In a table detailing current and future Ministry of Defence expenditure, an entry is listed mentioning that the UK plans to purchase additional A400M Atlas transport aircraft later this decade.

An entry in the table under the heading ‘A400m Additional Purchase‘ reads “Additional purchase of A400M planned for the late 2020s”. The increased fleet capacity was also hinted at in the Defence Command Paper, more on that below.

There is no number given however the UK has already ordered 22 A400M aircraft with 20 having been delivered so far. The remaining two are expected this year.

It’s worth remembering that the Royal Air Force will lose its entire fleet of C-130 Hercules aircraft by 2023. The Defence Command Paper released last year, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, states:

“The Royal Air Force will retire the BAe146 as planned by 2022 and take the C130 Hercules out of service by 2023. The A400M Atlas force will increase its capacity and capability, operating alongside C 17 Globemaster and Voyager transport aircraft and tankers.”

The C-130J variants first entered service with the Royal Air Force in the late 1990s and some of the C-130s have been retired in recent years but the remaining 14 had originally been due to keep flying until the mid-2030s. It is understood that, where possible, their missions will be picked up by the fleet of larger A400M Atlas transport aircraft.

What does Atlas do?

According to the Royal Air Force website, Atlas has the ability to carry a 37-tonne payload over 2,000nm to established and remote civilian and military airfields, and short unprepared or semi-prepared strips. Capable of operating at altitudes up to 40,000ft, Atlas also offers impressive low-level capability.

“It will accommodate as many as 116 fully-equipped troops; vehicles; helicopters, including a Chinook; mixed loads, including nine aircraft pallets and 54 passengers, or combinations of vehicles, pallets and personnel, up to a payload of 37 tonnes.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

159 COMMENTS

    • C17 is a Strategic transport, A400M straggles the Tactical (transport within theatre to short and unprepared strips) and Strategic (Transport between theatres but requiring long tarmac or very long semi-prepared runways) divide being an excellent tactical transport and providing a minimum strategic capability as well.

      • The C-17 is perfectly capable of landing and taking off from a dirt strip. In fact, C-17s were used in Afghanistan on Special Ops missions doing tactical landings on dirt strips at night ferrying troops and equipment in and out.

        • Those are classed as semi-prepared strips not unprepared strips, they have to compress the ground with bulldozers first to stop the wheels sinking.

        • No one said they couldn’t land on dirt.

          But they need a lot of length to take-off and do need the ground to not be too rough.

      • A400 cannot land where a Herc can , much heavier and therefore it digs in, propeller gearbox is prone to failure, much more vulnerable than the Herc.

        • Simply not right. Atlas has a softer ground pressure footprint than the Herc carrying a 21T payload (Herc max payload). Gearbox unreliability issues have been overcome.

      • No it can’t. It needs much wider runways as it has a wider foot print. This is a disadvantage when going into very small airfields that the C130 can land on

        • A C295/C27J can fit into even smaller places than a Herc. Probably a far better combination would be more Atlas with half a dozen C295 (or V22?) for certain specialist SF work.

    • We need more A400Ms as the ones we have don’t work very well. If we get 30 of them we should be able to guarantee that at least 1 might be serviceable

    • Herc Cuts are more due to the fact its 50+ years old and while still a great Airlifter, a host of Modern UK kit doesn’t fit without a large strip down.

  2. GOOD LORD!

    It’s not April 1st is it?

    And we were just discussing Herc/Atlas/C17 pros and cons and should we buy more on the other thread.

    If true, a great help.

    25 were to be acquired originally. I hope it is for a few more than that.

    ( I still want to keep the Hercs!! )

    • Definitely excellent news! I do wonder about a potential capability gap between losing the C130 and gaining additional A400…

    • Morning DM I agree I would like to see some of the Hercs kept. They can do things that the Atlas can’t. All in all it is some good news with an increase in RAF transport ability.

        • Get in and out of places the Atlas can’t due to size, wieght,take off distance etc. Don’t get me wrong the Atlas is a dammed good bird but in my opinion the A-400 is more of a strategic transport aircraft whilst the C-130 is a more tactical aircraft.

