RAF C-130J's to be retired early?
I expect that the Hercs will have many countries falling over themselves to buy them, while questioning our sanity.
The following 2 users liked this post by Kick the tyres:
It's not just the Hercs, most other European F-35 operators are considering increasing their buys (the Netherlands already has), while the UK prevaricates and back tracks on its programme of record, and Germany and Spain are buying more Eurofighters while we try to sell ours off.
"Can we have some funding from somewhere please.....?"
Where from? The country has the highest level of taxation for donkey's years - all the doctors will have to be bought off, the T31 program now needs more money................ where do you suggest they get the cash?
Where from? The country has the highest level of taxation for donkey's years - all the doctors will have to be bought off, the T31 program now needs more money................ where do you suggest they get the cash?
"Can we have some funding from somewhere please.....?"
Where from? The country has the highest level of taxation for donkey's years - all the doctors will have to be bought off, the T31 program now needs more money................ where do you suggest they get the cash?
Where from? The country has the highest level of taxation for donkey's years - all the doctors will have to be bought off, the T31 program now needs more money................ where do you suggest they get the cash?
Putin has been empowered by the arms reductions that all Western countries have made over the years and now those countries are burning through those savings with a proxy war.
Defence isnt cheap, but we cant do without it.
The problem is that this isn't the view of the electorate. Military spending comes near the bottom of any list - it's money for Schools, doctors, nurses, care homes, roads, railways that they always demand .... and God forbid pensioners should have to give anything up.
I think it's crazy as well but that's the way the UK (and a lot of other countries) are.
I think it's crazy as well but that's the way the UK (and a lot of other countries) are.
Our new (RNZAF) C-130J commences delivery next year - so they are still coming off the production line. I understand there are/were issues with the fatigue life of the current RAF J's having been hammered in the ME but it appears to be the A400 that is the problem. What is the best fleet mix, C-17/A400 or C-17/C-130J (no one disputes the value of the C-17). To my simple mind it is the latter.
Last edited by Not Long Here; 23rd Apr 2023 at 11:39.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 164 Likes
on
100 Posts
Asturias56
The problem with the UK military is a litter historic. We were once a Great Power, as were some other European Nations if you go back far enough. However where those nations have learned to live with their reduced perceived status, the UK has not. These other nations realised what they could afford and structured their procurements and commitments in line with that. In the UK we have a habit of looking backwards rather than forwards, and as a result we end up with some ludicrous defence spending decisions, a prime example being two new aircraft carriers which we appear to struggle to crew, protect and indeed support. However for an island nation we managed to misplace our maritime patrol aircraft until very recent times.
While discussing maritime patrol who was it who signed off on the Nimrod AWACS experiment or even building Challenger tanks ? We have a history of inventing things, but being unable to produce the product to time or budget. Time to be more realistic and talk with countries and companies who can do that and let’s not always think we have to have the highest most expensive toys, because the Ukrainian conflict appears to be showing that you do not need the most expensive or advanced it needs to be good and reliable.
Cheers
Mr Mac
The problem with the UK military is a litter historic. We were once a Great Power, as were some other European Nations if you go back far enough. However where those nations have learned to live with their reduced perceived status, the UK has not. These other nations realised what they could afford and structured their procurements and commitments in line with that. In the UK we have a habit of looking backwards rather than forwards, and as a result we end up with some ludicrous defence spending decisions, a prime example being two new aircraft carriers which we appear to struggle to crew, protect and indeed support. However for an island nation we managed to misplace our maritime patrol aircraft until very recent times.
