Originally Posted by Null Orifice
AA62
You are right on the subject of the differences in the relays - and in the (incorrect) assumption by 'powers that be' that they were getting a proven aircraft; after all, it had been in service with the gum chewers for a good number of years before we acquired ours.
Part of the problem was in the support/training departments. While I can only speak on behalf of the ground personnel, there was a complete lack of appreciation of the quantum leap we were expected to make from the Hastings/Bev, etc.
I cannot let this go unchallenged.
How does the failure of the British government and military in providing proper training and support for the C-130 when they decided to adopt it in any way mean that the C-130 was an "unproven aircraft"?
It was a very proven aircraft, with proven and successful training, maintenance, and supply requirements - with a proven and successful training, maintenance, and supply system in place in the USAF/USN/USMC - and the UK decided NOT to avail themselves of those when they adopted the aircraft itself.
That the UK, when the US offered to show them how to train for and maintain the C-130, said "no thanks, we'll do it our own way, as yours is obviously inferior*" only shows the flaws in the UK's decision process - it shows nothing about the aircraft itself.
* Perhaps they used the words "too expensive" here.