        • Hi SR, an Atlas is about 75 metric tons whilst a herc is about 35 metric tons so landings on fields, beaches etc is much more complicated for the Atlas. The same issues are with landings and take offs. An Atlas on a tactical take of needs 980m whilst a Herc needs 430m. As I have tried to say the Atlas is a good bird longer range, better capacity etc than a Herc but getting in and out of tight spots for SFs, rescue missions etc the Herc would find it easier. So from a tactical/battlefield forward airbase to battlefield I would use the Herc, for Strategic airlift Uk to foward airbase the Atlas.

          • Thanks Ron. I can see your logic, however the Atlas has a lower ground footprint than the Herc due to its much higher flotation undercarriage, meaning it has better performance on soft and unprepared strips. This is of course dependent on all up weigh, but assuming an equivalent payload of say 21T. As for strip/takeoff length, I’m not sure but you may be right. I was led to believe however, again with equivalent payloads, that both aircraft had similar takeoff runs. Remember combined max installed power is 18.5K horsepower for the Herc and 44K for the Atlas. In every other way, both tactically and strategically, the Atlas outperforms the Herc. When I was working at Brize Norton I often heard it said that for certain SF work the RAF actually needs something smaller than the Herc, something like a C295/C27J, or even smaller. I’m no expert but having flown in both Atlas and Hercules, over a longish tactical type mission (as a guest I hasten to add) I know which aircraft I’d rather take me into battle. But as I said, I’m no SF expert. Cheers

          • I agree I know what I would rather give me a lift. I also agree that possibly for SF operations a smaller aircraft would be better. A very good old friend of mine that served out in Borneo used to go into battle in an Auster. Even landed once upside down on the beach in the water, ouch is all I could say.

        • Too many to list really. If the C130 has 100 capabilities then the A400M will be able to accomplish around 40 on the list. The A400 can probably do some of those 40 better, can might have another 10 or 15 that it might be able to do in the future.

          • Mmm… not sure. When the A400M spec was being written (a process I was part of) the participating nations made sure that every performance point and key user requirement was at least as good, and in most cases better than the Herc or the C160 Transall. The actual aircraft turned out to be better than the written spec in about 37% of cases and met the spec in the rest. So it’s a mighty aircraft within its design category. Only downside I can see vs a Herc is larger radar and IR signature. But then again, no transport aircraft is stealthy in the slightest. And if a small footprint is really required for specialist SF work, probably a Herc is already too big and noisy anyway. You want something even smaller.

    • Might just be other governments are looking at reducing their buy so we can take those airframes at a good price?

      Makes sense to consolidate types.

      A400M can lift a lot more weight than a C130J

      Maybe just maybe the fact that RN and RAF have been grown up about removing obsolete kit and Boris £24Bn come together to see worthwhile increases in worthwhile kit?

      • Hi Supportive Bloke,

        I agree. Taking old kit aout of service and then ‘gapping’ the capability to straighten out the budget and hey earn some brownie points and buy some shinney new kit.

        I also wonder if the RN has been putting in a supportive word as a result of the RAF’s contribution to CSG21. Given the small overseas foot print we have air transport is key to deploying our carriers to the other side of the world…

        Cheers CR

        • I doubt the numbers will be 14, thus reducing capability, which appears to be MOD policy in regards to procurement? Realistically, 10 additional airframes would allow the RAF to supply UK forces far and wide, in line with Global Britain.

          • It is a little bit more nuanced than that.

            Standard payload on a C130J is 15,000kg and at that payload range is 3,300km

            Standard payload on a A400M is 30,000kg with a range of 4,500km.

            The operational parameter that is critical is kg*km. In this respect an A400M is almost 3x better than a C130J.

            So buying 5x A400M would keep the same kg*km of RAF transport fleet at parity and adding 7 would increase it.

            C130J
            Payload = 15,000
            Range = 3,300
            kg*km = 49,500,000

            A400M
            Payload = 30,000
            Range = 4,500
            kg*km = 135,000,000

            These are Wiki figures but they won’t be miles out.

            Hope that sort of makes sense.

            Plus you get the very real savings from being able to retire spares, training and maintenance and all the rest for the C130J fleet.

