RAF transport fleet cuts

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On a very current topic, and relating to events in Kabul, the decision to cut the RAF transport fleet by a third by retiring the Hercules without replacement ought to be reconsidered. Only the RAF can provide Government with a rapid response to crises, and I cannot imagine a crisis that does not require moving people, equipment, and supplies.

There was talk of transport aircraft being diverted from other tasks to fly to Kabul - so it is not like we have a huge excess of them.

https://twitter.com/AliBunkallSKY/status/1426829025880772610

[WE992]

The A400M was bought as a replacement for the Hercules!

[Mil-26Man]

The A400M was bought as a replacement for the Hercules!

True, originally planned to buy 25 A400Ms to replace 50 C-130s. Though able to carry twice the payload over double the range, they cannot be in two places at once. Mass matters.

[Easy Street]

The transport fleet cuts reflect the Integrated Review's overdue shift in policy emphasis away from COIN and stabilisation operations. Any fledgling prospect of that policy decision being reversed must surely have been terminated by our efforts in Afghanistan being exposed as entirely futile. It's fortunate that we still have the C130s to help get out of that mess. But the correct response is not to keep the aircraft: it's to avoid getting into such a situation again.

[ORAC]

Not sure I see the logic.

The lease then purchase of the C-17s was very much a consequence of getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and a need to move to lots of troops and materiel. The pull from both, and the demise of BAOR and RAFG very much puts the role and size of RAF AT in question. The A-400, Voyager and C-17 fleets seem more than adequate to fulfil the need in numbers - the only remaining question being what, if anything, is needed for SF support.

The debacle currently underway in Kabul is a short term problem and won’t affect long term plans. It’s a matter of how do you put airframes, movers and aircrew in place at short notice. I would imagine a lot of negotiations are ongoing to establish airheads in places such as Kuwait and Qatar to enable quick rotation ferry flights transferring pax to connecting civil airlines.

[Stratnumberone]

The transport fleet cuts reflect the Integrated Review's overdue shift in policy emphasis away from COIN and stabilisation operations. Any prospect of that policy decision being reversed must surely have been terminated by our efforts in Afghanistan being exposed as entirely futile. It's fortunate that we still have the C130s to help get out of that mess. But the correct response is not to keep the aircraft: it's to avoid getting into such a situation again.

the correct response is to keep them until we have a credible replacement, which currently we do not. It’s oft said but worth repeating: many air forces worldwide are investing in the C130 - including several of those that also have A400. Seems odd to me that we alone are going against the flow. They must all be wrong.

[Easy Street]

the correct response is to keep them until we have a credible replacement, which currently we do not. It’s oft said but worth repeating: many air forces worldwide are investing in the C130 - including several of those that also have A400. Seems odd to me that we alone are going against the flow. They must all be wrong.

Do those countries all have a submarine-based nuclear deterrent; a carrier-borne 5th generation combat air wing; a huge and largely maritime AOR over which to deliver NATO maritime patrol and air policing commitments; a distant overseas territory to garrison; a critical national dependence (for energy) on sea lines of communication; political direction to retain (at great expense) domestic aerospace, nuclear and shipbuilding industries; etc etc? Copying the force structure of states with differing strategies, priorities and budgets doesn't seem to me a sound basis for capability planning. Without an idea of what the MOD should give up in return, the idea of keeping the C130s gets filed under 'fantasy fleet'.

Anyway, we are continually exhorted to be 'international by design' in our approach to discretionary overseas operations, so if all our allies are doubling up their tactical transport fleets, what's the problem? Yes, sovereign capacity is needed now in Kabul, but the answer to that going forward is the old "don't fight land wars in Asia".

[ASRAAMTOO]

the correct response is to keep them until we have a credible replacement, which currently we do not. It’s oft said but worth repeating: many air forces worldwide are investing in the C130 - including several of those that also have A400. Seems odd to me that we alone are going against the flow. They must all be wrong.

Sadly we are not very good at that. We binned the Harrier, Nimrod and E3!

[ExAscoteer2]

True, originally planned to buy 25 A400Ms to replace 50 C-130s. Though able to carry twice the payload over double the range, they cannot be in two places at once. Mass matters.
Nope.

25 C130J planned to repace 60 130-K Yeah that worked well.

We bought A400 as part of being 'Europe; when we were leasing C17. Yeah that worked well.

[Thaihawk]

I've heard there is a move within the RAF to retain perhaps half the current C-130J fleet. From sources both a Brize and from MADG at Cambridge. Time will tell...

Also apparently some of the stored A400Ms at Brize are in a sorry state.

[Asturias56]

"I've heard there is a move within the RAF"

only counts if you hear it from the Treasury - who are no doubt pointing out that with Afghanistan finally gone the UK doesn't need the same sized armed forces as it did 2 years ago......

[Davef68]

Nope.

