Air Tanker 118. This was the first former U.S. Coast Guard HC-130H to be delivered to McClellan Airport, June, 2015. It still needed painting, and to have a conventional retardant tank installed. The Air Force and Coast Guard text and logos have been removed. USFS photo, date and location unknown, but it was not taken at McClellan.The conversion of the seven HC-130H aircraft into air tankers destined for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is racing along like a herd of turtles. Congress appropriated $130 million in December, 2013 and directed the U.S. Air Force to perform the needed maintenance on the aircraft and to arrange for all of the conversion work, including installation of the retardant tanks.
As we have written several times on Fire Aviation over the last few years, the seven Coast Guard aircraft were initially to be transferred to the U.S. Forest Service after being converted to air tankers, but after a few years the Forest Service lost interest, saying they did not need or want them. Another act of Congress in 2018 transferred them to CAL FIRE, to take effect after being fully converted by the Air Force. The bill also increased the appropriation for the work from $130 million to $150 million. A couple of them have been painted and parked at Sacramento McClellan Airport, but are still owned by the Coast Guard. CAL FIRE has been using the aircraft, which do not have retardant tanks, to train flight crews.
T-119, an HC-130H, was seen at McClellan May 5, 2020. It did not have a retardant tank. Photo by John Vogel.The Air Force is supposed to have been performing depot level maintenance on all seven aircraft, which includes on some of them the major project of replacing the center wing boxes. Military equipment that is not needed on an air tanker will be removed by the Air Force and they also need retardant tanks. The Air Force began the contracting process to install conventional gravity-powered internal tanks in 2014, awarded a contract to Coulson Aviation in 2016, then cancelled it in 2017. It was readvertised March 9, 2019 and awarded again to Coulson (working with Lockheed Martin) in December, 2019.
Coulson has fully converted several military C-130’s into air tankers and has completed the entire project for one aircraft, including depot level maintenance and tank installation, in around six months.
It is expected that the earliest the HC-130H’s will be fully operational for CAL FIRE as air tankers will be in late 2022 or in 2023.
The Air Force conversion looks like it will take a total of nine or ten years for the first of seven to be complete. This is totally unacceptable. It is my opinion that the House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Armed Services should hold oversight hearings and ask Air Force personnel what they are going to do to put the program back on track.
The Department of Defense and the Biden administration need to fix this embarrassment of incompetence.
24 Comments
Why has the Air Force been stalling on these badly needed conversions? That said ,there are dozens of surplus C-130s at the “boneyard ” at DAVIS MONTHAN AIR BASE in Tucson, which could be put to good use .The USAF will never use these again !! Incompetence ???
Who cares, MAFFS blow anyway. Put money into existing DC-10’s or, better yet, have Congress pressure the FS to offer 10yr contracts so that vendors can better plan capitol expenditures and outfit better planes. A 757 would make an outstanding AT.
757 as a tanker? It’s only a matter of money! Same reason there is only 1 747 tanker. But hey! Whose money are you spending?
Why did the 757 stop flying? Uh huh. Dat’s right. More fuel efficent planes being offered by the manufacturers. Ya the you could just put on the latest PW or RR engines on. Oh sure, ya got that times four in your piggy bank! And then there’s the FAA waiting on the engineering specs for the new power plants. Just take that out of petty cash.
How much does a used 757-200 or a 757-300 cost? (Come on down to our showroom now. We ‘re making deals TODAY!) Well that depends. How much ya got? 10-20-30 million? (C check cost is on you). Ya want just the bird fire mission ready or do you wanna just strip it down yourself an put a tanking system in yourself? Say, got a tanking sytem already approved?
Straight from Coulson Aviation:
“In time, we think a 757-200 with Rolls Royce engines would be cost effective – lots of horse power ”
You were saying?
When, and who at Coulson specifically made that statement?
How many 757 tankers does Coulson have available to put into the air?
The BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE AF IN IT’S WISDOM OVER THE YEARS HAS REPLACED TECHNICIANS and MECHANICS with MANAGERS/ADMINISTRATION and WAY TOO MANY OFFICERS who get PROMOTED /PCS. OUT OF THEIR PROGRAM CAUSING MORE DELAYS
Problem is Forest Service.. it’s a group that will crash those C130s like the did the last time when the wings folded because they do not believe in inspection programs because they don’t meet the day to day desire of flying by the forest service. Being a retired Air Force guy, I’ll tell you how many times the Forest Service tried to have us blow off required inspections because it doesn’t follow their ” Way of Operating”…..this Is another disaster waiting to happen….
Let’s get something clear. These planes are not going to the “Forest Service”(aka USFS). They are going to CALFIRE who’s air program is run like a tight ship from Sacramento all the way down to the person pulling the reload hose on the flight line.