            I agree that if money was no object then keeping C130J for SF would be totally sensible. Let us just be thankful that there appears to be a real plan to consolidate and improve with new state of the art kit.

    • Hi Daniele,

      It does ‘appear’ to be good news…

      I would say that the notional number of 25 for the second batch of airlifters, filled by the A400 eventually, came from a 1990’s requirement for 50 airlifters to replace the C130K.

      At the time, in the early 90’s, we all had high hopes for the European FLA, especially as for a short time, the US was considering joining too…

      As we know, the US didn’t, went for the ‘J’ and FLA turned into a typical ‘ slow as treacle’ European bun fight, that decades later, is yet to to be fully operationally cleared!!

      Anyway, going off track, the original plan was for 50 FLA with deliveries starting in 2000 ( or soon after), we eventually had to go for 25 J’s ….. Thank god we did!

      At least the A400 is finally maturing and becoming a vital NATO asset.

      I would be happy with an additional 8-9 to replace the lost J model airlift, more would be good though, considering our robust world wide rapid reaction ambitions today….

    • Jeepers D. So I pinged you on this very subject yesterday – my suggestion of purchasing used example from the Germans! What a bizarre (but potentially happy) coincidence. I do agree that retaining the c130j’s would have been the preferable option.

  3. WHAT???
    Is this actually good news? I do hope it isn’t only 3… but if not that is rather fantastic and while will not be able to replace the Hercs in some specific roles, especially for SF, will increase our airlift capacity without question.

    • As far as I know the A400m can replace the Herc in SF operations. It looks like it has a take-off distance less than that of a Herc! That is impressive. There is talk of keeping SF Herc is service for longer though purely due to the fact the A400M is still new and SF operating envelopes and procedures have not been fully tested and proven yet.

        • Yes, my thoughts exactly, a distinctive whine (not exactly covert), even from FL250 to FL300. That said, the Herc did/does have its own distinctive deep hum …. it especially did when it had the old Allison engines as per C-130K C1/2. Still good news we might see more A400Ms, let’s hope it’s not just a cynical 2 or 3 extra, though I bet we’ll not see a one-for-one replacement with the 12 to 14 or so Hercs.

      • Yes, of course it can replace it. The issue for me is does it need to? Does supporting DSF need an aircraft that size? Not for me.

        And using Atlas for the SF mission means those ac are not now doing what they do best, carrying large loads on the multitude of other taskings required of them. For SF assigned aircraft, I would guess, large loads is not such a prime requirement. Unless they are deploying half the SAS in one go, which is unlikely.

        It’s like picking up an SIS officer and his RWW minder with a 747. Outlandish.

        • Morning Daniele, c130s all round workhorse for decades now well built airframes the RAF has used them for so many different jobs except 1 would love too see a couple reconfigured as good old ground support Gunships manned by the RAF Regiment If only one can dream

          • What an outsanding idea! If they took it on, the comittee managing it would demand that the C130’s would need stretching 25 feet and have more toilets fitted. The guns would need to be designed from scratch and power supply enhancements would be needed. The extra weight would meem RR will design and build special oneoff engines. The obvious, and much cheaper option would be to buy a couple of AC130 Spectre from the Americans!

          • OK David It was worth a try , just bang in a couple of 20mm Gamb’01s nstead only 2 Aimer and 2 Loaders one portside one starboard side Or do what the Argies did lower the Ramp and It becomes an ineffective Bomber 250lbs and 500lbs

          • AC130 purchase was actually speculated on when we were in Afghan.
            I’m not sure that the RAF Regiment manning it would go down to well with certain here!

        • Hi Daniele,

          I don’t think that is entirely accurate, mate. Small teams can require signicant equipment so a high altitude drop with guided pallets could be an answer. You’d need comething pretty for that sort of thing.

          Cheers CR

          • Quite possibly mate, which is why I added the “guess” comment.

            On the other thread, I “assumed”

            Always best to do both when I’m not actually in SF so don’t know for sure!

