Air Force Vice: Time has come to shift investments from the old to the new

Defense Daily ^ | 06/15/2006 | Michael Sirak

[LM_Guy]

In order to fight the enduring war on terror and operate a more capable and affordable fleet, it is imperative that the Air Force be able to shift its investment strategy from supporting older, more problematic aircraft to procuring newer platforms, the service's number two uniformed officer said yesterday.

"We cannot afford to keep all of the legacy aircraft," Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Corley, told a Capitol Hill audience on June 14. He spoke at a Defense Strategy and Transformation Seminar Series breakfast that the Air Force Strategic Planning Directorate and DFI International sponsored.

Corley said there is a "desperate need" to phase out older bomber, transport and aerial refueling aircraft that have surpassed or are steadily approaching the end of the useful service lives. These aircraft are "increasingly fragile," and it isn't worth it to continue to invest in them to keep them flying, the general said.

Some of them are "horrifically old" with many thousands of flying hours already, he added, pointing to platforms of concern like C-130E transport planes and KC-135E tankers. Indeed, organizations outside of the Department of Defense would not be operating these same aircraft due to their age and condition, he noted.

For example, as of today, 29 C-130Es are grounded due to issues like the deterioration of center wing boxes, Corley said. Another four E-model aircraft will join them by the end of this year, he said. Fixing these C-130Es would cost millions, he noted.

Similarly, the Air Force has grounded 43 of its more than 100 KC-135Es because the service deems them too risky for pilots to fly, Corley said. Repairing them would cost $45 million a copy, he said.

In both cases, the nation would be better served if the Air Force could retire them....

[LM_Guy]

Our Military Aircraft are getting really old & are wearing out !!!

[GreyFriar]

Ancient aircraft ping

[miele man]

This article may be read only with a subscription to Defense Daily.

[scooter2]

Then there is the venerable old B-52 which, like the Eveready bunny, just keeps going and going and.........

[mad_as_he$$]

They are after the BUFF too. Fighter jocks are determined to kill it. This was predicted by author Dale Brown in his books about the Megafortress 12 years ago.Killing the BUFF with no real replacement for heavy iron delivery is a mistake.

[Londo Molari]

Problem is that replacing old C-130's will probably mean a new high-tech version with tons and tons of state of the art computer technology, etc. I don't understand why the AF requires so much out of a flying truck. The C-17 is a great example. It is a great aircraft, but it costs a huge amount of money. Why?

[Rokke]

"Fighter jocks are determined to kill it."

An instant "I have no crediblity in this topic" warning flag.

[PUGACHEV]

I don't know anything about aircraft maintenance, but I did walk around a B52 that had it's bomb bay doors open at an airshow. The thing is so huge, and there's so much room for all of the parts and machinery. It's not like the cramped elctronic mess that's under the hood of my car; in fact, it reminded me of an old car from the '50s, easy to reach into, easy to spot what's broken, and easy repair. That was my impression, anyway; maybe someone else here knows better..

[Paleo Conservative]

Problem is that replacing old C-130's will probably mean a new high-tech version with tons and tons of state of the art computer technology, etc. I don't understand why the AF requires so much out of a flying truck. The C-17 is a great example. It is a great aircraft, but it costs a huge amount of money. Why?

Boeing is developing a cockpit upgrades for the existing C-130 fleet.

The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (C-130X AMP) will modify approximately 525 aircraft to establish a common, supportable, cost effective baseline configuration for AMC, ACC, ANG, AFRC, PACAF, USAFE and AFSOC C-130 aircraft. The contractor will design, develop, integrate, test, fabricate and install a new avionics suite for approximately thirteen variants of C-130 Combat Delivery and Special Mission models. The installation schedule requires a throughput of between 65 and 85 aircraft per year through 2010. The acquisition strategy is currently in development. The C-130 AMP is being worked jointly by Warner-Robins ALC (GA) and Aero Systems Center (OH) (virtual SPO) with the Development System Manager located at ASC.

Here's another description.

