It was at the Air Force Association convention last year that I first asked Lockheed Martin the question: Will you study widening the C-130? I got a "no comment" back then. Finally, one week before the AFA convention this year, the secret is finally out. Lockheed has confirmed to me it is studying the viability of making a wider version of the 55-year-old C-130 available after 2015.
Read the full story here at FlightGlobal.com, or simply click on the link below.
Lockheed Martin confirms studies are under way for a new version of the C-130 featuring a wider fuselage to accommodate a proposed class of US Army ground vehicles entering service after 2015. The enlarged airlifter would compete against the Airbus Military A400M and Boeing's proposed C-17B to support the army's Future Combat System.
"There's clearly things we can do to the C-130 to increase the size of the fuselage if there's a market that wants that," says Jim Grant, Lockheed's business development director for global mobility and special operations forces.
© USAF |
"We have teams looking at what it would take to make a [longer] fuselage," Grant says, "and then we also have the design teams looking at the emerging technologies should the requirements drive us to the new airframe."
Current plans for the FCS consist of a family of networked vehicles and systems, including a key subset of manned ground vehicles that has already outgrown the C-130's cargo hold and payload weight limits. The current aircraft's cargo box has a diameter of 2.78m (9ft), versus 4m for the A400M and 5.48m for the C-17A.
The US Air Force plans to maintain a fleet of nearly 600 new or upgraded Hercules, and believes a mix of 221 modernised C-130Hs and 172 new-generation C-130Js will be sufficient to meet most of the army's intra-theatre airlift requirement, as only 15 of its 76 future brigade combat teams will receive FCS equipment.
But with the fleet to leave a capability gap for the proposed FCS manned ground vehicles after 2015, the USAF is discussing several options.
One is to partner the army to develop an all-new airlifter for delivery after 2021. A notional development programme called Joint Future Theatre Lift, emphasising either vertical or super-short take-off and access to austere airstrips, is in the planning stages.
Another option is to buy an off-the-shelf aircraft such as the A400M. Boeing has also proposed the C-17B, which is adapted for austere landings with higher-thrust engines, triple-slotted flaps and an extra main landing gear.
Meanwhile, Lockheed is considering a widened version of the C-130J. Grant says engineers are studying modifications for super-short take-off capability, but appears dubious that any existing turboprop-powered airlifter will be large enough to accommodate the FCS requirement.
"I don't know whether the A400M will be able to carry the [FCS manned ground] vehicles," Grant says. "I do not know whether the weight of those vehicles will climb right through the weight [limit] of the A400M or not. What I can say is that the A400M will continue to be very heavy for [C-130]J-type capability."
on September 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply
If you are going to do that, why not just go for a new aircraft, using two of the Europrop International TP400 engines the instead of the 4 engines on the C-130, as the redesign will be nearly as extensive as a new aircraft.
In the long run, two engines means a much cheaper aircraft to operate.
on September 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply
so if a 130 J is a "Jerc", is a fat Herc a Ferc ?
Or maybe a FARC
on September 8, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply
Does "Fred" mean "Freddura" by any chance ?
Freddura : italian word meaning "quip" ..... :-)
on September 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply
One reason for four engines rather than two is robustness. The Herc is known for its ability to keep flying with more holes in it than swiss cheese. There is a reason why over-the-ocean jet airliners are required to have more than two engines, it is for survivability in the case of an engine out. For combat transports survivability is just as big an issue, this isn't a jet fighter with ejection seats, if it goes down you have bad headlines about dozens of dead bodies shortly thereafter. So while two engines would make sense on a civilian transport that flew into the sort of rough strips that Hercs are known for flying into, I'm not so sure its "cost-effectiveness" would be true for the Herc's mission -- a downed two-engine plane is a lot more expensive than repairing a failed engine on a four-engine plane.
on September 9, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply
Odd, the last time I flew over the Pacific Ocean From the USA to Japan it was in a Boeing 777. if "over-the-ocean jet airliners are required to have more than two engines" I wonder where they stuffed the 3rd GE90 on that airframe
Also can't help but notice that the C-27 seems to have a 50% shortfall in engines as well, despite being intended as a front-line transport going into austere strips close to the action
on September 9, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply
It does not matter what they do to the Herc. It no longer meets the USAF primary customers requirements or capabilities. Sadly the USAF does not care what their primary customer thinks...
on September 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply
Badtux - the 'four engines means combat survivability' angle only gets you so far if you land in the badlands, as shown in this video of an RAF C-130J:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2008/09/video-how-to-destroy-your-down.html
on September 10, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply
So, LockMart is just revisiting the old proposed and studied C-130WBS (or Wide Body STOL) from the early 80s (before the HTTB High Technology Test Bed ).
Bringing the height of the fuselage from 9.1 feet to 11.3 feet and then widening from 10 feet to 11.7 feet.
They also proposed the same (back then T56-15) engines but with larger props, strengthened ramp, roll control spoilers, double slotted flaps in stead of the single piece barn doors we have now,
The artist drawings back in the day make the tail end look more like an AN-12 then a Herk.
on September 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply
C-130 Wide Body Stol .....
http://www.combatreform.com/c130widebody3.jpg