        • There seems to be a theme in the DCP about removing older platforms and reducing the number platforms types. The cancellation of WCSP for more Boxer, more A400 but removal of C-130, replacement of multiple hull types with MRSS, multiple Helo types with NMH, Sentinel cancellation (and perhaps more Protector / Lanca?). This must be about reducing operatinal costs and simplyfying logistics to improve availability.

          • Could well be. If those programmes actually deliver in the numbers required.
            So far, and as usual, cuts happen quickly, the new kit comes later. If it has not been quietly cancelled by then as the “carrot” is nibbled away for other things.
            But there is always hope the positives all comes to pass James.

        • We could have retired all Hercs if we procured C295s to fill multiple RAF capabilities, including SF. I believe Voyager (with Saab AWAC role conversion), Atlas and C295, combined with RPAS could fulfil all RAF needs.

        • The subject of C-130s, SF missions and other mission sets that it could be used for (ala,same uses/capabilities the US has been using the C-130 for, for many years) reached a crescendo a few years ago with rumours of all kinds of exciting ideas. Including fitting weapon kits to them. That was at the height of COIN OPs and Clearly things have changed dramatically since then (apart from maybe the Africa interests)
          Cost is always an issue, but there is a lot of mileage in having smaller aircraft like the C-27. The US had a fair few Skyvans in Iraq that did a lot more than ferry VIPs about, and as limited/outdated as they were, they were still very useful.
          I know it would be increasing the fleet types to 3 again, but I know that there would be a lot of use made of these smaller aircraft, they can be reconfigured quickly and as previously mentioned they have a much smaller footprint all round than bigger transports.
          The RAF use Skyvans to stand in for C-130s during jumps courses, (weird feeling like jumping from a corrugated garden shed) but it does the job for keeping current.
          If there was a further purchase of something smaller, something that can AAR that ‘can’ make it (limited) ‘strategic’ if the transit times are long haul, SF could have first dibs on these aircraft, and Para Reg get an aircraft more suited to their training requirements. There will still be bigger formation jumps that will need A400 for, but it won’t be a regular occurrence unless the MOD change a bit of doctrine. Battalion size would be possible, but Company size is a lot more realistic.
          Going off piste slightly, there could very easily be a joint requirement for such aircraft, or even at a stretch forget C-27 et all and go for Osprey. A joint pool of these would be very useful. SF (long distance etc, US Rangers trialled this and it’s doable) RM JPA and other tactical transport missions and Para Drops. We don’t even jump from Helos these days which always struck me as very short sighted.
          Cost is always going to be an issue, and tech is moving fast with uncrewed air, but I think we are still a way off from trusting unmanned transport planes carrying troops, of any kind. 14 Osprey, but ideally 24 would allow us some real strategic reach without relying on large aircraft to drop a Sqn or Troop in somewhere. A lot less expensive, and a lot bloody quieter as well.
          Alas, a pipe dream, and if we do get more A400s that’ll be great, but it won’t solve the issues we had/have of getting people to far flung places fast & first, sneakily and where there’s very little chance you’d have to stop short a long way off and then make your way there by other means. (Unless that’s the plan of course) keeping the moving parts of a complicated enough move to a minimum is always desirable, and I’ve lost count of the times we relied on the US for transport. They’ve got they’re ‘SF air’ very sorted, and the way we re going with Ranger Regiments, expeditionary focused forces and overseas Hubs we re gonna need a less ‘one size fits all’ approach and provide the means to get us in and out, at reach in probably very austere places.

          • Richard.

            Good to see you posting again. Fascinating comments, and I totally agree on the utility of smaller types. And why A400 is not the answer. It has too many commitments on it already.

            I think sadly a fleet of V22 that size is indeed a pipe dream.

            I thought we had our own “SF Air” pretty well ordered with JSFAW and its components. And they keep dismembering it!

            Interestingly, some infrastructure for possible UK V22 use has been built by MoD. Probably just borrowing Uncle Sams, sadly.

  4. A great decision. The A400M is streets ahead of the aircraft it replaces. Those crying into their keyboards about the retirement of a 1960’s airframe need to accept change, sentimental value doesn’t win wars, capability does.

      • Yes, most salient comment here by Knight7572 and nobody replies but you. Everybody else too busy playing procurement manager. 25 C130s ordered in December 1994. 22 A400s ordered plus planning on more.