While discussing maritime patrol who was it who signed off on the Nimrod AWACS experiment or even building Challenger tanks ? We have a history of inventing things, but being unable to produce the product to time or budget. Time to be more realistic and talk with countries and companies who can do that and let’s not always think we have to have the highest most expensive toys, because the Ukrainian conflict appears to be showing that you do not need the most expensive or advanced it needs to be good and reliable.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Our current issue stems from Blair’s desire to be the best European he could, probably hoping that he’d get more understanding that way vice the largely sceptical and sometimes confrontational approach of his predecessors. A400 was totemic of that policy, and would have given the RAF a balance of A400/C130 like many in Europe. The issue was Blair’s evangelical appetite for being a ‘force for good’ globally and the lack of AT that could be used to quickly move kit around delivering his message. Antonovs were rarely available when they were needed, and subject to bidding wars. A400 was running seriously late so the lease of C-17s was the fudge; still a good European by not pulling out of Atlas, but able to quickly spread the word of Blair via Strat AT. The rest is, of course, history. The result is that we can’t afford, it seems, to run all three types. C-17 is irreplaceable, A400 too new, so C130 loses out. Capability trumped by cash/politics (again). It leaves the UK in the slightly odd position (since the retirement of the -146) with no cargo lifter between a CH-47 and a A400 (though, of course, you could use two Chinooks…..). It would be interesting to see if there was any cash benefit to running a small fleet of C-27J, but I guess, pan DLoD, it would still be cheaper to retain a similar number of -130Js. Be interesting to see how the RAF proposes to tank the MH-47Gs when they arrive, Airbus had had issues despite more recent success, and half of the Franco/German buy are KC-130s for helo AAR. Its also an admission that A400 is simply too big to be a sensible replacement for the Transall in many roles (especially SF and austere OOA like Mali…).
Our current issue stems from Blair’s desire to be the best European he could, probably hoping that he’d get more understanding that way vice the largely sceptical and sometimes confrontational approach of his predecessors. A400 was totemic of that policy, and would have given the RAF a balance of A400/C130 like many in Europe. The issue was Blair’s evangelical appetite for being a ‘force for good’ globally and the lack of AT that could be used to quickly move kit around delivering his message. Antonovs were rarely available when they were needed, and subject to bidding wars. A400 was running seriously late so the lease of C-17s was the fudge; still a good European by not pulling out of Atlas, but able to quickly spread the word of Blair via Strat AT. The rest is, of course, history. The result is that we can’t afford, it seems, to run all three types. C-17 is irreplaceable, A400 too new, so C130 loses out. Capability trumped by cash/politics (again). It leaves the UK in the slightly odd position (since the retirement of the -146) with no cargo lifter between a CH-47 and a A400 (though, of course, you could use two Chinooks…..). It would be interesting to see if there was any cash benefit to running a small fleet of C-27J, but I guess, pan DLoD, it would still be cheaper to retain a similar number of -130Js. Be interesting to see how the RAF proposes to tank the MH-47Gs when they arrive, Airbus had had issues despite more recent success, and half of the Franco/German buy are KC-130s for helo AAR. Its also an admission that A400 is simply too big to be a sensible replacement for the Transall in many roles (especially SF and austere OOA like Mali…).
Also, as much as being "a good European" (I get the impression you meant that in a perjorative sense), Blair's later commitment to the A400M secured thousands of British jobs.
"While discussing maritime patrol who was it who signed off on the Nimrod AWACS experiment or even building Challenger tanks ? "
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
"While discussing maritime patrol who was it who signed off on the Nimrod AWACS experiment or even building Challenger tanks ? "
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
The problem occurs when the domestic defence industry seems incapable of producing the goods after they've taken the money - look at Boeing for example
Had a quick scan and I can't see any link/reference to the evidence (Sqn Ldr Rtd.) Andy Netherwood gave to the HC Defence committee on the C-130 https://committees.parliament.uk/ora...nce/12869/pdf/ as part of its sessions on Aviation Procurement. Seems to sum things up nicely.
(emphases in bold are mine)
(emphases in bold are mine)
Q225 Gavin Robinson: Good morning, Mr Netherwood. What is the purpose and function of the air mobility fleet? What impact will the capability cuts announced in the 2021 Defence Command Paper have on the overall ability of the UK’s air mobility force to fulfil its role?