25 C130J planned to repace 60 130-K Yeah that worked well.
.
Were the Js not originally meant as an stop-gap replacement for some of the Hercules fleet until the then EUROFLAG, later A400, came on stream to replace the C-130. That's why they operated alongside the remaining Ks for many years.

But how many A400s are currently operational?

[bobward]

With a lot of civvie airliners parked up right now, are any of these being considered to help out? I realise they won't go into a combat zone, but positioning them on nearby friendly territory, and running a 'hub and spoke' operation could work? Having said that, how many people in the know foresaw the Afgan situation collapsing so quickly? What a tragic waste of lives and assets for nothing.

[ExAscoteer2]

Were the Js not originally meant as an stop-gap replacement for some of the Hercules fleet until the then EUROFLAG, later A400, came on stream to replace the C-130. That's why they operated alongside the remaining Ks for many years.

One of my Flt Cdrs was behind the original procurement of C-130J. The plan was (initially) to replace 60 odd K's with 30 J's. However we only bought 25 (and failed to buy the tanker capability).

AFAIK the reason the Ks were kept on for so long was because the J's only had a limited RTS for air-drop for quite some time.

[Ken Scott]

AFAIK the reason the Ks were kept on for so long was because the J's only had a limited RTS for air-drop for quite some time.

My recollection is that the J was procured to replace half the K fleet (the short term fleet as it was known, part-exchanged for Js) and the other half was to be replaced by A400M. It was the delays to the latter that led to the extension in service of the K. Originally C17 was leased for Herrick, once it was bought the A400M was rather surplus to requirements. The decision to get rid of the J (at a time when other nations are buying it to supplement their A400s as it can’t really do the Tac AT role properly) is rather foolish. We will be left with the A400M as our smallest transport aircraft, rather like DPD delivering parcels in an HGV rather than a van.

[Just This Once...]

Ken Scott You recall correctly. The whole Hercules Rolling Replacement (Tranche 1 & Tranche 2), A-400M & C-17A is a saga worthy of a novel.

[MG]

The first C-17 was delivered to the RAF in May 2001 so a few months before 9/11.

[Just This Once...]

The first C-17 was delivered to the RAF in May 2001 so a few months before 9/11.

As a leased aircraft only, at that stage anyway.

[Mr N Nimrod]

As a leased aircraft only, at that stage anyway.
yep, and only 4 at first, with a very limited usage profile

[BEagle]

The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were then bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that is still the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role (except for the RAF), but not as a strategic tanker as that is the job of the FSTA, the A330 MRTT – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it is.... Although there was, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was when a Multi Role Tanker Transport rather than a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft was being considered.

[sycamore]

As was once said after a USAF briefing "What the Major (Sqn/Ldr) really means is...."..it`s been a really big `f**k-up all along......
Shame you didn`t throw in a few `leaning forwards`,reaching-out,and picking -up the the low-fruiting hangers-on` in that `total management concept` there Beags...!!:cool:

[ancientaviator62]

IIRC, THE 'J' was almost two years late into service as Lockheed seriously underestimated the task.This caused the 'K' to be run on longer than anticipated with a huge knock on effect on spares and personnel. None of this could have reasonably been forseen by the RAF as it was not until late in the day that Lockheed came clean about the problems with their 'easy' project.

[Mr N Nimrod]

IIRC, THE 'J' was almost two years late into service as Lockheed seriously underestimated the task.This caused the 'K' to be run on longer than anticipated with a huge knock on effect on spares and personnel. None of this could have reasonably been forseen by the RAF as it was not until late in the day that Lockheed came clean about the problems with their 'easy' project.
I think you’re being generous there AA62. Not sure quite how long it took for FOC to be achieved. LM took on a lot with the J, but the UK was not helped by an appallingly badly written contract that was then poorly enforced. It was treated as a COTS buy, but had to undergo full development.

[ancientaviator62]

Mr N,
I am sure you are right but whatever the (usual) lousy contract said the boys and girls at the coal face had to do with an increasingly unserviceable 'K' fleet.
My only contact with the 'J' came as a member of the HEART when we visited Abbey Wood for the day The team there were very cagey about the 'J' and it did not inspire us with confidence By the time the 'J' came into service I had already left having already been extended for a year to do the HEART job.
As the RAF was the 'J' launch customer I think that Lockheed could have shown a bit more respect ! Perhaps I am being very naive !

[Mr N Nimrod]

Mr N,
I am sure you are right but whatever the (usual) lousy contract said the boys and girls at the coal face had to do with an increasingly unserviceable 'K' fleet.
My only contact with the 'J' came as a member of the HEART when we visited Abbey Wood for the day The team there were very cagey about the 'J' and it did not inspire us with confidence By the time the 'J' came into service I had already left having already been extended for a year to do the HEART job.
As the RAF was the 'J' launch customer I think that Lockheed could have shown a bit more respect ! Perhaps I am being very naive !