The purpose of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) is to lower the cost of ownership of the U.S. military's C-130 fleet, while complying with the Air Force Navigation and Safety (Nav/Safety) Master Plan, Required Navigation Performance requirements, and other applicable Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) requirements. This will be done through a cockpit modernization program that replaces aging, unreliable equipment and adds equipment necessary to meet Nav/Safety and GATM requirements. New equipment is intended to lower the cost of ownership by reducing cockpit crew manning, increasing aircraft reliability, maintainability, and sustainability as well as the number of different aircraft configurations. The C-130 AMP should also provide an improved precision airdrop capability for the combat delivery fleet, meet Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) requirements, and improve the C-130's precision approach and landing capability. This program also provides the interfaces necessary to integrate real time information in the cockpit. A standard cockpit layout is planned allowing crewmembers to be trained to fly in one aircraft type and required to undergo mission qualification only when reaching their new units—unlike the current situation.

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail. Aerospace Ping List

[scooter2]

You don't know what cramped is until you've been in the cockpit of a B-52. For such a huge airplane, the flight deck is really squeezy with all of the instrumentation, avionics and 3-4 crew. That and the fact that the original airframe was intended to be a tandem cockpit instead of the side-by-side configurtion.

[El Gato]

It's not like the cramped elctronic mess that's under the hood of my car; in fact, it reminded me of an old car from the '50s, easy to reach into, easy to spot what's broken, and easy repair. That was my impression, anyway; maybe someone else here knows better..

A lot of that is because the electronics and other systems have been replaced several times since the basic design of the aircraft. When the a/c was designed in the early 50s all that stuff was much bigger and much less capable.

As an example when I was stationed at the depot in the mid 70s, we were looking at replacing the Doppler navigation system. A control head in the cockpit, the antenna assembly and a "black box" about the size and shape of a pony keg were replaced with a smaller control head, and a box smaller than the antenna assembly mounted in the same location. The "pony keg" which IIRC was in the forward wheel well, was eliminated entirely along with some cabling. I'm sure the whole thing has been replaced at least once since then.

Apply that sort of volume reduction, while increasing the capabilities, over the ensuing 30 years and you get a pretty bare looking aircraft.

[bnacat]

The typical B-52G/H had a dry gross weight around 188,000 lbs. It had a fuel capacity around 300,000 lbs for a max gross of 488,000 lbs (no weapons). The standard J-57 turbojet KC-135 has a max gross weight around 298,000. The Buff could carry more weight in fuel than a the total gross weight of a fully loaded tanker.

[Moose4]

Wow. They've taken that Herc and made the panel look like a Canadair RJ. :)

It'll be interesting to see how Airbus's C-130 replacement, the A400, compares.

}:-)4

[MarkL]

Our Military Aircraft are getting really old & are wearing out !!!

I've read that there are some planes in the arsenal that are older than the crew members flying them, especially the B52 bombers.

Mark

[MarkL]

I don't know anything about aircraft maintenance, but I did walk around a B52 that had it's bomb bay doors open at an airshow. The thing is so huge, and there's so much room for all of the parts and machinery. It's not like the cramped elctronic mess that's under the hood of my car; in fact, it reminded me of an old car from the '50s, easy to reach into, easy to spot what's broken, and easy repair. That was my impression, anyway; maybe someone else here knows better..

The "funny" thing is that considering how big the plane is, and how spacious the bomb bay, when you check out the crew compartment, it's pretty cramped. Nowhere near as cramped as a fighter, but it's not all that roomy.

Mark

[GarySpFc]

"Fighter jocks are determined to kill it."
An instant "I have no crediblity in this topic" warning flag.

But then your fighter never needed refueling. :)

[Yo-Yo]

Killing the BUFF with no real replacement for heavy iron delivery is a mistake.

We have 93 B-1Bs that have a larger payload than the BUFF. In the world of JDAMS how much heavy iron do you really need?

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. And the B-52 is indeed an ancient aircraft.

[mad_as_he$$]

Over half of the B1-B's were in mothballs the last time I checked. The BUFF has a wider range of weapons that it can carry and more versatility in the bomb bay. The Bone is a great aircraft but they also suffer due to not being mission capable on some systems. The Spirits are not kept fully stealth ready also due to cost and they do not have the range of weapons that BUFFs do. When faced with a large contingent of ground troops or buildings in mass the BUFF is and should be the answer.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

But to the liberals who want performing arts centers or fund un-needed social programs, this is the last thing in their mind that they would care about.