RAF transport fleet cuts
 

On a very current topic, and relating to events in Kabul, the decision to cut the RAF transport fleet by a third by retiring the Hercules without replacement ought to be reconsidered. Only the RAF can provide Government with a rapid response to crises, and I cannot imagine a crisis that does not require moving people, equipment, and supplies.

There was talk of transport aircraft being diverted from other tasks to fly to Kabul - so it is not like we have a huge excess of them.

The A400M was bought as a replacement for the Hercules!

True, originally planned to buy 25 A400Ms to replace 50 C-130s. Though able to carry twice the payload over double the range, they cannot be in two places at once. Mass matters.

The transport fleet cuts reflect the Integrated Review's overdue shift in policy emphasis away from COIN and stabilisation operations. Any fledgling prospect of that policy decision being reversed must surely have been terminated by our efforts in Afghanistan being exposed as entirely futile. It's fortunate that we still have the C130s to help get out of that mess. But the correct response is not to keep the aircraft: it's to avoid getting into such a situation again.

Not sure I see the logic.

The lease then purchase of the C-17s was very much a consequence of getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and a need to move to lots of troops and materiel. The pull from both, and the demise of BAOR and RAFG very much puts the role and size of RAF AT in question. The A-400, Voyager and C-17 fleets seem more than adequate to fulfil the need in numbers - the only remaining question being what, if anything, is needed for SF support.

The debacle currently underway in Kabul is a short term problem and won’t affect long term plans. It’s a matter of how do you put airframes, movers and aircrew in place at short notice. I would imagine a lot of negotiations are ongoing to establish airheads in places such as Kuwait and Qatar to enable quick rotation ferry flights transferring pax to connecting civil airlines.

the correct response is to keep them until we have a credible replacement, which currently we do not. It’s oft said but worth repeating: many air forces worldwide are investing in the C130 - including several of those that also have A400. Seems odd to me that we alone are going against the flow. They must all be wrong.

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'.

Anyway, we are continually exhorted to be 'international by design' in our approach to discretionary overseas operations, so if all our allies are doubling up their tactical transport fleets, what's the problem? Yes, sovereign capacity is needed now in Kabul, but the answer to that going forward is the old "don't fight land wars in Asia".

Sadly we are not very good at that. We binned the Harrier, Nimrod and E3!

Nope.

25 C130J planned to repace 60 130-K Yeah that worked well.

We bought A400 as part of being 'Europe; when we were leasing C17. Yeah that worked well.

I've heard there is a move within the RAF to retain perhaps half the current C-130J fleet. From sources both a Brize and from MADG at Cambridge. Time will tell...

Also apparently some of the stored A400Ms at Brize are in a sorry state.

"I've heard there is a move within the RAF"

only counts if you hear it from the Treasury - who are no doubt pointing out that with Afghanistan finally gone the UK doesn't need the same sized armed forces as it did 2 years ago......

Were the Js not originally meant as an stop-gap replacement for some of the Hercules fleet until the then EUROFLAG, later A400, came on stream to replace the C-130. That's why they operated alongside the remaining Ks for many years.

But how many A400s are currently operational?

With a lot of civvie airliners parked up right now, are any of these being considered to help out? I realise they won't go into a combat zone, but positioning them on nearby friendly territory, and running a 'hub and spoke' operation could work? Having said that, how many people in the know foresaw the Afgan situation collapsing so quickly? What a tragic waste of lives and assets for nothing.

One of my Flt Cdrs was behind the original procurement of C-130J. The plan was (initially) to replace 60 odd K's with 30 J's. However we only bought 25 (and failed to buy the tanker capability).

AFAIK the reason the Ks were kept on for so long was because the J's only had a limited RTS for air-drop for quite some time.

My recollection is that the J was procured to replace half the K fleet (the short term fleet as it was known, part-exchanged for Js) and the other half was to be replaced by A400M. It was the delays to the latter that led to the extension in service of the K. Originally C17 was leased for Herrick, once it was bought the A400M was rather surplus to requirements. The decision to get rid of the J (at a time when other nations are buying it to supplement their A400s as it can’t really do the Tac AT role properly) is rather foolish. We will be left with the A400M as our smallest transport aircraft, rather like DPD delivering parcels in an HGV rather than a van.

Ken Scott You recall correctly. The whole Hercules Rolling Replacement (Tranche 1 & Tranche 2), A-400M & C-17A is a saga worthy of a novel.

The first C-17 was delivered to the RAF in May 2001 so a few months before 9/11.