I doubt the ‘naive’ bit. The J procurement was a mess. LM ran rings around the MoD, their poorly written contract, and the people on the PT. I was out at Marietta on one visit and was having a look around one of our new J models during testing. It had obviously failed one particular test, but I remember the LM engineer clearly expected the RAF engineer witnessing the test to sign it off. He didn’t, but i have always thought that was only because I was there.

I seem to remember LM was paying to have the aircraft ‘stored’ in the UK (Marshall’s?) as they needed them out of the way.

[Bengerman]

Those who think the J should be retained for longer should perhaps consider the state that these aircraft are in after years of brutal work in the deserts of Afghan, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi. My informants tell me that they are effectively "life expired" and the only solution along the "J" road is brand new replacements.

[Mil-26Man]

Those who think the J should be retained for longer should perhaps consider the state that these aircraft are in after years of brutal work in the deserts of Afghan, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi. My informants tell me that they are effectively "life expired" and the only solution along the "J" road is brand new replacements.

The MoD had already begun a centre wing-box replacement programme to extend the fleet out to 2035.

[Mr N Nimrod]

The MoD had already begun a centre wing-box replacement programme to extend the fleet out to 2035.
sounds like they probably need a bit more than just a centre wing box. Didn’t the last avionics block upgrade get cancelled?

[JonnyT1978]

The MoD had already begun a centre wing-box replacement programme to extend the fleet out to 2035.
At least two are done and back in service already

[sycamore]

if they sell them off there`ll be a big `cancellation` fee going to Marshalls...

[Ken Scott]

2021 23:49
if they sell them off there`ll be a big `cancellation` fee going to Marshalls...

You don’t understand how the MOD works. They’ll complete the program and then sell them for less than the cost of the work to another Air Force that will get 20 years of service from the ‘tired’ frames!

[Frostchamber]

Re avionics upgrade, It would be interesting to know, as the upgrade to Block 8.1 sounds fairly crucial to the aircraft's continued viability. As recently as last year it was referred to as being "under way".

[oldpax]

Are there no rules regarding covid in Afghanistan?

[ORAC]

Is that relevant to this thread?

[ancientaviator62]

In respect of avionic updates to the Hercules fleet as part of our remit the HEART team interviewed the civil servant overseeing ' the 'K' ' HINS nav update It was very late and over budget.
It appeared that the contract for the INS bit and GPS bit had been given to different companies without either one being responsible for the whole. When difficulties arose each, predictably blamed each other ! The 'overseer ' seemed not bothered in the least at this sate of affairs despite the urgent need to get it into service.

[sycamore]

Ken,3 of the `K`s went to Austria,and 2 to SriLanka( maybe even ex-tankers) and still appear to be working....

[tucumseh]

It appeared that the contract for the INS bit and GPS bit had been given to different companies without either one being responsible for the whole.

Unfortunately AA, still a common failure, despite being mandated in every aviation contract. FADEC for Chinook Mk1, and MADGE for SHAR FRS1, being obvious examples with far-reaching effects.

[Ken Scott]

Ken,3 of the `K`s went to Austria,and 2 to SriLanka( maybe even ex-tankers) and still appear to be working....


Indeed, sycamore, I did the odd training sortie to their home base and would occasionally see them flying. It would seem there’s still some life in the old dogs!

The Sri Lankan’s did take a couple of the old tankers and they really were tired. Multiple sorties at TOWs of 175,000lb did take their toll, as did the fighter affiliation even if we had to burn down to 135,000lb (as I recall) before we started to rack up the FI. Happy days!!

Back to the original question of retaining the J - a few years ago I had to host an amiable young lady at one of the OM annual shindigs for local dignitaries. She was from the A400 wing design team at Filton and I asked her about battle damage repair to the composite wing. She said there was none possible and that a single round through the structure would scrap the entire wing. ‘How many spare wings were there?’ I asked. ‘’None’ she said...

So in any future war scenario we might need some alternative Tac AT ac!

[Davef68]

Ken,3 of the `K`s went to Austria,and 2 to SriLanka( maybe even ex-tankers) and still appear to be working....

2 went to Mexico as well

[A4scooter]

The Dutch recently rejected the A400 as the C130 replacement as it had operational limitations.
Every other A400 operator apart from Belgium operates either the C130 & / or C235 / C295.
The RAF C130 fleet was due to remain in service until 2035 & If the RAF were replacing them with C295 or C27J it may make more sense.
In an increasing volatile world both politically & with more adverse weather conditions any cut to our transport fleet (fixed wing & rotary) seems a very short sighted decision.

[Ken Scott]

Short sighted indeed and entirely based on saving money rather than anything to do with capability as even if the A400M were capable of successfully taking on the J’s roles the reduction in numbers of ac would amount to a severe reduction in AT capacity. With aspirations to ‘global Britain’ and operations in the Far East that AT capacity will be vital.

As you say all the other A400 users have C130s or similar to supplement and pickup the tasks that the former cannot do.