        • H Ron I gave some thought to the state of the C130J fleet. No doubt they’ve been worked hard. I’d like to understand if they can be retained if re-sparred and re- engined?

          I can tell you from my experience that the SAAF C130B fleet were worked very hard in their lifetime and are still operational (all be it barley), with 60 years on the clock come 2023.

          Now Im not suggesting keeping the J models for half a century, but it demonstrates what can be done in extending their longevity.

          • Before Austria and Bangladesh got the ex RAF K models, they had the main wing spars replaced by Marshalls. This has given them another 10 years of life.

        • “Everybody else too busy playing procurement manager”

          Right….including one poster who actually oversaw the entry of Atlas into service with the RAF…. 🙄

          It is positive news, so lets all play “procurement manager” for just a while and enjoy.

          Deary me.

    • Hi K . I can tell you from my experience that the SAAF C130B fleet were worked very hard in their lifetime and are still operational (all be it just), with 60 years on the clock come 2023.

      Now Im not suggesting keeping the J models for half a century, but it demonstrates what can be done in extending their longevity

        • Hi tblt – totally understand your airframe hours point. My example of the SAAF C130 is exactly that- ,they have amassed huge airframe hours. That being said, they been sparred twice today and also re eningedt

    • Many of us were hoping for a buy of 8-9 to cover the 13 Hercs leaving service.

      That number would pick up the lost ‘lift’, but, (its possibly just my cynical mind here), they might be considering replacing the C17 by 2030 and they ‘could’ be considering the additional A400 purchase for that eventually.

  7. Germany has 13 its been trying to get rid off the ages – perhaps a deal could be struck with them to pick some up relatively cheaply, especially now the C17 line is closed. Kabul showed the need, Global Britain suggests more capability for expeditionary forces not less. Good news indeed. Fingers crossed.

  8. It might be just attrition buys to take the A400M into the late 2030’s. I recall CAS mentioning attrition buys of F35s at some later date in a recent interview. So maybe the RAF is trying ensure a capability going forward rather than wear out our current fleet and then buy a whole new fleet of some yet to be defined future transport. Given the trend of RAF equipment buys, a fleet of new aircraft is always smaller than the fleet it is replacing purely on affordability grounds almost irrespective of the threat/need..

    • At this point we don’t really know when and how many new A400M will be ordered but hopefully attrition replacements will also be made on top of this order at a later date when the fleet has had some usage.

      “the trend of RAF equipment buys, a fleet of new aircraft is always smaller than the fleet it is replacing”

      Whilst that’s true so far, the RAF is at a point where they cannot really reduce aircraft numbers without being completely ineffective. Only 9 voyagers, 3 e7 and 8 fighter squadrons the RAF cannot realistically reduce aircraft numbers without losing capability. Probably the most likely to go is strategic airlift and air to air refuelling given that the A400M can do both, and whilst that would be terrible I think it’s a very real scenario.

      • Capability isn’t simply measured with airframe numbers. New aircraft are very expensive, and much more capable. Availability rates are also much higher, so you can do more with less. For example the Voyager fleet regularly hits 95% availability rates and higher. The old VC10 and Tristar fleets struggled to hit 60%. The Atlas can carry double the load of a Hercules and over a greater range. The 3 E7’s will easily surpass the capability and availability of 5 E3’s. Plus the new Protector fleet will further enhance our networked area of coverage.
        I’m not saying I’m comfortable with low numbers. But it’s much more complicated than it often seems.

        • Yes whilst aircraft are much more capable now I was referring mainly to future replacements of these aircraft, whilst along time away. For example the RAF cannot cut 3 AWACS down anymore as aircraft maintenance and crew costs would be too much too warrant reductions. Also, although this point is made a lot, more capable aircraft can still only be in one place at any time.

          • I think the next generation in AEW will be unmanned. UAV’S networked together with the crews safely operating them from a hangar at Lossiemouth.

          • yeah you’re probably right, maybe there could be similarities across a fleet of AEW, SIGINT, and sentinel replacement, or even they could all be based on the same airframe with different loadouts.

