The Royal Air Force’s C-130J Hercules capability is planned to be withdrawn from service on 30 June 2023.
Appropriate disposal activities have already begun.
The C-130J Hercules is a military transport aircraft that has been used for various purposes, such as transporting troops, cargo, and equipment, as well as supporting humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations.
Alex Chalk, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated:
“The Royal Air Force’s C-130J Hercules capability is planned to be withdrawn from service on 30 June 2023. Appropriate disposal activities have already begun in support of the potential sale of the airframes, flight simulators, support equipment, and the remaining specialised C130J spares inventory.”
In preparation for the withdrawal of the C-130J Hercules from service, the RAF has started taking necessary measures to facilitate the potential sale of the aircraft and associated assets.
These measures, referred to above as “appropriate disposal activities,” involve the process of decommissioning the aircraft and organising the relevant resources for sale.
The resources mentioned include:
- Airframes: The main body and structure of the C-130J Hercules aircraft, which could be sold to other countries or organisations interested in acquiring these aircraft for their own use.
- Flight simulators: Training devices that replicate the experience of piloting the C-130J Hercules, allowing pilots to practice and develop their skills in a safe and controlled environment.
- Support equipment: Various tools and machinery needed for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the C-130J Hercules aircraft.
- Specialised C130J spares inventory: Spare parts specifically designed for the C-130J Hercules aircraft, which could be used for maintenance and repairs by potential buyers.
The RAF is taking a proactive approach to ensure a smooth transition as the C-130J Hercules aircraft are retired from service, while also potentially generating revenue from the sale of the aircraft and associated resources.
A somewhat stupid decision, but in-line with HMGs ineptitude. Taxpayers should get a good price on the sale, which should then be used to finance additional A400Ms.
You have been keeping up with what new stuff is coming on stream or in the pipeline haven’t you?
What new stuff?
Let’s see now🤔 CR3,Ajax,Boxer,T26/31/32 more F35s new ASM missiles for the RN,Archer SPGs new submarines missile and attack,probably missed some stuff but how about that to be getting along with?
I get your gist, but these are existing projects late and over budget, oh and none in service.
There will be no replacement for the C130J.
And if there are any additional orders for the A400 fleet then I’m a monkeys uncle.
Not what you asked though was it? You said what new kit and there is a list of new kit on the way or in the case of F35 in service,new astute submarine’s are coming into service, you can’t really claim that kit not even ordered yet as ‘new’ kit.
All too late. The war starts in July.
I disagree, removing an entire aircraft fleet will always be a significant saving verses salami slicing fleets and when you have C17, A400M and chinooks any benefit C130 has is marginal.
Airlift is still an area where the UK stands out in terms of numbers and capability.
Anything C130 can do A400M will be able to do eventually.
“Anything C130 can do A400M will be able to do eventually.” Have to disagree there Jim. I think Herc is better suited to the UKSF mission, and numbers are still important regards the RAFs ATF. This decision removes a quarter of it, as well as leaving DSF without dedicated AC, unless they use some of the 22 Atlas. We then will have an even greater bunfight than before with differing areas of defence bidding for the use of even scarcer assets. The reported 6 extra Atlas will help and I acknowledge Jacko’s comment above that some of this saving will… Read more »
Agree with that totally.
6 additional atlas? Could you let us know where this was reported as I’ve not seen it anyway. Thanks.
I think CAS mentioned it when meeting the HoCDSC. It was a few months ago now I might be wrong.
Yes, 6 is the plan but they were pulled from the financial plan for affordability reasons, 6 remains the aspiration.
However, worth noting that Spain are looking to get out of their commitment to buy their final 14 – could mean airframes available sooner and possibly cheaper??
Maybe they will swap for 14 Hercules, 1 careful owner. Only been shot at a few times. Passengers always take shoes off before entering.
spot on DM! I’ll believe the extra 6 A400 when I see them.
MOD arithmetic: 14 C130 J less 6 A400M = greater agility. 😂
It does not have the same potential ability to land on a short strip. The A400m needs 2500feet. It’s possible for a c-130 to land on a 1500 foot runway and take off on a 2000 foot runway. But with low loads it’s even shorter or if your a bit mental…the US navy tested landing and taking off unassisted from an aircraft carrier it was proven that even at max payload a C-130 can use only 745 feet for take off and 46o feet for landing…not that this is in any procedures or anything…I was the USN and airforce having… Read more »
Not too mention that the US is still taking about making a flying boat version of the C130 for Pacific SF operations.