[NutLoose]

You also by killing off the J put the workload onto the other fleets reducing their life expectancy as well as struggling to meet any future crisis, the fact they have been struggling for capability at the moment by diverting them off tasking while they have the J in service does not bode well for future operations.

[Willard Whyte]

Do those countries all have a submarine-based nuclear deterrent; a carrier-borne 5th generation combat air wing; a huge and largely maritime AOR over which to deliver NATO maritime patrol and air policing commitments; a distant overseas territory to garrison; a critical national dependence (for energy) on sea lines of communication; political direction to retain (at great expense) domestic aerospace, nuclear and shipbuilding industries; etc etc? Copying the force structure of states with differing strategies, priorities and budgets doesn't seem to me a sound basis for capability planning. Without an idea of what the MOD should give up in return, the idea of keeping the C130s gets filed under 'fantasy fleet'.
.

With a couple of irrelevant omissions - carrier-borne 5th generation combat air wing and critical sea line blah blah - France, who operate 4 J models, 2 of which are for special forces support.

[Easy Street]

With a couple of irrelevant omissions - carrier-borne 5th generation combat air wing and critical sea line blah blah - France, who operate 4 J models, 2 of which are for special forces support.

The same France which has relied heavily on the UK for C-17 support due to its lack of strat lift? Keep looking.

[Mr N Nimrod]

The same France which has relied heavily on the UK for C-17 support due to its lack of strat lift? Keep looking.
And our Chinook fleet.

[Asturias56]

Of course the UK was dependent on NATO for marine recce for quite a while... that's the benefit of a proper alliance - not everyone has to do everything

[Martin the Martian]

Don't tell that to the government. They'll ditch the whole thing and rely on our alliance partners to do it for us.

[Mr N Nimrod]

Of course the UK was dependent on NATO for marine recce for quite a while... that's the benefit of a proper alliance - not everyone has to do everything
and of course some do very little at all

[Asturias56]

"and of course some do very little at all"

regretfully that is the case - and they profit by doing it

[chevvron]

The Dutch recently rejected the A400 as the C130 replacement as it had operational limitations.
Every other A400 operator apart from Belgium operates either the C130 & / or C235 / C295.
The RAF C130 fleet was due to remain in service until 2035 & If the RAF were replacing them with C295 or C27J it may make more sense.
In an increasing volatile world both politically & with more adverse weather conditions any cut to our transport fleet (fixed wing & rotary) seems a very short sighted decision.
Bring back the Andover.

[mmitch]

Story in the Mail today that a 47 squadron aircraft landed near (not on) Kandahar air base at night and lifted about 20 Special forces out. The comment made that without the Hercules it wouldn't have been possible?
mmitch.

[57mm]

What are the operational limitations of the A400 as opposed to the C130, as cited by the Dutch?

[melmothtw]

Bring back the Andover.

You joke (I presume), but it strikes me as strange how the smallest airlifter in UK service will shortly be the A400M! I understand the MoD's arguments about the financial implications of sustaining three separate platform types, but what it seems to miss is that the C-130J, A400M and C-17 are each providing niche capabilities and are not duplicating each other's roles.

[PocketDisco]

A genuine but rather noddy question, what is it that the Herc can do that we won’t be able to do with the A400m? I’d understood it to be very capable, and I promise I don’t work for Airbus

[melmothtw]

A genuine but rather noddy question, what is it that the Herc can do that we won’t be able to do with the A400m? I’d understood it to be very capable, and I promise I don’t work for Airbus

Ultimately, nothing. Once all of the A400Ms' capabilities and clearances are rolled out, it will be able to do everything that the Herc can do and more. The issue is one of numbers and economics, in that having fewer A400Ms means a reduction in mass which will result in a loss of capability. In terms of economics, it will be massively more expensive to transport a (typically) small SOF team in the back of a larger and more expensive to operate A400M than it would a Herc, and also the nature of SOF work means a far greater risk to losing/seriously damaging an airframe which given the fewer numbers would be a bigger issue than currently.

[typerated]

I think we have missed a trick- We could save more $s and increase capability.

Retire the A400, C-130J and those dangerous Chinook and Puma contraptions.

Replace the lot with the Mighty DHC-4 Caribou - sorted.

Take anything anywhere in theatre

[Ken Scott]

A genuine but rather noddy question, what is it that the Herc can do that we won’t be able to do with the A400m? I’d understood it to be very capable, and I promise I don’t work for Airbus


In layman’s terms the C130J is an old Landrover Defender - old technology but reliable & dependable and you have no qualms about taking it in the rough stuff because you know it won’t let you down.

The A400M is more of a Bentley Bentaga - nominally it can do everything that the Defender can, it’s much nicer on the road (= strat flying) but would you seriously expect it to survive off road (= Tac flying) or would you fear that it’s delicate electronics and expensive body panels might not cope?

[dead_pan]

I haven't seen any Hercs on the flightline at Kabul on the news. Do they have the legs to get back from there to somewhere like Dubai or Qatar with a full load of PAX without AAR?

