Originally Posted by
Stratnumberone
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".