How often have UK C130’s needed to landed on 2000′ runways? When was the last conflict the UK was been involved in, were air superiority wasn’t achieved?
Every time an aircraft is retired, we have the same old “wrong decision”. Personally I’m more worried abou the RAF wanting to tick the diversity boxes, by looking to recruit non white pilots, rather than the best people for the job.
Nothing to do with doing better. The A400 fleet can’t be everywhere at once. There’s not enough of them, it’s as simple as that.
Eventually is the issue
Yeah we’ve heard all that before. Bring on the de havilland Rapides!
Not sure where the budget goes. This comes at the same time as Australia buys 220 tomahawk missiles, which is almost 4x the number the UK has.
And in time of war we can’t get any more when needed?
From where? If the US wants to supply us we can get some from them but it means are miltiary action are tied to having their nod. Plus it would take time to build new ones if the US didn’t want to give from their stockpiles because they needed them.
Please explain where you think that we will have to use our TLAMs all on our own? IF it all kicks off the US will supply as much as it can to its allies much as it is doing for Ukraine! The only possible use of our missiles on our own would be in the defence of the FI etc! In which case one or two lobbed onto argie airfields will cause a change of heart I’m sure!
Your assuming our interests will always align with the US. Suez should have taught us overwise, Falklands reinforced that (they didn’t back us from the start took a bit) and pull out of afgan cermented it. As the US interests becomes less and less aligned with Europe and more focused on China, relying on them always being there isn’t guaranteed.
And to be honest as before we would be unlikely to strike directly at Argentina in the case of a new Falklands war….. after all we did not even declare war in 1982 or make any attacks on Argentina…HMG and armed forces had a specific mission which they undertook without escalation.
Well TBH we never had the capability to strike Argentina in 82 we were hardly going to try to fly a Vulcan over them were we? The threat of being able to strike them with TLAM/ Storm Shadow would hopefully give them pause for thought iin the unlikely event of them trying it again.
The US doesn’t give its allies anything. You have to pay in one way or another. Guess who will get the lion’s share of any Ukrainian reconstruction contracts?
You are wrong in your assessment of only using a TLAM for the FI. The UK chooses to use some of the vast 900+ Storm Shadow inventory rather than the merge 70 TLAM’s. Besides, the TLAM’s are currently being upgraded to block V. We need many more as it’s always better to have and not use, rather than need to use and not have.
On our own ?? Seeing as the U.K has never used TLAM in any conflict that the US or NATO weren’t involved in. The chances of using one against Argentina on our own is probably a massive zero. And it would be the biggest single U.K own goal since Suez. If you think of the love/hate relationship between South American countries and the US the image of a US built missile being used by U.K is frightening. There would be consequences such as no more missiles, zero friendly logistic support and serious as very serious diplomatic Shit Storm And you… Read more »
If you read my post correctly you would see I said that the ONLY scenario I could see of us using a TLAM on our own was to defend our sovereign territory!
Well I did read it correctly and I also know that the US are very careful about when, why and whom they supply certain weapons. In the Falkands war they did give us a game changer in the latest version of the sidewinder and it was purely defensive. No offensives we’re supplied ! As we have our own Storm Shadow which is quite capable of spoiling an Argentinian Siesta. I suggested that as the weapon of choice. I see that after your original post you amended your other replies to TLAM/Storm Shadow. I also note that at no point do… Read more »
TBH it was a post that just pointed out that we would not use TLAM on our own unless it was in defence of our sovereign territory! The FI was just an example of said territory! Storm shadow never even came to mind. I can’t see the Argies having the capability to threaten the Islands in the near or even far future as for the shitstorm that would follow any actions don’t invade other counties territory!
Further to my earlier reply I just thought you may find this of interest and explains why the UK would avoid using TLAM without US approval. The consequences would be absolutely Cataclysmic to US/UK relations. There are just too many strings attached in the supply arrangements. And you just need to see the control exerted by the US, Germany and Switzerland to restrict the supply of certain weapons to Ukraine to see how that works. And conversely it works rather well for us as well. One of the biggest reasons Argentina has struggled to procure modern Aircraft of ships is… Read more »
What a load of bollocks, in a shooting match is no chance you need to have time to ring up the US to as permission to fire.
Who said anything about getting their permission to fight?
What we would need is their permission to restock any ammo used, if it’s brought from a US company. Hence why you need your own stocks, so you dont have to get into that discussion mid conflict
Nukes and the UK MIC for starters, plus an extensive estate.
