Tulio,
Era só ir ao google. O C-130J nao esteve grouded até há bem pouco tempo?
Além de que custa muito mais, que o antigo e fiável C-130.
Desde há alguns anos que bom e fiável equipamento novo, os EUA puseram no mercado?
A primeira que apanhei:
C-130J Military Transport Planes Deemed Unfit for War
Nov. 17, 2004 -- The C-130J tactical transport aircraft was supposed to be the U.S. Air Force's state-of-the-art cargo plane to fly troops and supplies into dangerous areas.
The Air Force has 50 of them, but investigators now say all of the planes are unsafe. They are especially concerned about problems in the aircraft's computers and missile defense systems.
There were even reports of propellers breaking down and cracking in bad weather.
"Without your propeller, your aircraft's not going to stay in the air," said Eric Miller, senior defense investigator for the Project on Government Oversight.
The Pentagon's inspector general in a 34-page report blamed the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, for 33 deficiencies in the planes — planes that cost the Air Force $2.6 billion.
That came as no surprise to Ken Pedeleose, a Defense Department engineer who worked on the C-130J project. For years, he has fought with Lockheed and the Air Force. He told ABC
News the C-130J plane is dangerous and a rip-off. "I just couldn't stand sitting back and watching what's happened, knowing that I could've said something about it," said Pedeleose, "and I didn't."
"One of the major ways we know that there's problems with the aircraft is we've never delivered a completed one in 10 years," he added.
The Maryland National Guard in Baltimore has eight of the planes. One of their primary missions is to fly into hostile areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but C-130J pilots in the unit have been limited to missions closer to home.
"They want to get this airplane into the fight," said Col. Guy Walsh, commander of the Guard's 175th Wing, but they can't get into the fight until the plane is deemed safe.
"Safety is our number one concern," Walsh said. "To make sure that when we go out there to accomplish the mission that we do it right, we do it right the first time, and we bring each of the crews back and our airplanes back."
Improvements Being Made
Lockheed says improvements are being made. The company, in a written statement, said, "The statement [in the inspector general's report] that the aircraft failed to meet operational requirements is not indicative of the C-130J's current performance. The C-130J's success was recently demonstrated during a procedures development evaluation, where the aircraft scored a 100% mission capable rate and a 100% mission effectiveness rate."
The Air Force believes the planes can safely be flown in Iraq by the end of the year. Pedeleose says that would be reckless.
"If it is deployed in combat, you are putting people's lives in danger," he said. "And needlessly putting people's lives in danger … there's no reasons for it other than to prove the [Pentagon] inspector general's office wrong in their report against the C-130J."
A representative for the Department of Defense inspector general's office told ABC News that operational testing of the C-130J, which is not scheduled until November 2005, will determine whether the plane will meet full operational requirements. Releasing the C-130J for deployment prior to operational testing, according to the inspector general's office, is an Air Force decision.
The inspector general's audit staff continues to monitor the Air Force's compliance with the report recommendations. So far, they say the Air Force's response is "responsive and positive in addressing the report recommendations."
Despite eight years of problems with the plane, the Air Force plans to buy 67 more of them, spending $7 billion.
Said Pedeleose: "I think the Air Force and, in particular, the taxpayers have just gotten a very bad deal on the C-130J."
ABC News' John Cochran filed this report for World News Tonight.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=260411&page=1
.jpg)
