Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
I still don't think we've had confirmed what the "new capabilities" are have we?
-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 25 May 2015, 08:38
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
On the other side of the Atlantic, some rather unconventional trials for the the C-130 in the next 17 months:
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... -17-months
Although paywalled what caught my eye was the final 'freebie' line suggesting that the conversion could be made with only 'minor modifications'.
P.S: nearly cracked up seeing Richard's above post from only two years ago.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... -17-months
Although paywalled what caught my eye was the final 'freebie' line suggesting that the conversion could be made with only 'minor modifications'.
P.S: nearly cracked up seeing Richard's above post from only two years ago.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
The full article clarifies the demo should happen 'no later than February 2023' due to the initial publishing date, but it wasn't stated when the 17-month clock actually started so it could be a shade earlier.
MC-130J is the test bed, but they're looking at exploting it across the C-130 enterprise including options for exports.
MC-130J is the test bed, but they're looking at exploting it across the C-130 enterprise including options for exports.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Not sure I'd believe anything out of the MoD in particular at present, but this could be good news.
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
I assume he means what is left of it. We only had around eight to ten still in RAF colours.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
isn't 14 still in RAF service the ones sold off were the short bodied C-5's so of the 25 J's we had we still have 18 or so with the ones stored
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Francois's a prat
https://qnadailyreport.blob.core.window ... -07-11.pdf
Hercules Aircraft
Mr Tobias Ellwood: [29942]
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of
the potential merits of retaining the Hercules aircraft system.
Jeremy Quin:
The Integrated Review determined the future composition of the Air Mobility Force,
and as a result on current plans Hercules Out of Service Date is 2023. The RAF is
currently implementing that decision.
https://qnadailyreport.blob.core.window ... -07-11.pdf
Hercules Aircraft
Mr Tobias Ellwood: [29942]
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment his Department has made of
the potential merits of retaining the Hercules aircraft system.
Jeremy Quin:
The Integrated Review determined the future composition of the Air Mobility Force,
and as a result on current plans Hercules Out of Service Date is 2023. The RAF is
currently implementing that decision.
- These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 2):
- SW1 • jedibeeftrix
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
This is what chat GPT gave me one capabilities lost with C-130 retirement .
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Still getting value out of these venerable workhorses, with only a couple of months to go before retirement.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Thanks. I have heard a lot of complaining about C-130 withdrawal and the points often said are identical to those listed above. Capacity / Numbers is obvious. Capabilities I was however more dubious about. Many of them are set to be picked up around 2025 ( a.k.a RAF centenary long certification and integration; spear 3, meteor, new typhoon radar to name examples). Whenever I ask for specifics as to which capabilities will be lost the aforementioned is always the response.
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
The entire air mobility fleet is in constant demand. There is at least 4 voyager and 3 a400m in Cyprus alone.
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
My answer would be to buy 8 more A400's to directly replace the airlift lost from the retirement of the J's.new guy wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 18:52 This is what chat GPT gave me one capabilities lost with C-130 retirement .
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
I would also buy 12 C27J's, for SF and light transport loads. Using A400 for some tasks is like sticking a transit load of pallets onto an Articulated lorry, it's overkill.
The C27 has some very impressive STOL capabilities and can carry a fair load too.
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- new guy
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
mrclark303 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 23:04My answer would be to buy 8 more A400's to directly replace the airlift lost from the retirement of the J's.new guy wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 18:52 This is what chat GPT gave me one capabilities lost with C-130 retirement .
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
I would also buy 12 C27J's, for SF and light transport loads. Using A400 for some tasks is like sticking a transit load of pallets onto an Articulated lorry, it's overkill.
The C27 has some very impressive STOL capabilities and can carry a fair load too.
Well not according to the RAAF
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... or-spartan
In an online story posted on July 25, Defence revealed it has redefined the role of its twin-engine Leonardo C-27J Spartan to ‘enhance response and engagements’ by focussing on Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR), crisis response and regional engagements across the Indo-Pacific.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
point 2 ) I watched the A400 rough ground trials a few years back and I can say now the load it can carry on/off of grass is very goodnew guy wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 18:52 This is what chat GPT gave me one capabilities lost with C-130 retirement .
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
The C130 J's are great and do offer some capabilities that A400 don't but not so many
For me if I was looking to replace the C130's I would go with 8 more A400's and 8 x C-295M
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
I was always a big fan of the C-27J (unlike its operators). However one of the biggest selling points was engine and systems commonality with the Hercules fleet, which is obviously not going to work if it's replacing it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 23:04 My answer would be to buy 8 more A400's to directly replace the airlift lost from the retirement of the J's.
I would also buy 12 C27J's, for SF and light transport loads. Using A400 for some tasks is like sticking a transit load of pallets onto an Articulated lorry, it's overkill.
The C27 has some very impressive STOL capabilities and can carry a fair load too.
The C-295 would be something else I could see slotting between CH-47 and A400M.
However it comes down to the cost argument of having small, niche fleets that require unique support, versus the advantages of having commonality across a larger fleet that might sometimes be overkill on certain ops.
Getting a second batch of A400M should be a priority, especially if there's any remaining Spanish orders that they're not taking up.
If it's a matter of small loads over long distances, at speed, then it might well be a tilt-rotor (not necessarily V-280) that we should be looking at for the 2030s onwards.
