Jump to content

Air Force may upgrade engines on older C-130s


fltsload
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the Air Force Times: The performance of the Air Force’s new C-130J in intra-theater lift in places like Afghanistan is so remarkable that the service may replace the engines of its older-model Hercules aircraft to increase their fuel efficiency, the service’s second highest ranking uniformed leader said Wednesday.

“Throughout the single-command area of operations, we have prioritized the use of newer, more efficient C-130Js for intra-theater airlift over older, less efficient C-130 models,†said Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force vice chief, at the U.S. Army & U.S. Air Force Energy Forum in Arlington, Va.

“In fact, this difference is significant enough that we are considering commercially available engines for our older C-130 fleet that would cost less in maintenance and fuel consumption.â€

While re-engining older aircraft would be beneficial, the problem for the service’s accountants is that any savings from such an endeavor would mostly fall outside of the five-year budgetary cycle, Air Force undersecretary Erin Conaton said at the same conference. Conaton said she wants to make sure the Air Force not only is buying new, more efficient engines for older aircraft, but also invests in the next generation of engines.

“Those are the things I’m very conscious of trying to make sure we compete for resources as we go forward,†she said. “Because I think in times of budgetary restriction, many people look to cut the things that are of long-term benefit.â€

Speaking to reporters at the conference, Kevin Geiss, deputy assistant Air Force secretary for energy, said that next-generation engine programs such as the ADaptive Versatile ENgine Technology (ADVENT) could be as much as 30 percent more fuel efficient than the current generation F119 or F135 found on the F-22 and F-35, respectively.

ADVENT, Geiss said, is currently an Air Force Research Laboratory program moving into the technology development phase.

“The estimates that we have now is that it could cut fuel consumption by about 30 percent for that fighter aircraft type of engine,†he said.

The F-35 engine, Geiss said, uses much more fuel than the F-16’s or F-15’s engine, and as such the fuel savings would be significant. Geiss added the caveat that the Lightning II’s engine, which produces about 43,000 pounds of thrust, is much more powerful than those older engines.

Geiss said he couldn’t immediately offer a timeline on when the ADVENT engine would be operational, but said that a sixth-generation follow-on to the F-35 could use such a propulsion system.

For subsonic aircraft the service is working on the Versatile, Affordable, Advanced Turbine Engines and Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine programs, Geiss said. Much of the ADVENT technology would be applicable to those engines, he said. The service does have a schedule by which it intends to mature these new engine technologies but Geiss didn’t have those details on hand.

“Some of the things we still need to develop on the subsonic aircraft are the advanced materials to enable those technologies,†Geiss said. But “those three engine technologies I mentioned would be revolutionary, not evolutionary,†he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a mod for the T56 out there to upgrade the series 3 engines up to Series 3.5. For those who don't know what a series 3 is, it is made up of the -14, -15, and -425 engines. There is a series 4 engine is the -427 in the E-2D, which is where these modifications for the series 3 came from. The mod involves changing out the compressor and turbine blades and air inlet housing. Along with the upgrade, we get the single crystal 1st stage turbine blades, like the AE2100 on the C-130J. The upgrade should increase the life of the turbine, as well as give us a fuel consumption boost of about 8%-12%. This is something the Air Force has already been looking into.

You can read about here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/hoc/2010_HOC_Presentations/Tues_0930_Rolls-Royce-T56-A-15-Chris_Culp.pdf

and here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FUEL081409.xml&headline=Rolls-Royce%20Reveals%20T56%20Upgrade%20Plan&channel=defense

Couple that with the NP2000, and you may see something as efficient as the J-model, without the extra cost for R&D, refitting nacelles, and recertification requirements associated with a re-engine program this size. It would also allow us to take advantage of the large supply of parts we already have, and since the modifications are already being manufactured for the -427, there's not much re-tooling necessary. After being in service this long, many of the kinks are already worked out of the T56, so keeping it around for a while longer just makes sense. If they plan on doing AMP and slapping new wings on as necessary, then it might be a good idea to leap the engine design way ahead of what it is now though. If they are just considering buying the C-130J for AFSOC, AMC, PACAF, and USAFE, and relegating the C-130H to the Guard and Reserve units like they are talking about now, then the cheapest option might be best. Because of how Congress, and therefore the Air Force handles pet project funding, we may never see anything happen. We should see the NP2000 break even with fuel and maintenance gains within 5 years. Who knows about the series 3.5 mod, but it is claimed that the modification will save the Air Force $80 mil worth of fuel every year.