[dead_pan]

it will be massively more expensive to transport a (typically) small SOF team in the back of a larger and more expensive to operate A400M than it would a Herc, and also the nature of SOF work means a far greater risk to losing/seriously damaging an airframe which given the fewer numbers would be a bigger issue than currently.

I think this SF thing is a bit of a red herring. How often have Hercs been used in anger for SF ops in say the past decade? And if push came to shove, I'm sure the cousins would gladly lend us one. Also, don't forget there are a couple of paradrop capable STOL turboprops lurking at Brize which could also be called into service (for a fee)...

Finally finally, I wouldn't be surprised if an Osprey or two came into the mix for such eventualities when we come to look more closely at Puma's impending replacement.

[Easy Street]

Similar arguments being advanced here to those which were made in favour of keeping more than two fast jet fleets. The flashy and expensive Typhoon and F35 both spend most of their time doing stuff that could easily be done with less capable platforms, but we need both types' capabilities in reserve for certain scenarios. The cost of using them inefficiently in the meantime is evidently less than the cost of running a third fleet.

Reading between the lines of the expert contributions above, my take is that we shouldn't really be operating both C-17 and A400M: the former was a stop-gap for the latter. However the users have come to value C-17 so much that it's unchoppable. And the A400M is both new and European, so in policy world it's unchoppable. So unless either user or policymaker budged from their positions, the C-130 was going to get chopped. The user appears to have concluded that C-17 was worth keeping over C-130, and I don't think many would argue.

[downsizer]

I haven't seen any Hercs on the flightline at Kabul on the news. Do they have the legs to get back from there to somewhere like Dubai or Qatar with a full load of PAX without AAR?

Seen plenty in news clips and so on....

[ExAscoteer2]

I haven't seen any Hercs on the flightline at Kabul on the news. Do they have the legs to get back from there to somewhere like Dubai or Qatar with a full load of PAX without AAR?

Around 1000 - 1200 miles dependant upon destination, so easily achievable by Albert.

[Ken Scott]

I think this SF thing is a bit of a red herring. How often have Hercs been used in anger for SF ops in say the past decade?

Possibly much more than you might imagine but you wouldn’t necessarily have heard about it...!

[tdracer]

Any plans to make an A400M based gunship? Serious question. I know that the USAF AC130 gunships have proved invaluable in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the US military (and often called in to help other allied troops).

[Ken Scott]

I sincerely doubt it, an expensive bit of kit to have orbiting over the bad guys at a low level.

We were once asked by the Yanks if we could orbit over an Afghan village pretending to be a gunship ‘for effect’ as theirs was u/s. When asked what the problem with it was they replied, ‘it got shot to sh*t over that village last night’.

The request was declined!

[Mr N Nimrod]

Any plans to make an A400M based gunship? Serious question. I know that the USAF AC130 gunships have proved invaluable in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the US military (and often called in to help other allied troops).
oh Jesus, can you imagine how the UK MAA would react to fitting anything dangerous to a military aircraft?

[Herod]

BTW, if Wiki is to be believed the first flight of the Hercules was 67 years ago yesterday 23rd Aug 54. They'll be around for a while yet.

[throwaway1]

Possibly much more than you might imagine but you wouldn’t necessarily have heard about it...!

This is the crux of why people who are in the know are upset.

The A400M is really good at what people think the C130 does, but funnily enough the operators of Albert only spend a tiny proportion of their time doing those particular things. To the people who think you can just borrow specialist TacAT capability on demand, google ‘The SOF Truths’

[rattman]

Seen plenty in news clips and so on....

Yep theres been australian one doing shuttle runs between afghanistan and UAE daily

[Martin the Martian]

To be honest, the C-130J v. A400M arguments are very much like the C-130K v. C-130J arguments that appeared in this very forum when the J was shiny and new. I suspect that one day there will be an A400M v. whatever argument which will say exactly the same things all over again.

[mmitch]

Certainly I have seen various C130s operating between UAE/Oman? and Kabul on FR24. The first was a US Navy one on that first manic weekend. Pity they don't seem be able to use airfields in Turkey or Pakistan like Turkish A400s do...
mmitch.

[Ken Scott]

Martin, I did partake of that discussion and was very much on the side of the J as I was flying it then but I had also flown the K so I was coming at it from an informed position; many of the J’s detractors were not.

I have also flown the A400M and while it’s a great strat ac it has some serious limitations that in my opinion will make it struggle to takeover from the J, particularly in the Tac role. Again I’m coming hopefully from an informed position.

[Rutan16]

Yes a host of "British" airliners are being used in the airbridge - NOT
Portuguese, Spanish, Maltese and Ethiopian aircraft are currently chartered !!!!!

[SLXOwft]

As the current ACAS(Strategy) is an ex-trucky (AVM Simon Edwards) there is an informed voice at the top table.