As a leased aircraft only, at that stage anyway.

yep, and only 4 at first, with a very limited usage profile

As was once said after a USAF briefing "What the Major (Sqn/Ldr) really means is...."..it`s been a really big `f**k-up all along......
Shame you didn`t throw in a few `leaning forwards`,reaching-out,and picking -up the the low-fruiting hangers-on` in that `total management concept` there Beags...!!:cool:

IIRC, THE 'J' was almost two years late into service as Lockheed seriously underestimated the task.This caused the 'K' to be run on longer than anticipated with a huge knock on effect on spares and personnel. None of this could have reasonably been forseen by the RAF as it was not until late in the day that Lockheed came clean about the problems with their 'easy' project.

I think you’re being generous there AA62. Not sure quite how long it took for FOC to be achieved. LM took on a lot with the J, but the UK was not helped by an appallingly badly written contract that was then poorly enforced. It was treated as a COTS buy, but had to undergo full development.

Mr N,
I am sure you are right but whatever the (usual) lousy contract said the boys and girls at the coal face had to do with an increasingly unserviceable 'K' fleet.
My only contact with the 'J' came as a member of the HEART when we visited Abbey Wood for the day The team there were very cagey about the 'J' and it did not inspire us with confidence By the time the 'J' came into service I had already left having already been extended for a year to do the HEART job.
As the RAF was the 'J' launch customer I think that Lockheed could have shown a bit more respect ! Perhaps I am being very naive !

I doubt the ‘naive’ bit. The J procurement was a mess. LM ran rings around the MoD, their poorly written contract, and the people on the PT. I was out at Marietta on one visit and was having a look around one of our new J models during testing. It had obviously failed one particular test, but I remember the LM engineer clearly expected the RAF engineer witnessing the test to sign it off. He didn’t, but i have always thought that was only because I was there.

I seem to remember LM was paying to have the aircraft ‘stored’ in the UK (Marshall’s?) as they needed them out of the way.

Those who think the J should be retained for longer should perhaps consider the state that these aircraft are in after years of brutal work in the deserts of Afghan, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi. My informants tell me that they are effectively "life expired" and the only solution along the "J" road is brand new replacements.

The MoD had already begun a centre wing-box replacement programme to extend the fleet out to 2035.

sounds like they probably need a bit more than just a centre wing box. Didn’t the last avionics block upgrade get cancelled?

At least two are done and back in service already

if they sell them off there`ll be a big `cancellation` fee going to Marshalls...

You don’t understand how the MOD works. They’ll complete the program and then sell them for less than the cost of the work to another Air Force that will get 20 years of service from the ‘tired’ frames!

Re avionics upgrade, It would be interesting to know, as the upgrade to Block 8.1 sounds fairly crucial to the aircraft's continued viability. As recently as last year it was referred to as being "under way".

Kabul
 

Are there no rules regarding covid in Afghanistan?

Is that relevant to this thread?

In respect of avionic updates to the Hercules fleet as part of our remit the HEART team interviewed the civil servant overseeing ' the 'K' ' HINS nav update It was very late and over budget.
It appeared that the contract for the INS bit and GPS bit had been given to different companies without either one being responsible for the whole. When difficulties arose each, predictably blamed each other ! The 'overseer ' seemed not bothered in the least at this sate of affairs despite the urgent need to get it into service.

Ken,3 of the `K`s went to Austria,and 2 to SriLanka( maybe even ex-tankers) and still appear to be working....

Unfortunately AA, still a common failure, despite being mandated in every aviation contract. FADEC for Chinook Mk1, and MADGE for SHAR FRS1, being obvious examples with far-reaching effects.

Indeed, sycamore, I did the odd training sortie to their home base and would occasionally see them flying. It would seem there’s still some life in the old dogs!

The Sri Lankan’s did take a couple of the old tankers and they really were tired. Multiple sorties at TOWs of 175,000lb did take their toll, as did the fighter affiliation even if we had to burn down to 135,000lb (as I recall) before we started to rack up the FI. Happy days!!

Back to the original question of retaining the J - a few years ago I had to host an amiable young lady at one of the OM annual shindigs for local dignitaries. She was from the A400 wing design team at Filton and I asked her about battle damage repair to the composite wing. She said there was none possible and that a single round through the structure would scrap the entire wing. ‘How many spare wings were there?’ I asked. ‘’None’ she said...

So in any future war scenario we might need some alternative Tac AT ac!

2 went to Mexico as well

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.