RAF transport fleet cuts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Short sighted indeed and entirely based on saving money rather than anything to do with capability as even if the A400M were capable of successfully taking on the J’s roles the reduction in numbers of ac would amount to a severe reduction in AT capacity. With aspirations to ‘global Britain’ and operations in the Far East that AT capacity will be vital.
As you say all the other A400 users have C130s or similar to supplement and pickup the tasks that the former cannot do.
As you say all the other A400 users have C130s or similar to supplement and pickup the tasks that the former cannot do.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,914
Received 2,836 Likes
on
1,211 Posts
You also by killing off the J put the workload onto the other fleets reducing their life expectancy as well as struggling to meet any future crisis, the fact they have been struggling for capability at the moment by diverting them off tasking while they have the J in service does not bode well for future operations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
.
.
The same France which has relied heavily on the UK for C-17 support due to its lack of strat lift? Keep looking.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the UK was dependent on NATO for marine recce for quite a while... that's the benefit of a proper alliance - not everyone has to do everything
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and of course some do very little at all"
regretfully that is the case - and they profit by doing it
regretfully that is the case - and they profit by doing it
The Dutch recently rejected the A400 as the C130 replacement as it had operational limitations.
Every other A400 operator apart from Belgium operates either the C130 & / or C235 / C295.
The RAF C130 fleet was due to remain in service until 2035 & If the RAF were replacing them with C295 or C27J it may make more sense.
In an increasing volatile world both politically & with more adverse weather conditions any cut to our transport fleet (fixed wing & rotary) seems a very short sighted decision.
Every other A400 operator apart from Belgium operates either the C130 & / or C235 / C295.
The RAF C130 fleet was due to remain in service until 2035 & If the RAF were replacing them with C295 or C27J it may make more sense.
In an increasing volatile world both politically & with more adverse weather conditions any cut to our transport fleet (fixed wing & rotary) seems a very short sighted decision.
Story in the Mail today that a 47 squadron aircraft landed near (not on) Kandahar air base at night and lifted about 20 Special forces out. The comment made that without the Hercules it wouldn't have been possible?
mmitch.
mmitch.
Bring back the Andover.
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A genuine but rather noddy question, what is it that the Herc can do that we won’t be able to do with the A400m? I’d understood it to be very capable, and I promise I don’t work for Airbus
Ultimately, nothing. Once all of the A400Ms' capabilities and clearances are rolled out, it will be able to do everything that the Herc can do and more. The issue is one of numbers and economics, in that having fewer A400Ms means a reduction in mass which will result in a loss of capability. In terms of economics, it will be massively more expensive to transport a (typically) small SOF team in the back of a larger and more expensive to operate A400M than it would a Herc, and also the nature of SOF work means a far greater risk to losing/seriously damaging an airframe which given the fewer numbers would be a bigger issue than currently.
I think we have missed a trick- We could save more $s and increase capability.
Retire the A400, C-130J and those dangerous Chinook and Puma contraptions.
Replace the lot with the Mighty DHC-4 Caribou - sorted.
Take anything anywhere in theatre
Retire the A400, C-130J and those dangerous Chinook and Puma contraptions.
Replace the lot with the Mighty DHC-4 Caribou - sorted.
Take anything anywhere in theatre
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
A genuine but rather noddy question, what is it that the Herc can do that we won’t be able to do with the A400m? I’d understood it to be very capable, and I promise I don’t work for Airbus
The A400M is more of a Bentley Bentaga - nominally it can do everything that the Defender can, it’s much nicer on the road (= strat flying) but would you seriously expect it to survive off road (= Tac flying) or would you fear that it’s delicate electronics and expensive body panels might not cope?
I haven't seen any Hercs on the flightline at Kabul on the news. Do they have the legs to get back from there to somewhere like Dubai or Qatar with a full load of PAX without AAR?
it will be massively more expensive to transport a (typically) small SOF team in the back of a larger and more expensive to operate A400M than it would a Herc, and also the nature of SOF work means a far greater risk to losing/seriously damaging an airframe which given the fewer numbers would be a bigger issue than currently.
Finally finally, I wouldn't be surprised if an Osprey or two came into the mix for such eventualities when we come to look more closely at Puma's impending replacement.
Similar arguments being advanced here to those which were made in favour of keeping more than two fast jet fleets. The flashy and expensive Typhoon and F35 both spend most of their time doing stuff that could easily be done with less capable platforms, but we need both types' capabilities in reserve for certain scenarios. The cost of using them inefficiently in the meantime is evidently less than the cost of running a third fleet.
Reading between the lines of the expert contributions above, my take is that we shouldn't really be operating both C-17 and A400M: the former was a stop-gap for the latter. However the users have come to value C-17 so much that it's unchoppable. And the A400M is both new and European, so in policy world it's unchoppable. So unless either user or policymaker budged from their positions, the C-130 was going to get chopped. The user appears to have concluded that C-17 was worth keeping over C-130, and I don't think many would argue.
Reading between the lines of the expert contributions above, my take is that we shouldn't really be operating both C-17 and A400M: the former was a stop-gap for the latter. However the users have come to value C-17 so much that it's unchoppable. And the A400M is both new and European, so in policy world it's unchoppable. So unless either user or policymaker budged from their positions, the C-130 was going to get chopped. The user appears to have concluded that C-17 was worth keeping over C-130, and I don't think many would argue.