Turkey is in the process of modernizing the avionics of 19 C-130Bs and Es which will continue to operate along side its A400Ms and CN-235s.

Erdoğan's policies are about 'Making Turkey Great (and Islamic) Again' and he would clearly cut ties to NATO and particularly the US, if he no longer saw them as necessary. According to the pro-government Daily Sabah he appears to be open to friendly relations with the Taliban. Adding them to friendships with other unsavoury governments. Pakistan is clearly happy with the change (and not just the military); to quote The Guardian from last week: 'In Pakistan – long accused of aiding the Afghan Taliban – the prime minister, Imran Khan, said the Taliban had “broken the chains of mental slavery in Afghanistan”. The leader of a key religious political party said the “Taliban has freed their country from superpowers”.'

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/taliban-says-it-asked-for-turkeys-support-in-afghanistan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/16/china-russia-pakistan-expect-increase-influence-afghanistan
.

[ancientaviator62]

Well the RAF did have a 'gunship' role for the 'K' as I described in the Hercules thread.

[Freeman Lowell]

Back to the original question of retaining the J - a few years ago I had to host an amiable young lady at one of the OM annual shindigs for local dignitaries. She was from the A400 wing design team at Filton and I asked her about battle damage repair to the composite wing. She said there was none possible and that a single round through the structure would scrap the entire wing. ‘How many spare wings were there?’ I asked. ‘’None’ she said...

So in any future war scenario we might need some alternative Tac AT ac!
Talking about fragility and the lack of capacity, has ZM409 flown since it's bird strike 14 months ago? If not, are there plans for it to fly again or could it be used to provide for the A400s stored without engines at the end of Burford Road?
Freeman

[Asturias56]

"he would clearly cut ties to NATO and particularly the US, if he no longer saw them as necessary."

TBH there are quite a few NATO members who would do the same :( - it's the "necessary" that keeps them in

[medod]

Around 11pm UK time last night I noticed a RAF C130J leaving Afghanistan over Pakistan. Given that "the final UK troops, diplomats and officials have left Kabul", I wonder if it was the final flight.

[esscee]

Sssssh! Don't mention That C130J, you maybe ought not to have spotted it.

[TBM-Legend]

Speaking of Hercs in Kabul, the RAAF operated two C-130J's plus two C-17's in there continuously from the get-go and uplifted more than 4000 Australian citizens and others plus we had ~500 Army and ADG's in country. We also operated a KC-30 tanker supporting USAF C-17 ops plus IFR for fighters that provided cover. The RAAF used our two contracted A340's for repatriation flights to Oz

[ORAC]

Sir Humphrey at TheThinPinstripedLine….

https://tinyurl.com/28n4xmkn

PITTING it all together - Thoughts on the Kabul Airlift

[Martin the Martian]

As usual, Sir Humphrey sums it up very well.:ok:

[Ken Scott]

While there are many positives to draw from this operation, there are too some areas of mild, potentially growing, concern. The first is that PITTING highlighted the importance of the C130J as a key part of the RAF toolbox. The fact that this aircraft will leave service shortly, without replacement, some 10 years earlier than planned is of growing concern. It is reasonable to say that on current plans, in 2-3 years time, the RAF could not repeat the success of PITTING using its currently planned force.


He certainly reinforces much of what has been said on this thread.

My understanding is that the RAF argued very strongly to keep the J to its planned OSD but that the decision was taken at ministerial level to withdraw it from service early in 2023. Let us hope that the DefSec, having seen the importance of AT, is big enough to admit that he has made a mistake.

[Asturias56]

Its the Chancellor of the Exchequer who calls the shots - not the Defence Secretary

[SamYeager]

Its the Chancellor of the Exchequer who calls the shots - not the Defence Secretary
is (unfortunately) the correct answer.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/08/30/after-afghanistan-evacuation-mission-uk-air-force-still-not-reexamining-plans-to-retire-c-130/

After Afghanistan evacuation mission, UK air force still not reexamining plans to retire C-130

WASHINGTON — The arduous airlift demands of the Afghanistan evacuation mission haven’t changed the U.K. Royal Air Force’s plans to retire its C-130s by 2030, its top officer said Aug. 27.

“This is the first large-scale operation that we’ve done with our A400s, and it’s demonstrated that this is an aircraft with real potential and enormous capacity,” said RAF Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston in an interview with Defense News.

“It flies much higher and much faster and carries a greater payload than the C-130. So as every month goes by, my confidence in that decision increases.”……..

Despite the C-130s offering additional airlift capacity, Wigston said there’s no need for the RAF to revisit its current retirement plans.

“It will be with a heavy heart that we retire the C-130 in two years’ time because it’s been an absolute workhorse, but I have absolute confidence in the A400 and what that aircraft is able to do going forward,” he said……

[Herod]

U.K. Royal Air Force’s plans to retire its C-130s by 2030, its top officer said Aug. 27.

“It will be with a heavy heart that we retire the C-130 in two years’ time"

Maths not his strong suit perhaps?

