|
|
BG Archive
— Airlifter Comparisons — Lockheed Martin C-130J |
|
Update: The actual ACP-T contract was signed on 20 Dec 2007 with Lockheed Martin for 17 new stretch C-130J-30s to arrive in 2010-’12.
|
|
Media reports suggest that the Airlift Capability Project -Tactical Hercules replacement is a done-deal.
EADS was informed that its A400M has been disqualified [1]
leaving the Lockheed Martin as winner with its modernized C-130J Hercules. Opposition defence
critics weighed in. Liberal critic Ujjal Dosanjh denounced “a fake competition ... you might not get
at the right product” – a surreal conclusion since the previous Liberal government had made the
same choice in November 2005. The real question was: what did the Harper government gain in cancelling
that Liberal purchase? [2] The answer appears to be one extra airframe but another year gone.
|
|
|
C-130J critics have one good point – that the ‘contest’ was written around the ’Js –
while forgetting the obvious – that there is no realistic alternatives considering the time
constraints. C-130Js are good aircraft that must exceed the reputation of a great aircraft (the
original Hercules are a tough act to follow). J’s must be judged on their own merits (and their
own price tags). [3]
|
|
|
Lockheed Martin C-130J
‘Super Hercules’ — Specifications
| Powerplant: |
4 x 4,591shp R-R AE2100-D3 turboprops |
| Cargo hold: |
volume (C-130J-30) 170.52 cubic metres |
| Hold dimensions: |
12.19m (+3.25m)[4] L x 3.12m W x 2.74m H |
| Hold (C-130J-30): |
16.76m (+3.25m)[4] L x 3.12m W x 2.74m H |
| Carrying capacity: |
max payload (C-130J-30 at 2.5g) 21.7t |
| Maximum range: |
4408 km (-30 unrefuelled with 18t payload) |
Speed range: |
max cruise 657 km/h, econ cruise 628 km/h
|
|
|
|
Super Herc for Airlift Capability Project-Tactical?
The C-130J itself needs little introduction. The idea of a Herc to replace CF Hercs has done the
rounds. One lingering myth is the suggestion that ‘stretch’ C-130J-30s are faster or have a
greater range than a ‘short’ C-130J. Since the ‘stretch’ weighs 1.5-t more empty, this is
obviously nonsense. The C-130J-30s can carry a larger volume of cargo or greater cargo
weight over a shorter distance. Both short and long ’J-models have more engine power, giving them the edge
over earlier models. The C-130J-30 is best able to put that extra power to use [4] making it a more practical
airlifter than earlier -30s.
|
|
|
[1] The Solicitation of Interest and Qualification required a certified aircraft available for test flying. The
first A400M will not fly until 2008.
[2] The 22 Nov 2005 plan was for 16+ new aircraft for $4-to-5B (including 20-year support contract). The
Conservative opposition attacked this plan as being skewed in favour of the C-130J. The plan was scrapped and a
Airlift Capability Project-Tactical Letter of Interest Notice was issued. Now $4.9B will
be spent on 17 C-130Js (+ 20-year support contract) with delivery starting in 2010. So, again, what was gained?
Before praising the Liberals, we should note their lack of interest in two C-130J lease offers
as well as the dramatic change in LM’s prices.
[3] The numbers have shifted dramatically for ACP-T. The 17 aircraft will cost $1.7B but the value of the 20-year
maintenance contract has yet to be announced. Originally, $3.2B was for aircraft with another $1.7B for In-Service
Support. The new unit cost matches independant estimates of US$100M per C-130J-30 or US$65M per C-130J (the
USAF quotes US$48.5M each in FY1998 dollars (or $61.38M for FY2007).
[4] Short Hercs can rotate more agressively on take-off than the longer -30 models without fear of
tail-scrapes ( also see: Stretch C-130Js).
[5] CC-130H (329) was lost at CFB Edmonton in Nov ’82 (LAPES hung up on ramp). CC-130E (321) crashed at
CFB Wainwright in July ’93.
[6] The AE2100D3 engines generate 29% more thrust (compared with an ’Hs 4591shp T56-A-15s) while increasing fuel
efficiency by 15%.
|
|
Critiques of the C-130J capabilities have muddied the issues in Canada. The ACP-T process might have
delayed procurement slightly but there have been red herrings too. The C-130J Low
Altitude Parachute Extraction System not meeting US specs is one example.
The CF hasn’t performed LAPES for more than a decade. [5] The C-130J has had is share of
‘bugs’ (not to mention cost over-runs) but these have been largely ignored in Canada.
The ‘glass’ cockpit of the C-130J has suffered from serious teething problems. The CF is drawn to its
reduced crew size – but this comes at the cost of thousands of lines of proprietary code
(no DIY fixes there). The ’Js engines are much more powerful but turning this into motive force proved
tricky [6], the 6-bladed props causing problems (although being over-powered actually helped the stretched
’J-30s). Hopefully, that drawn- out ’J-model maturation process is complete. Most Canadians will
be relieved that an order has finally been placed even if background politics turn out to be
murkier than anticipated.