Andy Netherwood: The air mobility force provides fixed-wing air mobility to primarily the Ministry of Defence, but other Government Departments as well. Air mobility is the ability to deploy, sustain and recover personnel and equipment, often over a significant distance. The C-130 has been an important component of the UK air mobility force for many years, providing 14 aircraft that were to be retained until the early 2030s. As you know, that decision was changed in the 2015 Defence Command Paper, and they decided to retire it early this year.
On the impact that will have on the air mobility force, it is helpful to divide that into capability and capacity. In terms of capability, again it is helpful to divide that into two. The first capability loss will be temporary. This refers to the gap between the C-130 being retired and certain niche capabilities being transferred across to the A400M. I have read the evidence from the Chief of the Air Staff and Air Marshal Martin, and I understand that will be complete by 2025. So we are looking at a two-year, or a year-and-a-half gap in some niche capabilities. Some capability loss will be permanent. Having an aircraft that is capable of carrying between 10 and 37 tonnes of cargo, and an aircraft that get into the smallest airfields—something a bit smaller and more discreet than a larger aircraft such as an A400 or a C-17—is very important.
Turning to capacity, on the tactical air mobility side, the loss of the C-130 will result in an approximately one-third cut in the number of tactical air mobility task lines. It is a significant cut in the overall airlift capacity that is available to UK Defence and other Government Departments. That will be enduring, although it will be slightly mitigated if the plan to buy an additional six A400s towards the end of this decade goes ahead.
Andy Netherwood: The air mobility force provides fixed-wing air mobility to primarily the Ministry of Defence, but other Government Departments as well. Air mobility is the ability to deploy, sustain and recover personnel and equipment, often over a significant distance. The C-130 has been an important component of the UK air mobility force for many years, providing 14 aircraft that were to be retained until the early 2030s. As you know, that decision was changed in the 2015 Defence Command Paper, and they decided to retire it early this year.
On the impact that will have on the air mobility force, it is helpful to divide that into capability and capacity. In terms of capability, again it is helpful to divide that into two. The first capability loss will be temporary. This refers to the gap between the C-130 being retired and certain niche capabilities being transferred across to the A400M. I have read the evidence from the Chief of the Air Staff and Air Marshal Martin, and I understand that will be complete by 2025. So we are looking at a two-year, or a year-and-a-half gap in some niche capabilities. Some capability loss will be permanent. Having an aircraft that is capable of carrying between 10 and 37 tonnes of cargo, and an aircraft that get into the smallest airfields—something a bit smaller and more discreet than a larger aircraft such as an A400 or a C-17—is very important.
Turning to capacity, on the tactical air mobility side, the loss of the C-130 will result in an approximately one-third cut in the number of tactical air mobility task lines. It is a significant cut in the overall airlift capacity that is available to UK Defence and other Government Departments. That will be enduring, although it will be slightly mitigated if the plan to buy an additional six A400s towards the end of this decade goes ahead.
Q230 Chair: Okay. Would another capability be, for example on a very short runway, or a bumpy dirt track of Hercules can do with ease, and take off, versus the A400 is a lot larger aircraft built to do those sorts of thing?
Andy Netherwood: Yes. Both A400 and C-130 are capable of landing on short, austere strips. I understand that the Committee has been trying to drag out of Airbus and Lockheed which aircraft type can land on the shortest strips. The issue is that calculating aircraft performance depends on a whole bunch of parameters. That makes it easy to adjust those parameters to get the answer that you’re looking for. I have looked at the Airbus figures, which demonstrate that if you’re operating at max C-130 range and with higher payloads, then A400 can operate on the shorter strip. If you’re looking at larger load sizes, whether that load is cargo, fuel or both, then yes, that is going to favour the A400. It is a larger aircraft, so it is more efficient at larger payload and fuel weights.
If you wanted to get into a really small strip, the commander would be choosing a C-130. You can mitigate the range issue in other ways. If you had tiny strip and the C-130 could only get in taking a fairly small amount of fuel out, you could mitigate that either by prepositioning to an airfield closer to where you were going or using air-to-air refuelling. If the strip is too small for an A400, it is too small. You can’t get in. It is as simple as that.