Unfortunately CALFIRE doesn’t use C130s to their full potential over the last few years. AF MAFFS C130s would just sit all day on the ramp most days while contract tankers and smaller CALFIRE planes would fly. It has been proved by CALFIRE they don’t like C130s on the fires, or atleast they dont like the AF to fight their fires🤔🤔🤔🤔 So either Calfire doesn’t like using C130s or Calfire likes wasting taxpayer dollars when AF C130s are sent to help…which is it?
Point taken but see Jenkins post below as to one of many reasons why the MAFFS sit on the flight line waiting for deployment.
These C-130’s have nothing to do with the Forest Service. That ended when CAL FIRE step up to the plate. The Forest Service has their needs and CAL FIRE has their needs. Agree on need to find out why it is taking so long. Coulson and their connections could have done more than half by now. And Lt. Bat Guano, these are not connected to MAFFS in any way. These will be internal tanks just like Coulson has on their’s.
23 S-2T’s, 8 C-130’s, 17 OV-10’s, 2 C-90 training platforms along with 12 brand new 1000 gallon CAL FIRE Hawks will do good things for California state lands and all CAL FIRE protects.
I have an idea. Just stop with the silly, haggard C-130’s. Sell them and redirect all that committed money to buying dozers, transports and staffing. Dozers catch fires, clapped out C-130’s that are more Haggard than Merle don’t.
Of course the military is going to put a project like this on the back burner. DoD mission comes first for the Air Force if this is a surprise to anyone you are kidding yourself. Why would they focus on getting planes ready for fire fighting when they have fleets of planes that need upgrading and modernization to support their mission. I can already a maintenance group being like sir we are already busy as hell and you want us to do what? The priority of converting fire fighting planes (that no one seems to want according to your article) is so low.
I was a mechanic on the AC 130 Gunships 1956 model. These airframes have been converted and modified more times then I can count. If we can take a C 130 trash hauler and convert it to a Gunship we should be able to convert H models to fire tankers. A C130 is much better suited for the low and slow with a heavy payload then a straight jet engine. The turbo prop works off torque not thrust and that’s what you need when you are trying to get down in those valleys. Call me, I would be glad to fly and work on this tanker.
Why is the Air Force charged with doing the conversion anyhow? Is this part of their mission structure to compete with private industry? All this looks like is someone decided to get the Air Force some extra money, but in reality, whoever sponsored this funding has no idea of what they are tasking the Air Force with. And also, why is the Air Force tasked with Depot Level maintenance. Beyond any reasonable assumptions, the military should have been tasked with de-militarizing the C130’s, and another contract awarded for the conversion. Oh well, it doesn’t matter because common sense is not a pre-requisite to be a politician, but then again, we’re left to wonder who they are working for.
If I were a betting man (which I am not), I would suggest the problem is certain states and members of congress that want to end the transfer of military surplus equipment to state and local government. Remember the “why do police departments need tanks” campaign cry? I guess that little temper tantrum has an effect on all military equipment.
Props auto-feather??? Youve never done work or flown on C130s huh? 😂🤣😅
Right on Brother, never saw an auto feather
I had previously contacted both the Air Force and Coulson about the ETA for the wing box replacement, depot maintenance and RADS tanks for the C-130’s. While Coulson was polite, they wouldn’t answer with an ETA. Secret Squirrel stuff. The Air Force PIO was also nice but never followed up with where the C-130’s physically are nor (560th Aircraft Maintenance Squardron Warner-Robbins AFB?) was I provided with a work completing ETA.
I sent off an E mail today to Senator Feinestein. IfI get a response on this topic I will post it.
I received a reply from Feinstein’s office dated May 14, 2021.
There have been some delays yada yada yada our office working with the Air Force yada yada staff will be meeting with the Air Force yada yada, priority for our office more yada yada yada.
Nothing more specific than yada. Typical politician response to direct questions that are not specifically answered.
Follow up e mail (2nd e mail) summary to the above:
Pandemic caused delays. Air Force is checking safety standards on the RADS.
Well, that accounts for ONE year of delay.
Why isn’t CAL FIRE putting MAFFS in these? They are California built and being delivered quickly to other countries it seems. So instead they are wasting more time and money modifying these aircraft when they could otherwise throw one in as soon as the maintenance is completed? They should have these planes ready to go – this is insane – and next season I don’t expect to be any better than what we saw this year.
What’s the latest on this issue? All these planes could have been ready to go with MAFFS last year.
I confirmed today that no retardant delivery systems have been installed in any of the seven Coast Guard HC-130H aircraft. More information about this fiasco that has been going on for more than eight years:
https://fireaviation.com/tag/hc-130h/
Comments are closed for this article!