        • Agreed, but as the capability of individual airframes has advanced so has that of the potential threat cancelling out any capability advantage we might think we have. Whilst the West has been focusing on low technology opponents in the Middle East for the last 10 – 15 years, the Russians and especially the Chinese have been making huge strides in the numbers and capability of their equipment. In some areas they are probably ahead of the west so I am afraid numbers are still very important.

          As an aside, it is a little misleading to compare 5 end of life E3Ds which have had no useful technology upgrade since delivery in the 1990, with 3 aircraft which have yet to fly. When new, the availability of the E3A was excellent as demonstrated in the many long duration operations it has flown around the world over the last 30 + years. Hopefully the RAAF claims for the E7 performance will be realised but I would council caution that aircraft conversions of this scale rarely proceed to plan and although we tend to see the E7 as a new design its has been in RAAF service for some 10 years after a problematic development period..

    • I’ve just seen that the US Military is about to put 3 F35’s into storage, 2 ‘B’ s and a ‘C’, now we are now short of one 🤔 I wonder if a deal could be done ?

  9. A400M for special forces?? Hercs are disposable at about £20m each……the A400M is definitely not at ~£120m each

  10. The Hercs should be kept until the end of the decade. 22 A400’s plus the C17’s and 14 C130J’s makes for a highly flexible fleet able to meet all required missions. It didn’t need fixing but still, the MOD broke it!

  11. Good news, something that I had hoped for but not expected!
    It is properly hard to work out how well the A400M could replace Hercules, primarily because I can’t find a comparison of how the rough field take-off and landing performance compares. They always seem to not quite be apples and apples. If anyone has one, that’d be great. What I’ve seen seems to suggest that the A400M actually wins on both counts, despite being larger and heavier. I know that sometimes the pure physical size difference may be a limiting factor, but I imagine 99 times out of 100 it’ll be more down to runway length.

  12. Looking at the C 130 and A400 for tactical use and particularly Special Forces tasks, the A 400 being bigger, will be easier for hostile ground troops to target with small-arms fire. Discuss.

  13. Iherditonthegrapevine

    I have noted on many/numerous forums the significant difference in noise and decibels that the A400M ATLAS makes compared with the C-130K. I live under the LYN RW 25 (as was) now 24 @ 6d LYE so ac were twixt 2000’-4500’ on departure). I have done so since 1977.

    ATLAS noise is ghastly, those 8 bladed props make for a very unpleasant sound, unlike the HERCULES. The old K model just rumbled inoffensively into the air.

    I should guard against trying to make an argument about it – the Wives Committee (RAF) have deemed it the case; so a discreet withdrawal would be most wise gentlemen.

    Now, in serious mode, a little bird – to be honest a large Bald Eagle – told me of a few things happening at BZZ, via-à-vis ATLAS ac sitting around the af in varying levels of unserviceability if not actually being cannibalised for ‘bits and pieces’ (The Dave Clark Five 1964).

    Bald Eagle’s snout (source) Phil the Totally Huge Pheasant also clucked that it is common knowledge that said A400M is not cleared to drop certain loads/things that waft gently down under parachute(s).

    Who’dah thought THAT? (Not asking……….)
    Happy New Year and Stay Safe.

  14. Brains Trust question if I may.

    I am looking for a link which lists US air forces in the UK.

    I want to check if it really is more than the RAF.

    Cheers.

    • Check out on Wiki for details on these locations:

      RAF Lakenheath.
      RAF Mildenhall.

      Ground units / infrastructure are also at –

      RAF Croughton.
      RAF Barford St John.
      RAF Welford.
      RAF Alconbury.
      RAF Feltwell.
      RAF Blenheim Crescent.
      RAF Molesworth.
      RAF Fairford.

      And embedded at MoD / UK military sites in several other locations.

      I believe the number of F15E / F35A assigned to 48th FW alone is not far off the RAF fast jet fleets inventory.

      • Ta.

        Just having a debate with someone who says all is hunky-dory in the European Defence garden, and looking for a startling example.

  16. Do you think the UK will go for the rapid dragon palletised cruise missile delivery system if so will the A400 be able to deliver it? I know the C17 can?
    Any thoughts anyone?

