View Full Version : Reconsider Hercules Retirement
bspatz
28th May 2022, 18:15
Interesting UKDJ article by Andy Netherwood suggesting that the decision to retire the Hercules fleet should be reconsidered. UK should ‘reconsider’ plans to scrap C-130 (ukdefencejournal.org.uk) (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-should-reconsider-plans-to-scrap-c-130/)
MPN11
28th May 2022, 19:49
Nice idea. And does the RAF have the crews, and the airfields, from which to operate them? Or the Tech support? Oh, sorry, that ship has sailed, sadly.
SASless
29th May 2022, 00:05
Retiring the Hercs at any time sounds patently stupid to me but then what do I know.
I would suggest the RAF and British Mod make a final decision of wether or not the UK is to have a strategic/tactical Air Force with the ability to project power outside the Western European region or not.
The C-130 is a very reliable and proven aircraft with an existing logistical trail in place....with tremendous ability to accomplish whatever task is thrown its way.
The real selling point is old fashioned interoperability with literally dozens of Air Forces that use the same aircraft.....how many will have the A-400?
Herod
29th May 2022, 06:44
At the risk of repeating myself (many times, on various threads), the only thing to replace an old Hercules is a new Hercules.
Asturias56
29th May 2022, 08:20
"how many will have the A-400?"
More than operate the C-17?
Crromwellman
30th May 2022, 16:17
At the risk of repeating myself (many times, on various threads), the only thing to replace an old Hercules is a new Hercules.
Just like the replacement for a C-47/DC-3 was another C-47/DC-3
NutLoose
30th May 2022, 17:28
Retiring the Hercs at any time sounds patently stupid to me but then what do I know.
I would suggest the RAF and British Mod make a final decision of wether or not the UK is to have a strategic/tactical Air Force with the ability to project power outside the Western European region or not.
The C-130 is a very reliable and proven aircraft with an existing logistical trail in place....with tremendous ability to accomplish whatever task is thrown its way.
The real selling point is old fashioned interoperability with literally dozens of Air Forces that use the same aircraft.....how many will have the A-400?
I agree it seems stupid, as does taking two nuclear submarines out of service in these times of heightened security.
https://www.navaltoday.com/2022/05/23/uk-retires-two-hunter-killer-submarines-on-the-same-day/
Lonewolf_50
31st May 2022, 16:23
Just out of curiosity - and if this isn't OK to talk about publicly then please advise - but is a part of the decision to retire the Hercs related to "flew the wings off" (airframe fatigue life limits, and expense of 're-winging') as happened to some of our C-141's during Desert Storm?
SLXOwft
31st May 2022, 18:06
Lonewolf, at a cost of GBP110 million (USD140 million) they had just all had their centre wingboxes replaced when the decision to get rid of them was announced. Boosted the chance of selling them at a good price I suppose.:E
As Ken Scott predicted in August 2020 on the RAF receives first C-130J with replacement centre wingbox thread:
Well, they’ll be for the chop in the upcoming SDSR then.
It is I believe straight saving money on running costs, especially on people, which IMHO has driven the focus on fewest possible types (not that rationalizing the number of types is a bad thing, if they can do the required jobs), the UK Treasury is clearly determined defence spending should rise above 41st place in the defence expenditure as a % of GDP league table. (The US is 16th in SIPRI's GDP list of countries for which they have 2021 data). We have few if any politicians who will fight for defence spending, it doesn't create enough jobs here anymore.
GlobalNav
31st May 2022, 19:26
Just out of curiosity - and if this isn't OK to talk about publicly then please advise - but is a part of the decision to retire the Hercs related to "flew the wings off" (airframe fatigue life limits, and expense of 're-winging') as happened to some of our C-141's during Desert Storm?
A great airplane, the venerable, hard-working C-141.
A great airplane, the venerable, hard-working C-141.
Having had the good fortune to spend over 2 years at Travis in the early 70s, I most heartily agree! (And it's surprisingly rare to see it mentioned here.)
Asturias56
1st Jun 2022, 07:31
"I would suggest the RAF and British Mod make a final decision of wether or not the UK is to have a strategic/tactical Air Force with the ability to project power outside the Western European region or not."
But it's not up to them
No.10 , the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail rule UK defence policy and the Treasury try's to stop anyone spending anything on anything all the time.
it's a process that refuses to accept limitations and consequences and has led to some pretty dark days for UK defence.
The latest example is sending an inoperative AA system to Poland....................
SASless
1st Jun 2022, 15:09
"how many will have the A-400?"
More than operate the C-17?
Seems like Eight Nations for the C-17 and Seven for the A-400....so pretty much a tie...with a numerical advantage to the C-17,
Lonewolf_50
1st Jun 2022, 17:44
Lonewolf, at a cost of GBP110 million (USD140 million) they had just all had their centre wingboxes replaced when the decision to get rid of them was announced. Boosted the chance of selling them at a good price I suppose.:E It is I believe straight saving money on running costs, especially on people, which IMHO has driven the focus on fewest possible types (not that rationalizing the number of types is a bad thing, if they can do the required jobs), the UK Treasury is clearly determined defence spending should rise above 41st place in the defence expenditure as a % of GDP league table. Ah, makes sense, thank you! Reminds me of the US Army doing the sundown of the OH-58D. The savings in manpower billets was, if memory serves, a significant aspect of that decision.
(The US is 16th in SIPRI's GDP list of countries for which they have 2021 data). Interesting tid bit there.
Asturias56
2nd Jun 2022, 07:23
"Seems like Eight Nations for the C-17 and Seven for the A-400....so pretty much a tie...with a numerical advantage to the C-17,"
Agreed - but they've stopped building the C-17 (which I consider to have been a major mistake)
Lonewolf_50
2nd Jun 2022, 14:40
"Seems like Eight Nations for the C-17 and Seven for the A-400....so pretty much a tie...with a numerical advantage to the C-17,"
Agreed - but they've stopped building the C-17 (which I consider to have been a major mistake) Likewise. But I think that they were having a tough time getting new customers and thus keep the production line warm. (Memory may be a bit foggy on that, though).
tdracer
2nd Jun 2022, 18:39
Likewise. But I think that they were having a tough time getting new customers and thus keep the production line warm. (Memory may be a bit foggy on that, though).
That's correct - they didn't even have buyers for the last 10 or 12 aircraft when they started building them 'at risk' on the assumption that they'd eventually be able to sell them (and sell them at a profit).
treadigraph
2nd Jun 2022, 20:00
Did they keep the tooling or has it been scrapped?
Thinking about Lockheed reopening the C-5 line in 1980s... could it be done with the C-17 if needed.
C-141... a favourite type for some reason.