMP from it's inception. In my personal view, C-5 AMP had no more problems than any of the other upgrades we incorporated over the years. Keeping in mind AMP tore out and replaced virtually all Avionic systems (Comm, Nav, RADAR, MADARS, Autoflight Controls) and added a number new. A/C 84-0059 was hitting short of the Base as I was driving into my office parking space. The AIB setup beside our office and we help provide them flight and archival data on 4059. There was actually an LMAS Avionics engineer on the flight deck that morning.

I was interested in your statement because, while I do have a "dog in the fight" so to speak I also have a copy of the AIB's Executive Summary of the incident and I can not find anywhere where the AMP mod is suspect or even criticized.

If the C-130 AMP is coming under the gun it's all about the money and the program's own performance. Maybe it hasn't gone as well as C-5 AMP afterall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this from one of the guys at Boeing. There are 13 Reserve sqdns (only 2 with J's) soon to be 23 ANG UE Sqdns (only 3 with J's). They all will be out of business after 2020 without AMP. AF will never buy enough replacement J's. AMP may be ridiculously over priced, my opinion, but without it goodby ARF.

Even if they wanted to buy more, the production line at Plant 6 is gettting really busy. It looks like the plan is to replace all of the HC and MC aircraft with J models; at 36 aircraft per year, that will tie up the line for years. Production is already slated to get maxed out through 2014, with 20-25 per year through 2018. I expect most of those spare slots will get taken up by foreign orders.

I find it interesting that this "article" keeps getting emailed around, but nobody has been able to find the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the crash I'm referring to, yes. No, I did not work that program at all.

I think maybe "directly" may be abit harsh. The accident board did find both those as causes though.

I am very interested in the RERP, and look forward to seeing the reliability numbers once the C-5M Super Galaxy really hits its stride. Been hearing good things about the first five; the new engines are apparently working out well. Too bad we can't do the same thing with the Herks, not cost effective to stick on new Allison engines and the eight-blade props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember..even the mighty J isn't capable of flying a GPS approach here in the good 'ole USA. I can do that in a beat up old Cessna 172 with a current database. The J's block 7 upgrade is coming to fix issues like this, and they're using AMP components too. What do you think something that "small" costs per plane? Bottom line...you want to fly airplanes anywhere in the world, you better be ready to spend some money.

Lots of good stuff coming in Block 7.0, including Link16 capability. The USMC was pursuing their own Block 6.5, but I don't know what happened with that. I heard that Block 8.0 is now in definition, and there has been talk of moving to the eight-bladed props to reduce vibration.

An older FE was bashing the J (and AMP) on how they're hard broke if a computer goes down. My comeback was...isn't an H1 hard broke as well if you lose an oil pressure gage? His concern was our overreliance on a computer. My point was that we reley pretty damn heavily on a single analog gage too. (that's 70 years old in design)

All of these devices are just tools, but we still need human minds to think things through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked C-5 Avionics 34 years. I was involved with all the major C-5 Avionics mods, from the Air Force side, to include C-5 AMP from it's inception. In my personal view, C-5 AMP had no more problems than any of the other upgrades we incorporated over the years. Keeping in mind AMP tore out and replaced virtually all Avionic systems (Comm, Nav, RADAR, MADARS, Autoflight Controls) and added a number new. A/C 84-0059 was hitting short of the Base as I was driving into my office parking space. The AIB setup beside our office and we help provide them flight and archival data on 4059. There was actually an LMAS Avionics engineer on the flight deck that morning.

I was interested in your statement because, while I do have a "dog in the fight" so to speak I also have a copy of the AIB's Executive Summary of the incident and I can not find anywhere where the AMP mod is suspect or even criticized.

If the C-130 AMP is coming under the gun it's all about the money and the program's own performance. Maybe it hasn't gone as well as C-5 AMP afterall?

It was my understanding that the switch from tape to round gages was found to be a player. How much, I don't know.

Taken from someone who was first-hand involved with the C-5AMP (at a fairly high gov't level), the C-130AMP was at least a couple years ahead of where the C-5AMP was at the same timeline. I think the high-ups are just very sensitive since the C-5 program issues. I wonder...if Nunn/McCurdy was in force back around the B-1 timeframe, how many programs would have gotten the same attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad we can't do the same thing with the Herks, not cost effective to stick on new Allison engines and the eight-blade props.
No, but we could put the 8-bladed props and electronic valve housings on them....

It was my understanding that the switch from tape to round gages was found to be a player. How much, I don't know.

Without revealing privileged safety information and flying a plane with tapes and having taught at the schoolhouse and watched guys transition from round dials to tapes, it absolutely IS a factor. It takes a couple hundred hours to get comfortable with new displays like these....

With the tapes and digital readouts, you have to read the number, make it mean something in your head, remember the last number, figure out what the trend is, apply a correction and begin the loop again. With the analog round dials, you look at the pointer and intuitively know if you're faster or slower than you were (airspeed specific example, but applies across the board)... I try to get guys to use our speed bugs so they can go back to intuitively interpreting their speed vs reading numbers on a display.

I also flew digital engine stacks with the RAF - they left quite a bit to be desired (especially the torque gauges with their very slow sampling rate - not responsive enough) and much prefer analog round dials.

After 15+ years flying digital and probably 3500+ hours in them, I still prefer round dials...it's just more intuitive. I could care less about reliability - there are plusses & minuses for each (computers and round dials)...give me easy to read, easy to fly and it frees up more of my tiny brain to think through situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too keep hearing the cancelation rumors about the C-130 AMP program, and most of them are coming from Nav's... It is going to happen, eventually there will just be the C-130X and the C-130J flying in the US inventory. And eventually you will see those 8 bladed props and upgraded valve housings on them too. I was told with the AMP + the Eight Bladed Props it will become the C-130Y and will be the last design of the C-130.

All the Nay sayers started the cancelation rumors about the J too... Get used to it. If you are a Nav, cross train, command, or count your blessing you are still flying... AMP is going to happened. I will miss the full crew compliment, and I believe they should have left everyone on the airframe, to include the J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I heard when a unit is down for AMP upgrade, it will take almost a year for them to be up and ready again. Training per crew member is suppose to take 180 days at Little Rock, and then up to 180 days Mission Qual at the home unit, before the crew member is considered "Mission Ready".... New Dash One plus others... Alot of training. One unit at a time will be taken down to perform Mod and aircrew training... Rumors I heard...

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...