There is talk about some other interesting options, including adapting either the Rolls Royce AE2100S (Similar to C-130J) or a Pratt & Whitney PW-150 to the C-130H to give us about 20% better fuel consumption:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread400391/pg1

Those engines are so powerful though that I'd be worried about the wings unless they de-tuned the crap out of them, but still maintained efficiency, like the AE2100D3 on the C-130J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that perception include NP2000 and EPCS? I think those are pretty cost effective over the next 20 years. Might as well do it all in one shot with the AMP and call it the C-130M. Would fit in well with the C-5M program (AMP plus RERP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see implementing the NP2000 because it's already sortof in the pipeline. At least it's being evaluated, that's most of the battle. What's EPCS?

I like your thinking on the M-model. Unfortunately we all know that won't happen.

My point is that the Herk community shouldn't be like the C-141C, an upgrade in the last couple years of it's service life. It should be something that can be implemented sooner than later, not cost a fortune, but it would really make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EPCS is Electronic Propeller Control System, aka Electronic Valve Housing, which can be equipped to the 54H60 propeller. The NP2000 comes with EPCS by default, but you cannot install a standard hydro-mechanical valvehousing on the NP2000.

I'm all for the NP2000. The prop we got now is a problem child compared to what we are capable of. I'd have to say an unfair percentage of the maintenance we do is prop related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your thinking on the M-model. Unfortunately we all know that won't happen.

My point is that the Herk community shouldn't be like the C-141C, an upgrade in the last couple years of it's service life. It should be something that can be implemented sooner than later, not cost a fortune, but it would really make a difference.

With the C-5M project, they did a cost-benefit analysis that proved how much money would be saved. Unfortunately it's been ten years since then, so a lot of the benefits for the C-5As have evaporated (hence the decision to scrap all A-models rather than RERP). If some keen guys bucking for promotions were to do something similar I'm sure the case can be made, but a lot of people will make comparisons to the C-5M (unfairly).

I would be interested to see what the costs are for NP2000/EPCS and the 3.5 engine upgrades, as well as the payback period. I remember reading somewhere that the USAF alone consumes 10% of America's aviation fuel, which coupled with the reliance on foreign oil is a pretty dangerous situation.

Kinda wonder why the civvy operators aren't all over these upgrades. Lower duty cycles/longer payback periods? Waiting for the USAF to proceed to lower costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't hold your breath for reengining. How long have we heard talk about B-52 reengining? You may see some big time system improvements on SOF acft., for the most part, because they have the money. But on standard airlift acft., unless something bad happens, i.e.,wing falls off, ect. don't expect anything major. It all boils down to budget dollars and the AF has little credibility with Congress in this matter. Further, the SecDefs pledge to reduce DOD spending makes the likelyhood of getting anything new and better on the wing pretty remote in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that new engines would be too expensive, that's why I'm so excited about the 3.5 upgrade, along with NP2000/EPCS.

It all depends on the optics and how you spin it. This administration is big on fuel economy and being environmentally friendly, and if you can achieve 10% fuel reduction doing an overhaul at minimal additional cost...

I think that will be a big part of the NP2000/EPCS battle, and why they've been conducting all of these tests and for so long. It all depends on how you can justify it.

Rolls-Royce and LM have signed an agreement to push the 3.5 upgrade, see the June 2011 edition of PROVEN for details: http://www.herkybirds.com/showthread.php?2422-PROVEN-News-from-the-World-of-the-C-130&p=22849&viewfull=1#post22849

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Jensen, the 3.5/NP2000 upgrade holds great promise. However, I think it will be a long hard road to get from an MOA between two private sector companys to an approved AF modification directive. Especially in view of the impending fiscal downturn. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for anything that improves herk reliability/maintainability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the engines could be upgraded for a nominal fee while the airplane is at PDM or the engines are at WRAFB for maintenance I think that would be a great help. Especially if there is a very favorable reduction in fuel consumption. Problem is, how do you get the performance data etc. required to update the manuals and such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the engines could be upgraded for a nominal fee while the airplane is at PDM or the engines are at WRAFB for maintenance I think that would be a great help. Especially if there is a very favorable reduction in fuel consumption. Problem is, how do you get the performance data etc. required to update the manuals and such?

I imagine the data could be handled in the same fashion as was implemented when the 'E' models transitioned from -7 engines to -15 engines. For a while there was a mix among the fleets but it all worked out.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the engines could be upgraded for a nominal fee while the airplane is at PDM or the engines are at WRAFB for maintenance I think that would be a great help. Especially if there is a very favorable reduction in fuel consumption. Problem is, how do you get the performance data etc. required to update the manuals and such?

I imagine the data could be handled in the same fashion as was implemented when the 'E' models transitioned from -7 engines to -15 engines. For a while there was a mix among the fleets but it all worked out.

John

And the same way they did when they went from -10's on P-3A's to -14's... That's probably the least of the worries for the swap.

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...