Herod:
"Yes the C130 was bought as a tactical aircraft, but to the RAF's surprise also proved to be a very useful strategic one".
Let me say right away that the purchase of the C130K was one of the smartest moves that the RAF ever made and it did indeed make a useful strategic freighter but it could never become a Belfast replacement for it was too small.
The whole point of the Belfast was its ability to carry large indivisible loads. The main part of the Belfast freight bay was 63 ft 7 ins long and 12 foot square at its narrowest point. The C130K main freight bay was 40 feet by 10 feet. It was really the height and width that made the big difference. The only other aircraft (outside of the USSR) at that time that could carry a 12 foot square object was the Lockheed C5A.
How does this matter? Let me give you a practical example; one Belfast could (and did) carry two Puma helicopters to Belize. (The first Puma was loaded nose-in at a slight angle and the second one backwards). Apart from removing the main rotor blades (of course) the two Pumas remained intact and all that was needed on arrival was to re-attach the rotor blades and after a bit of blade tracking etc, the helicopters were good to go.
When the Belfast went, it took three C130s to carry just one Puma which had to be seriously dismantled and then rebuilt in the field on arrival. I have no idea how many days that took but somebody out there will have the answer.
We could carry a Sea King helicopter. Just not possible in a C130.
So, we are trying to compare apples and oranges, much as the C130 was/is a quite wonderful invention.
I have taken the liberty of attaching a couple of diagrams from Molly White's excellent book about the Belfast (an aircraft that she absolutely loved). The Super Hercules that she uses for comparison is a Lockheed L100-30 (382G). The C130K was 15 feet shorter.