  17. An additional buy is good news. However, the C130J is better suited to SF work, particularly the MC130J which we sadly don’t have……

  18. People ignore or don’t appreciate that all the remaining RAF C130Js need very expensive wing spar replacements. Deemed money better spent in the short term on new and novel capabilities from within the budget available. The last resparing would have not been done until later in this decade and the fleet was due out of service anyway by the early 2030s. Hardly a wise investment in the circumstances. More Atlas is the way ahead when money is available later in the decade to maintain overall lift capacity requirements driven by army deployments (smaller army now) and the RAF deployments… now half the capacity when the RAF ATF was sized in the early 2000s

    • The centre wing replacement was already paid for, that money has been spent. Retiring the aircraft early has not recouped that. Aside from the capability gaps that will ensue for years the simple fact is the RAF and MoD as a whole rarely fly C-17 or A400s full, therefore, if you’re looking to be ‘green’, which the MoD is, neither platform, not the Herc make sense flying when empty. Funnily enough, after 50 odd years in service most loads are Herc sized…

      • I’m sorry but my understanding is that the wing spar issue was not as you say. Only one ac has undergone the “trial” installation and that came in at considerable extra cost (I’m talking
        Multiples of the original estimate) and blew out of the water any budget allocation made in 2015 for said programme. The cost effectiveness of it was therefore rightly challengeable especially against the ISDR liking to spend money on future essential capabilities and not on old stuff. This the allocated 130 re spar funding has been reallocated – probably to A400.
        Sure 60 years of C130 ops have created loading and tactical MO that can either be directly accommodated by the bigger A400 or some (and that has never been publicly defined) C130 capabilities may have to be lost. My contacts within the AT community seem optimistic about what A400 can deliver bearing in mind in some scenarios the investment in CH47G can substitute for C130 also.
        Budgets are budgets and even in the post ISDR world of additional money available there are limits to what’s possible and some capabilities are being lost to be replaced by what the Staffs believe is more worthwhile for the modern battle space and within the new U.K. deployment contexts. A400M despite its bad early press and limitations is coming good too.

        • Hi Dave, unfortunately your sources are incredibly incorrect, three are complete with a fourth going through now. Their resale value is minimal without it and the further planned spendings are budgeted on the value of the CWRP being completed. The money from the sale if the fleet is likely to be spent on AESA Radar for Typhoon.
          A400 is still a long way from delivering, a clearance on the platform is not a capability with trained and sustained crew numbers.

    • With that being the case, surely new C130’s would be a better buy than wing re spars. As great as folks say the A400 is it’s good to have a mixed load ability.
      You would want an HGV dropping off ur Amazon parcel and postage costs associated with it.
      I don’t know the costs, the budgets etc and I imagine it’s a very hard job trying to decide what to buy and when for the airforce.
      Really the defence budget is huge but so is the costs.

      • Frankly that’s just not a viable decision – new 130s would be even more Expensive by a big amount than the respar programme. Furthermore the removal of a type fleet provides more savings to spend elsewhere given the removal of dedicated training and logistics streams. You are being far too simplistic in your analogy about Amazon parcels etc. immense investment had been made by the RAF in its Atlas fleet and it would be foolish to assume costs per flying hour are radically different to maintaining and operating a smallish C130J fleet.
        Some capability compromises have to be made when fixed budgets are needed across the spectrum of RAF needs to be better ready for the emerging threats. The Defence budget is huge and so are the calls from all Services on it to equip and operate the capabilities needed. As such only the most essential get funded at the outset. Highly desirables and nice to haves by definition therefore often miss the cut –

        • I do agree that savings will be made but these savings have been made a lot before and I’m just not sure the money gets put back in the correct places.
          The questions must be: what does the C-130 do that the atlas cannot. How utilised are the atlas and c-130 just now. Will it be missed if retired. What are the savings going to be and where is it going.
          I know the RAF work the aircraft hard. Not like the 50yearold c-130s still flying for other nations.
          If the capability can be dropped and not have a massive impact then ok. Go ahead

  20. Assuming this is actually.planned and not just hopes by the MOD and assuming the plan isn’t to retire a few early purchased to replace with newer models, then this is great news.