[ORAC]

He isn’t the one that said 2030, that was the journalist - and as post #83 says, it’s to be retired in 2023.

[Ken Scott]

A cynic might say that his position requires him to say that and he won’t have to deal with the consequences as he’ll have retired by the time they’re gone...

[Arclite01]

Spot on Ken Scott - that is exactly what I thought. Except it'll be backed up later on with a statement saying 'he never agreed with the initial decision to retire C130 in the first place........' of course he'll be in a job with Airbus by that time..............

Arc

[sycamore]

KS,a cynic might also ask if the A400 has done any serious operational `off-roading` yet....?

[Asturias56]

bit like your Range Rover - it CAN get down in the dirt I'm sure but would you risk your £100k ++ joy & delight doing it ?

[throwaway1]

Pitting was not a good example of why C-130 should be kept, all it demonstrated was that a mass of mobility assets is occasionally useful.
Pitting was also not a good example of how good the A400M is. It demonstrated great success taking off and landing from large international airfields carry well below its max all-up. Op RUMAN proved it can take off and land successfully in vaguely austere airports years ago, so where's the progress? Hats off the to the crews flying the things for being able to cope with the air situation, but none of this has anything to do with how good the A400M is as a tactical air lifter. The same job on PITTING was being done by airliners.
You'll note that the TLZ activity that we have been told about was done by a C-130, and that we can all probably agree that it should have been done by an A400M for credibility since it can supposedly do the same things as C-130.

[Ken Scott]

it can supposedly do the same things as C-130

’Supposedly’ being the operative word here...

[throwaway1]

As an afterthought (and to address the posters in this thread gleefully posting footage and pics of Atlas doing natural surface Ops, dropping 24 CDS containers, and banging out flares) clearly there is a world of difference between a test pilot doing a controlled demo of a capability in a field on Salisbury plain - all the footage - and a 70 / 30 squadron junior pilot doing the same thing in theatre - which is what everyone seems to think that footage means.

What the aircraft is cleared to do and what the front line and training system can develop and sustain so that its crews and instructors are capable and competent is another matter entirely and is likely the sticking point in moving forward.

[Mil-26Man]

What the aircraft is cleared to do and what the front line and training system can develop and sustain so that its crews and instructors are capable and competent is another matter entirely and is likely the sticking point in moving forward.

Surely that's a limiting factor for all aircraft types, and not intrinsic to the A400M. I'm not sure how that observation either advances or negates the case for retaining or getting rid of the C-130Js.

[Bob Viking]

As a FJ guy I have mostly just read this thread and not felt qualified to comment. However, I can see an obvious parallel.

Typhoon was touted to replace Jaguar, F3 and GR4 and, to a lesser extent, Harrier.

You can see what a Politician will think. “Why did you ask for all that money for a new jet if you’re still flying all the old ones?”

The bottom line is that, sooner or later, you have to grasp the nettle.

Typhoon took some serious effort and money to get it to where it is now but, we can all agree, it is doing pretty bloody well (yes I know there are other improvements still to happen).

I have spoken with guys from the A400 fleet so I am aware of the issues. Is it possible though, that A400 will be very good (eventually) but that nobody is enjoying the nettle grasping that will shortly happen?

From a Politicians point of view you can see why the C130 is ripe for the chop. “Why do you need Voyager, C17, A400 and C130?”

Despite all I have just said, I personally can still see a case for the C130 but I’m afraid my budget just won’t stretch that far. And nobody really cares what I think!

BV

[chevvron]

But surely there is a 'need' for a small fixed wing tactical aircraft which can operate in/out of much smaller sites such as those already mentioned from CASA or Aeritalia (Leonardo?) and would be much more economical to operate compared with the Chinook.

[Mil-26Man]

Typhoon was touted to replace Jaguar, F3 and GR4 and, to a lesser extent, Harrier.

The Typhoon can perform all of those aircraft missions though (to a lesser extent the Harrier, as you say).

The C-130 cannot do what the C-17 does, and vice versa. The three transport types aren't duplicating each other, they are providing their own niche capabilities (arguably, the A400M less so as it can do a bit of both).

Australia has it right, with a mix of C-27J, C-130J and C-17.

[Easy Street]

The Typhoon can perform all of those aircraft missions though (to a lesser extent the Harrier, as you say).

The C-130 cannot do what the C-17 does, and vice versa. The three transport types aren't duplicating each other, they are providing their own niche capabilities (arguably, the A400M less so as it can do a bit of both).

Australia has it right, with a mix of C-27J, C-130J and C-17.

Typhoon can't do all-weather low level attack: that was a niche role that was give up. I commented up thread that the choice in capability terms should really be between A400 and C17, but neither is politically 'choppable' so the poor old C130 gets it by default.

Australia doesn't operate a fleet of SSBN or aircraft carriers... you pays your money and takes your choice.

