A Solution for Aging Tankers
IN THE LAST ISSUE OF SOTECH, WE DESCRIBED THE KC-X PROGRAM AND ASKED WHEN AND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE TANKER ISSUES FOR AFSOC. WELL, HERE IS THE FIRST STEP.
The Air Force has recently issued a sources sought to identify potential sources that may possess the expertise, capabilities and experience to produce 115 medium size transport aircraft to replace the current HC- 130P/N and MC-130P combat rescue tankers operated by Air Combat Command (ACC) and MC-130P/E tankers operated by AFSOC.
Current platforms provide the capability to conduct in-flight and ground refueling of vertical lift assets. They also have the capability to provide overt/covert airland or airdrop delivery of pararescuemen and their equipment. In addition, the platforms can perform the airborne mission commander mission for combat search and rescue.
Although older on an average basis than the overall Air Force aircraft fleet, aging aircraft issues impact AFSOC reliability and maintainability in the same manner as any other aircraft. “For the past five years AFSOC’s fleet has been stressed by a wartime tempo,” said John Townsend, chief, SOF Mobility Branch, HQ AFSOC Plans, Programs, Requirements and Assessments. “Reliability issues are an increasing concern, and the overall maintainability of the fleet is reflected in increased depot maintenance, an increased number of required inspections, and unscheduled depot repairs. In spite of these problems, the AFSOC fleet remains fully capable of meeting its tasking today. In part, it is our concern about the future unknowns that is driving a desire to recapitalize.”
Headquarters AFSOC is working with Air Combat Command and USSOCOM to define the operational capabilities required for the next generation SOF and combat search and rescue tanker aircraft. “HQ ACC has taken lead for developing the Capabilities Development Document and is doing an outstanding job of incorporating AFSOC’s requirements, said Townsend. “So far this has been a total team effort and is showing great return on reducing the time for requirements definition. It is AFSOC’s expectation this team effort will continue all the way through selection and fielding of final solution.”
Deliveries of the first six aircraft are expected by the end of 2011 AFSOC is scheduled to receive four of those first six. Subsequent deliveries are to take place at the overall rate of at least eight per year.
Between now and the arrival a complete transition plan is to be developed. That plan will address the flow of aircraft and any retirement plan for the aircraft that will eventually be replaced. “At this time it is too early to say whether we will retire more iron before the replacement aircraft has achieved its initial operational capability, said Townsend. “We expect the current fleet will continue to experience an increased inspection schedule as well as modernization challenges. Maintaining these aging aircraft will be challenging but we will meet those challenges head on. At this time, we anticipate being able to meet schedule is mission requirements.”
USSOCOM has validated the need for a replacement schedule of one-for-one and is expected to continuously assess the operational requirements and the replacement schedule is an area under review.
When asked if a C-130-sized aircraft is adequate for current and future mission profiles, Townsend explained that, “To support the SOF tanker mission the current MC-130 aircraft size is adequate. Smaller or larger aircraft offer different capabilities especially in the cargo options for insertion, extraction, and resupply mission sets. They bring with them different pro’s and con’s. The capabilities will need to be assessed in regards to all user needs and expectations. At this time, there is no indication of a need for the SOF tanker solution to be dramatically different than what we have today.”
A key point to be made is to not confuse the recapitalization effort with longer range plans like the M-X which AFSOC continues to have a requirement—and which is not necessarily envisioned as a tanker-capable aircraft. The two programs are definitely complementary. “AFSOC will continue to push for the research and development of the enabling technologies necessary to field a system capable of performing the missions expected of the M-X,” said Townsend.
THE C-130J
When considering the HC-/MC-130 fleet, one interested company is the plane’s manufacturer Lockheed Martin. “The ACC HC-130 CSAR and AFSOC MC-130E fleets are well over 40 years old and flying at several times their planned rates due to the high GWOT operational tempo, said Peter Simmons with Lockheed Martin air mobility communications. “Many of the candidates for recapitalization are very high time airframes. This is why the Air Force is seeking approval to recapitalize the HC/MC fleets thru the JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System] process.”
“The C-130J is in production now,” said Simmons, “and is a very low risk solution to produce an HC/MC-130J based on an in-production airframe. System commonality with existing USAF/USMC/USCG C-130J fleets as well as leveraging existing infrastructure and enhancing joint operations and interoperability are all significant advantages. The C-130J’s new engines are 29 percent more powerful than legacy C-130s and perform extremely well in high altitude/hot temperature environments where the GWOT is frequently prosecuted.”
According to Simmons, “Our [Lockheed’s] analysis shows that zero timing and replacing engines on the 40+ year old aircraft would cost almost as much as purchasing the new C-130J and would still not match the leap in technology provided by the C-130J. The life cycle cost for a C-130J is significantly lower than any zero time option for older airframes."
The USMC KC-130J tanker is operational now and has been deployed for two years in support of OIF and OEF. In these environments, the C-130Js have consistently achieved mission capable rate in the 90th percentile. The current C-130J order book will carry the production line through 2009.
Although final customer configurations have yet to be determined, the Air Force combat C-130J delivery fleet commonality to the C-130E/H for the entire airframe is about 60 percent.
Expandable architecture is critical to weapon systems that have very long life cycles like aircraft. “Our proposed avionics block upgrades are virtually unlimited in the technology they can provide for the warfighter,” said Simmons. “The advantage of having an all digital avionics system—compared to the legacy C-130 analog system— is that it can be easily refreshed and upgraded.”
OTHER OPTIONS
Boeing’s involvement in C-130 modernization centers around its Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). The program was initiated to standardize multiple C-130 configurations in the U.S. Air Force fleet, including highly specialized versions in service with AFSOC, which was driving higher and higher training and maintenance support costs.
“Our view is that recap is unnecessary,” said Mike Harris Boeing vice president and C-130 program manager. “Once you replace the avionics and fix the center wing box issue—which we can—then you have 30 more years at a fraction of the cost of a new aircraft.”
C-130 AMP consolidates 14 mission design series into one common core avionics suite with five mission families: one for combat delivery, which constitutes the majority of the C-130 fleet, and four for the unique special operations mission requirements. The Boeing solution goes beyond CNS/ATM, providing the warfighter with improvements in enhanced situational awareness, a fully integrated defensive system suite, enhanced safety, upgraded power and cooling system and integrated diagnostics including legacy systems.
The company has been able to realize a significant saving, in the magnitude of 40 percent in the second aircraft over the first and are expecting more saving in the third over the second.
Beside obsolescence issues, the center wing box is another area of critical concern. “We are currently in the midst of testing our center wing box solution to determine how many life times past 1 our solution is good for, said Harris. “We think it is 2-3 times, so that could be 30 years or more.” According to Harris, Boeing has come up with a way of extending the life of center wing box if the corrosion is not too bad, without taking the wing off of the aircraft. This would save money and aircraft downtime.
There is currently one AMP aircraft in testing with another one expected online in March 2007.
“In another C-130-related program, the USAF and SOF community have asked us to do terrain following and terrain avoidance development and we have been doing that for about two years now,” said Harris. “We are about ready to finish up that project with some very interesting results and this will be embedded in the C-130 upgrade.” ♦