Can the Air Force Make the Facts Fit Its C-130J Story?

What's up with this patch?

The fight to save the Air Force’s problem-plagued C-130J cargo aircraft program has heated up in Congress – and that can only mean one thing: The truth will depend on whom you believe.

The C-130J has taken a beating ever since the Department of Defense Inspector General last summer harshly criticized the Air Force for using a bad business strategy to acquire the aircraft, and for accepting 50 of the C-130J models even though they all had serious deficiencies when they were delivered. The aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and the Air Force say that the problems have since been fixed, but the Pentagon’s independent tester said in a report released last month that the aircraft still has deficiencies and has yet to be thoroughly tested.

Now the full press is on in Congress to continue buying the $66.5 million per copy aircraft. Leading the charge has been Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss – the aircraft is manufactured primarily in Marietta, Georgia – who says that he has been told by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Pentagon is rethinking the program termination.

The excuses to keep the C-130J assembly line open are coming out of the woodwork. Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner cautioned at a budget hearing yesterday that it may cost up to $1 billion to slice $5 billion from the budget in 2007 and beyond. And, the Air Force, who didn’t even want the planes when they were first approved by Congress (see the section "Summary of Air Force Reasons for Rejecting the Unsolicited C-130 Modernization Proposal") in the mid-1990s, suddenly has decided that it has problems with some of its older C-130 models and may need to retire them.

There is yet another sign that the fight over the C-130J has become high stakes. This week, POGO obtained a Lockheed email instructing employees to cease responding to what it called a “recent flurry” of information requests from the C-130J program office. The email suggests that the aircraft is under heavy scrutiny and that Lockheed will only provide information that is contractually required.

MORE: InsideDefense has an article where the Pentagon's acquisition chief Michael Wynne explained why C-130J cuts were proposed in the first place. 

...studies indicate that the Defense Department may not need to rely as heavily on cargo aircraft like the C-130J to haul military equipment around the world.

Comments

As a C-130 Flight Engineer, I would like to explain the patch. It is actually a humerous patch for those of us in the community. The C-130J model does not have a Flight Engineer or a Navigator as part of the crew as on every other model of the C-130. This is an attempt to reduce costs by reducing the number of crew memebers.

The patch is just the Flight Engineer community's "opinion" and how we feel about this idea. Anyone who has flown the Herk in the past knows that in the tactical environment in which we fly, the need for a Flight Engineer is great. So much so that on current J model tactical missions, a 3rd pilot is added to the crew to assist due to task saturation. We Flight Engineer find this humerous because as a cost saving measure, we always thought enlisted pay was much less than 3rd pilot (officer) pay was...hehehe (sarcasm).

[Curt]

The C-130J does not carry a flight engineer or navigator.

[George H]

The "J" was an invention of LM to continue the production line at Marietta. It has two extraordinary features. "Commercial" avionics and "quiet" props. Georgia congressional delegations have added them to the Air Force’s budget each year, even though the AF did not request funds.

The airborne electronics suite was developed specifically to compete in the C-130 cockpit upgrade (another sick story). The problem is that "commercial" means that to sustain the aircraft over time, the AF is saddled with support of a software capability at Marietta, and having to use Lockheed for all future fixes and upgrades. Although there was plenty of expertise in LM to design a cost effective avionics package, by making it "off the shelf" and “commercial”, and thus LM proprietary was a big hook! I wonder how many car dealers would give away cars if the customer promised only to get their maintenance in the dealer's shop? There is a long torturous history of this issue. Many jobs and many dollars are involved over time.

The propellers used for the "J" are specially designed to reduce the droning noise typical of the C-130. If you have been around them you can distinguish the sound immediately. Unfortunately that sound can be used to track aircraft and tell which one is where. So the new design is supposed to be sound "stealthy" and make the aircraft more survivable and fuel efficient. BUT it turns out that the props are absolutely like a beacon to radar! Thus the "J" crews are sitting ducks for anti-aircraft systems of the most unsophisticated countries around!

Interesting that Saxby Chambliss is supporting the “J” since his former Congressional District houses the alternative support base Robins AFB. That means every “J” that comes off the line is one that will probably never be controlled by the Air Force group that cares for the C-130 fleet down at Robins. Also Chambliss was on the House-Senate Conference Committee which meets in secret to hash out differences between bills. Magically the budget then sprouted “J”s. Seems to me that Chambliss must be hoping his constituents don’t understand or he will find himself between one part of Georgia against another, Marietta vs. Robins area.

I wonder why a crewmember would not be proud of this turkey aircraft.

[Guy]

Maybe that's what some C-130J Flight Engineers really think of the plane?

[K Street]

I don't get it... Why would a C-130J engineer have a patch of Calvin urinating on the C-130J? Don't Chevy owners have the decals of Calvin squirting on a Ford logo, and vice versa? You'd never see a Chevy owner with the Chevy decal, unless of course he hates his car...