    Converting a handful to gunships would be a significant boost, to be able to provide persistent CAS without needing to call in the US would be good.

    Also time to work on the air-to-air refueling options to enable extension of range to the Chinook and other helicopters.

  21. What are the thoughts here on the RAF operating a small tactical airlifter for SF missions? C-27J or C-295 perhaps? Maybe eight or so to replace the Herks along with the plus up of A400M. Or a….CV-….errr.. tilt rotor?

    • All non-starters as you’re buying a very small specialist fleet of aircraft with limited uses and all requiring additonal support/maintenance and personel investment over and above what is already allocated. C295 can barely carry anything except personell, C27J is small (same load width/height as a herc but half the lifting capability) but useful in certain situations, Tiltrotor options? Well thats basically the V22 so expensive and complex, yes, its fast-ish but slow and short ranged compared to an A400 (and doesnt stack up well against Chinook for general use) but with less lift capability than a Junglie Merlin…But the major issue is, in all honestly, what do you want to cut in order to get them?

      • Happily cut some RAF merlins or Pumas. CV22B on the aircraft carriers would provide a credible helicopter package. Don’t forget the range and the ability to A2A refuel. So many bad decision in aircraft in defence at the moment. A400 is terrible unless you’re moving stuff around the world.

  22. Spain had surplus A400M. Perhaps the UK could buy those at a discount? Another 7 to make 29 for the RAF perhaps? 3 pure transport & 4 tanker/transports as they are above the 25 of the original plan. If Airtanker objects, charge them with Treason.

    • To be honest we need at least an additional 10 to replace the 13 Hercs. 7 from Spain and 3 from Germany, perhaps?

      Really, I think we should just increase the A400s to 40 airframes. Won’t happen, of course!

    • Airtanker have the contract to re-fuel with the type specified only, so unless Aircraft are not supported for Probe and Basket, RAF is free to use Nato Alliance aircraft.

      Someone at the Procurement Office was very clever, as the P8s and E7s are Boom receivers. which would have caused the Air Tanker contract to possibly overshoot the contract usage.

      This way currently air tanker contract will run its course on value fo money.

      • Airtanker has been a disaster from day one. We paid top dollar for poorly equipped aircraft. I hope the RAF buys its tankers outright next time.

  23. Good. And a few more/ another batch of F35Bs please. At least 24 more needed maybe 25 actually to replace crashed loss

  25. A400 can carry a battle weight warrior into theatre. A C-17 cannot. However with the MOD seeming to be buying even heavier vehicles than warrior ie AJAX even more A400’s will not be able to carry the overweight waste of money AJAX. Sorry last bit my own thoughts.

  26. Good news, especially if the final number is 30< to actually replace the Hercs. I wonder if there's any scope for arming some of these new airframes? Rapid Dragon is certainly interesting but no doubt expensive, even some Brimstone pylons would be an improvement. A shame that there's zero scope for 8-10 C27s to fill the SF/gunship gap but that's just playing fantasy fleets

  27. The possible order will make up for the 3 A400 Atlas cancelled from the original order of 25 cut to 22 during defence cuts of 2010. Should also rethink the retirement of the C 130J Hercules

  29. Wow. Most of you clearly have no clue how bad the A400M really is. All I see is paper stats. Yes it can fly higher further with more kit but that’s useless unless you can actually land it. The plane is trash. Getting rid of the hercs was a horrific idea.

  31. The Dakota could land in a field, could carry a hugely worthwhile load of troops or equipment, could be fixed with a spanner by one bloke with a shed and you had to physically beat it with iron bars to stop it taking off … and … in today’s world it is utterly and completely obsolete. Nostalgia has no place in modern warfare. I assume SF have tested A400 in various scenarios they are likely to need and they have planned forward for removal of Herc.

  32. Well, there is at least one and, possibly two general elections due in this decade. Two possible changes of government, two more possible defence “reviews” to go.
    Add to which there are few votes to be had where military spending is required!
    I’m not holding my breath!

  34. Just a thought but are the french and Germans not getting c-130s? They operate the A400 already. Are they privy to some knowledge we have not considered

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here