[throwaway1]

The shape of warfare is changing and the Cold War missions that the legacy types were ace at aren't really relevant from both a risk-taking or financial-burden (keeping everyone current) level. C-130 can do things that is arguably not that relevant any more but we keep these skills just in case. The kicker is that by retiring the C-130 before the A400M is ready you're leaving yourself with a capability gap that will take a long time to back-filll, even with things that the A400M aircraft is technically cleared to do right now, but nobody aside from the test pilots and maybe some of the instructors have ever done. This isn't high-tech merit stuff either, these are basic air drop and air-land skills.

Without having a crystal ball or a direct line to the CAS, we must make some assumptions:

- A400M probably isn't going to be flying OLF alone and unafraid or even multi-ship to drop supplies below the radar to a Long-Range Recon Patrol.
- It probably won't need to low fly much at all since the on-board kit will allow it to do almost everything IMC. Our (and allied) 5th gen air force will negate the IADS and enemy DCA and thus will allow it to transit medium level to the DZ / TLZ and do a steep approach to avoid the small arms to drop / land.
- It will need to do 16X stuff - Low Level Para, CDS / Light Stores, day and night natural surface TLZ operations, and maybe some heavy drop of vehicles. Op FORTIS (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-drop-paratroopers-into-jordan/). (This, in the author's opinion, is where it should be at minimum before retiring C-130)
- It will need to do some specialist stuff. Probably high-altitude parachuting, probably dispatching small and large boats plus troops in the littoral, high seas, and inland areas.

How many of these things can it currently do operationally (none?) and how many will it be able to do by 1st April 2023? (hopefully some!) How many of these capabilities will we decide we don't need anymore having been without them for a while? How many are we going to struggle to stand back up again credibly when all the people who've been doing it for decades have moved on? It's clear that A400M is the future, it's just that the future may have arrived too soon.

If we're playing the three types off each other, then as other people have said the A400M is the middle aircraft. Bin off C-130 and have a bigger, softer Tac Airlifter (and ask Uncle Sam for help with complicated stuff the odd time that comes around) or bin off C-17 and have a smaller, slower Strat Airlifter (and hire an Antonov for moving really big stuff the odd time that comes around). Obviously in Mobility utopia we'd bin off A400M, buy more C-17s from the re-activated factory, and have MC-130Js like the Americans. Jagger said something about getting what you want.

[GeeRam]

Obviously in Mobility utopia we'd bin off A400M, buy more C-17s from the re-activated factory, and have MC-130Js like the Americans. Jagger said something about getting what you want.

C-17 was originally leased as a stop gap because A400 was late...........
C-17 proved to be so good, we bought them at end of these and bought some more before the line closed.

So, why didn't we bin all the A400 order then and order a few extra C-17 before they shut down the line, and order some new J's....seems to be the question.

Now we seem to be ditching the one true Tac asset and keeping two Strat.
I suppose the C-17's will be shagged out soon anyway and we'll be left with just A400M?

[Chugalug2]

It turned out that the C-130K was not fit for purpose as a Tactical Transport until fitted many years later with ESF. Is the A400M fit for purpose as an AT? If not why not, and when will it be?

Capability gaps seem to be all the rage these days. Rather like playing with fire, it leads to burnt fingers!

[Asturias56]

"So, why didn't we bin all the A400 order then and order a few extra C-17 before they shut down the line, and order some new J's....seems to be the question."

And have the Daily Telegraph and the Wail complaining we wren't supporting UK industry?

Europrop International (EPI) GmbH is a consortium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium) set up in 2002 in the form of a company governed by German law, by the four main European aircraft engine manufacturers, MTU Aero Engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTU_Aero_Engines), Safran Aircraft Engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safran_Aircraft_Engines), Rolls-Royce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Holdings) and Industria de Turbo Propulsores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria_de_Turbo_Propulsores)

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/nickstrings/status/1461779052898004996?s=21

[Stratnumberone]

https://twitter.com/nickstrings/status/1461779052898004996?s=21

very true. Sadly though, common sense will not prevail here and the Hercules is destined for the dustbin.

[chevvron]

C-17 was originally leased as a stop gap because A400 was late...........
C-17 proved to be so good, we bought them at end of these and bought some more before the line closed.

So, why didn't we bin all the A400 order then and order a few extra C-17 before they shut down the line, and order some new J's....seems to be the question.

Now we seem to be ditching the one true Tac asset and keeping two Strat.
I suppose the C-17's will be shagged out soon anyway and we'll be left with just A400M?
Just seen a photo on another forum taken on 22 Nov showing Bruntingrhorpe still has 6 Tristars apparently intact...........

[GeeRam]

Just seen a photo on another forum taken on 22 Nov showing Bruntingrhorpe still has 6 Tristars apparently intact...........

Not for much longer.
I heard that they were due to be towed onto the scrapping pans this week, once they finished chopping up the couple of 747's they started cutting up recently.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1481280858917154819?s=21