The other issue with operating with small airfields is that airfields with small runways tend to have small aircraft handling platforms as well—small taxiways and small ramps—so you want a smaller aircraft, because otherwise you will find that you will not have room for all the other surfaces. It is not just about the runway.
Andy Netherwood: Yes. Both A400 and C-130 are capable of landing on short, austere strips. I understand that the Committee has been trying to drag out of Airbus and Lockheed which aircraft type can land on the shortest strips. The issue is that calculating aircraft performance depends on a whole bunch of parameters. That makes it easy to adjust those parameters to get the answer that you’re looking for. I have looked at the Airbus figures, which demonstrate that if you’re operating at max C-130 range and with higher payloads, then A400 can operate on the shorter strip. If you’re looking at larger load sizes, whether that load is cargo, fuel or both, then yes, that is going to favour the A400. It is a larger aircraft, so it is more efficient at larger payload and fuel weights.
If you wanted to get into a really small strip, the commander would be choosing a C-130. You can mitigate the range issue in other ways. If you had tiny strip and the C-130 could only get in taking a fairly small amount of fuel out, you could mitigate that either by prepositioning to an airfield closer to where you were going or using air-to-air refuelling. If the strip is too small for an A400, it is too small. You can’t get in. It is as simple as that.
The other issue with operating with small airfields is that airfields with small runways tend to have small aircraft handling platforms as well—small taxiways and small ramps—so you want a smaller aircraft, because otherwise you will find that you will not have room for all the other surfaces. It is not just about the runway.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
RAF aircraft in Sudan extraction of embassy staff was 2 x C-130J…
#sudanevacuation
-RAF C130J ZH868
-RAF C130J ZH869
#sudanevacuation
-RAF C130J ZH868
-RAF C130J ZH869
The following users liked this post:
A400 ZM404 and C130J ZH868
How to say this.. was lucky enough to be able to listen in on a lot of the Op. Quite a contrast to the US effort who had 6 KC-135's and a KC-10 for AR support plus F-16 escorts for the extraction assets. UK fielded an A400 and C-130 with no AR support which caused quite some issues.
Hutch
The following users liked this post:
Was it a Joint OP with close coordination between US and UK forces?
In all likelihood it was a multi-national effort with close coordination of military forces.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa...an-2023-04-23/
In all likelihood it was a multi-national effort with close coordination of military forces.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa...an-2023-04-23/
Was it a Joint OP with close coordination between US and UK forces?
In all likelihood it was a multi-national effort with close coordination of military forces.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa...an-2023-04-23/
In all likelihood it was a multi-national effort with close coordination of military forces.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa...an-2023-04-23/
Hutch
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 164 Likes
on
100 Posts
"While discussing maritime patrol who was it who signed off on the Nimrod AWACS experiment or even building Challenger tanks ? "
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
people who read the newspaper editorials on the importance of "buying British" and "saving British jobs"
it would be a brave politician who said "they're bloody useless - we're buying American/French/Brazilian"
You can work with the supplier on large enough projects so that you keep some work within your country, you just need to discuss and work with the supplier. There are always deals to be done, or partnerships to be made. The stupidity, and let’s be clear that is what it is, is to be reinvent the wheel on our own. As for saving British jobs care to point to the AWACS jobs or Challenger tank factory.
I know a little about some military projects as I was involved in building some of the infrastructure for them, and I think the British people may want their taxes to be spent actually producing a product that works and comes in on budget and time rather than finance BAE shareholders, and give the poor devils at the sharp end something that works and is there when required.
Cheers
Mr Mac
The following users liked this post:
The A400M dates back to the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) of the early 1980s, which is long before Tony Blair.
Also, as much as being "a good European" (I get the impression you meant that in a perjorative sense), Blair's later commitment to the A400M secured thousands of British jobs.
Also, as much as being "a good European" (I get the impression you meant that in a perjorative sense), Blair's later commitment to the A400M secured thousands of British jobs.
As I've explained before:
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 MRTT rather than a FSTA was being considered.
The following users liked this post: