Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Reconsider Hercules Retirement

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reconsider Hercules Retirement

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th May 2022, 18:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 113
Received 26 Likes on 6 Posts
Reconsider Hercules Retirement

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)
bspatz is offline  
Old 28th May 2022, 19:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes on 63 Posts
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.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 00:05
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,289
Received 512 Likes on 214 Posts
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?
SASless is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 06:44
  #4 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,141
Received 223 Likes on 65 Posts
At the risk of repeating myself (many times, on various threads), the only thing to replace an old Hercules is a new Hercules.
Herod is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 08:20
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,419
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
"how many will have the A-400?"

More than operate the C-17?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 30th May 2022, 16:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Huntingdon
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel

Originally Posted by Herod
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
Crromwellman is offline  
Old 30th May 2022, 17:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,845 Likes on 1,215 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
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/2022/05/2...-the-same-day/
NutLoose is offline  
Old 31st May 2022, 16:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,201
Received 396 Likes on 246 Posts
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?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st May 2022, 18:06
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,279
Received 132 Likes on 86 Posts
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.

As Ken Scott predicted in August 2020 on the RAF receives first C-130J with replacement centre wingbox thread:

Originally Posted by Ken Scott
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.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 31st May 2022, 19:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,077
Received 151 Likes on 53 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
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.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 31st May 2022, 22:49
  #11 (permalink)  
ICM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bishops Stortford, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 469
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
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.)
ICM is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2022, 07:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,419
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
"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....................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2022, 15:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,289
Received 512 Likes on 214 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"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,

SASless is online now  
Old 1st Jun 2022, 17:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,201
Received 396 Likes on 246 Posts
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
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. 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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 07:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,419
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
"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)
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 14:40
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,201
Received 396 Likes on 246 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"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).
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 18:39
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,412
Received 180 Likes on 88 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
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).
tdracer is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 20:00
  #18 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,620
Received 294 Likes on 162 Posts
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.
treadigraph is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.