P.S: worth remembering that nearly all the J model Hercs that will be retired are C-130J-30s, with the lengthened fuselage. Not as much difference in size with Atlas as you might think, though much less payload over most distances.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
The problem with all the twin engine aircraft options is for a tactical departure with the engine out climb and manoeuvre performance from unprepared ground especially in hotter or higher areas to get out of engagement zones specified by the operators hence it nearly always drives you to 4 powerful engines.
If you proscribe to a tiltrotor future the change in concept below the larger transport aircraft become quite profound.
If you proscribe to a tiltrotor future the change in concept below the larger transport aircraft become quite profound.
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Australia is not exactly having a great time with Gucci European aerospace platforms. Tiger / Taipan / Spartan....R686 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 10:03
Well not according to the RAAF
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... or-spartan
In an online story posted on July 25, Defence revealed it has redefined the role of its twin-engine Leonardo C-27J Spartan to ‘enhance response and engagements’ by focussing on Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR), crisis response and regional engagements across the Indo-Pacific.
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Excellent points Jensy, if we are talking a common transport fleet, then 8 more A400's.Jensy wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 11:36I was always a big fan of the C-27J (unlike its operators). However one of the biggest selling points was engine and systems commonality with the Hercules fleet, which is obviously not going to work if it's replacing it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 23:04 My answer would be to buy 8 more A400's to directly replace the airlift lost from the retirement of the J's.
I would also buy 12 C27J's, for SF and light transport loads. Using A400 for some tasks is like sticking a transit load of pallets onto an Articulated lorry, it's overkill.
The C27 has some very impressive STOL capabilities and can carry a fair load too.
The C-295 would be something else I could see slotting between CH-47 and A400M.
However it comes down to the cost argument of having small, niche fleets that require unique support, versus the advantages of having commonality across a larger fleet that might sometimes be overkill on certain ops.
Getting a second batch of A400M should be a priority, especially if there's any remaining Spanish orders that they're not taking up.
If it's a matter of small loads over long distances, at speed, then it might well be a tilt-rotor (not necessarily V-280) that we should be looking at for the 2030s onwards.
P.S: worth remembering that nearly all the J model Hercs that will be retired are C-130J-30s, with the lengthened fuselage. Not as much difference in size with Atlas as you might think, though much less payload over most distances.
The main issue with the C130 as a design, is obviously the physical dimensions of the hold.
All the equipment the Army uses has grown in size over the last 25 years and now much simply can't be loaded into a C130.
- These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
- Jensy
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
Absolutely. I'm sure some of us remember when FRES was supposed to fit in the back of a C-130! Would need at least two and a team of engineers with plasma torches to pull that off with Ajax....mrclark303 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 15:06 Excellent points Jensy, if we are talking a common transport fleet, then 8 more A400's.
The main issue with the C130 as a design, is obviously the physical dimensions of the hold.
All the equipment the Army uses has grown in size over the last 25 years and now much simply can't be loaded into a C130.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 856
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RAF)
You can read that one or two ways, one that agrees it's exactly that, or the other is a smoke screen for Australian SF use, in a sort of "nothing to see here, move along please" .R686 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 10:03mrclark303 wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 23:04My answer would be to buy 8 more A400's to directly replace the airlift lost from the retirement of the J's.new guy wrote: ↑23 Apr 2023, 18:52 This is what chat GPT gave me one capabilities lost with C-130 retirement .
"The retirement of the C130 by the Royal Air Force (RAF) will result in the loss of several capabilities that the A400M cannot fully replace. These capabilities include:
1. Capacity. Many of the C-130 will go without direct replacement and overall air-lift capacity will be reduced.
2. Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) capabilities: The C130 has the ability to operate from short, rough, or unprepared airstrips, which is essential for military operations in remote or austere locations. The A400M can operate from semi-prepared runways, but it is not as versatile as the C130.
3. Tactical airlift: The C130 is a highly maneuverable aircraft that can operate in tight spaces, making it ideal for tactical airlift operations such as air drops and delivery of supplies to troops on the ground. The A400M is larger and less manoeuvrable, which limits its usefulness in these types of operations.
4.Special operations support: The C130 has been extensively used in special operations missions such as infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special forces teams. While the A400M has some capabilities in this area, it is not as well-suited for special operations missions as the C130.
Overall, while the A400M is a highly capable aircraft, it cannot fully replace the unique capabilities of the C130. The retirement of the C130 will therefore result in a loss of flexibility and versatility for the RAF in certain types of military operations."
Agree disagree? What solutions are there to fixing the capability gap? More A400M? Focus on moving capabilities over to A400M quicker? Other aircraft like C295 (£40m), Embraer C-390 millenium, C-2, KAI consept? New C-130?
I would also buy 12 C27J's, for SF and light transport loads. Using A400 for some tasks is like sticking a transit load of pallets onto an Articulated lorry, it's overkill.
The C27 has some very impressive STOL capabilities and can carry a fair load too.
Well not according to the RAAF
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... or-spartan
In an online story posted on July 25, Defence revealed it has redefined the role of its twin-engine Leonardo C-27J Spartan to ‘enhance response and engagements’ by focussing on Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR), crisis response and regional engagements across the Indo-Pacific.
Some years back I used to shoot regularly with a 47 Squadron pilot, although he would never say where, he often used to chuckle that a couple of days ago his C130 was sat on a public road, in the sticks, picking folks up in a country that you would never guess such a thing was remotely possible...
My guess would be Australian C27's are often out and about with their trasponders turned off...