I guess we will never know the full story.......mrclark303 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 19:48You 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...
C27 still has not received FOC hence why it was relegated to HADR role also why they bought 4x CH47F and now looking to replace the lot with new build C130J
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 5c49ab0900The Spartans, which entered service eight years ago, replacing the RAAF’s Caribou fleet, have achieved only 35 per cent of planned flying hours over the past five years. The move to redefine their role follows Defence admissions to a parliamentary committee of “deficiencies” with its “electronic self-protection systems”.
Former RAAF head of capability Cath Roberts said last year the Spartan had faced “significant delays in terms of achieving the capability outcomes that were originally determined”.
https://www.contactairlandandsea.com/20 ... %20Spartan.