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)
|
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.
|
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? |
At the risk of repeating myself (many times, on various threads), the only thing to replace an old Hercules is a new Hercules.
|
"how many will have the A-400?"
More than operate the C-17? |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 11237198)
At the risk of repeating myself (many times, on various threads), the only thing to replace an old Hercules is a new Hercules.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11237126)
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? https://www.navaltoday.com/2022/05/2...-the-same-day/ |
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, 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:
Originally Posted by Ken Scott
(Post 10859504)
Well, they’ll be for the chop in the upcoming SDSR then.
|
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 11238476)
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?
|
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 11238566)
A great airplane, the venerable, hard-working C-141.
|
"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.................... |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11237241)
"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, |
Originally Posted by SLXOwft
(Post 11238529)
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.
(The US is 16th in SIPRI's GDP list of countries for which they have 2021 data). |
"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) |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11239382)
"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) |
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 11239620)
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).
|
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.