Yip – the nuclear deterrent chews up 13% of the MoD budget annually that used to be covered by the Treasury. It was very quietly moved into the defence budget back in Cameron’s day I believe.
If just this was reversed, think of the impact it would have on the defence budget – it would cure a lot of ills and give significant relief on the pressures currently facing our conventional forces!
I thought I read the cost of the nuclear deterent accounts for 1% of the defence budget, but might have misread that.
1% would be 400m odd.
There’s an interesting doc with lots of info.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf
Not researched this but maybe 1% is the running costs of the current deterrent force (but I would have thought it should be higher) and the higher figure quoted by others here covers procurement of the new system and decommissioning of the old system.
I’m sure you are aware that we only operate four missile submarines .
George Osborne.
Nuclear should have been taken away from the military, we shouldn’t be in a citation where atomic weapons are part of the nations arsenal and only used as a last resort when attacked with nuclear. The military rightly so should manage these weapons but absolutely shouldn’t be footing the bill for it, like you say imagine the army with the extra budget.
Agree the CASD is a geopolitical tool not actually a military one it’s never going to be used to fight a war. It’s simply an all die button to deter against the use of weapons of mass destruction against the UK.
Which shouldn’t be in the defence budget. The use of WMD’s is political, not military.
If I were take some things out of the MOD budget it would be defence R&D (as it’s not cost – it’s investment) which is some 2bn and Cyber, which after nuclear subs is the most expensive line in the equipment plan.
But think or the kit and capabilites the Australians don’t have.
Yeah agreed but also consider the stuff they have that we don’t, such as way more maritime patrol aircraft etc and their defense budget size is around half of the UKs.
They only have 3 more P8’s than we do. And remember the vast size of Australia and its coast line. It also doesn’t have the advantage of having a close neighbour operating the same aircraft. (Norway) They also don’t have the global logistics footprint that we do.
This is true. It just feels like if our forces were in a real fight, that they lack depth in every area. They have breath of coverage but not depth, so can take part in any conflict but would rapidly run out of equipment if the conflict lasted any period of time.
I think any nation would be in the same boat. But add our capability alongside the rest of NATO, and it’s still a very capable fighting force. Overwhelming capabilities in most area’s. Very few scenarios these days that would see us operating on our own. I think we need to take a long hard look at defence and the capabilities we need to prioritise, and what we might have to let go and let other nations take up the slack. Defence equipment isn’t going to get any cheaper. Unless we greatly increase defence spending, I’m struggling to see how we… Read more »
and two more recently ordered Robert for a total of 14. Not to mention 6 Wedgetail vs RAF planned three.
And they will need them to cover such a vast continent. Look, it’s not a pissing contest 😄 It’s good Aus is investing in such a capability.
Of course it’s a “pissing contest”!!! Lol 😂 We’re keeping each other on our toes. Just don’t mention possible Aussie Boxers for Germany which would be quite a manufacturing coup for down here.
couldn’t agree more with you Robert !👌
I didn’t read your post Klonkie, but spot on! Love the 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇬🇧 banter.
I believe the number of P8s in the RAAF is going up to 14 and 6 E7 Wedgetails AEW.
correct Q D63. I just saw on SKY first edition that a RN helo has apparently crashed off NSW. Any inside gen on this?
Morning Klonkie, I only caught this late yesterday on the news so can only summarise. Complete engine fail, was on exercise I think, hit the sea from some height, bounced up (youch!), put their floatation tanks down, then landed upright. Brilliant landing, floating upright on the water and all survived. Two injured but not too seriously, I believe. Probably wants to make the Army get rid of these Taipan’s a bit sooner! You’ve got the French made version in NZ. How are they going in service…want to buy a few secondhand Aussie Taipan’s? And some Tigers too, being replaced by… Read more »
Where are that many going to be put there aren’t that many RN subs.
An Astute would take 30 max.
Actually where is Australia going to put them?
48 MK41VLS tubes on all 3 Hobart’s and the 32 tubes on 9 Hunters.
That should do.
And potentially 4×7=28 VLS on the three Australian Virginia’s too.
Do we know if the 4 MK41s on the Aus T26s are all strike length? And the same for the Canadian T26s?
No sorry but looking at many of the ships with MK41 they mainly opt for them. Be daft not too as our T26 / T31 will.
Which begs the question are we buying more TLAM or sticking solely with the FC/ASW ?
WE never buy eneough of anything
True – and we always buy less kit to replace old kit.
Defence cost inflation. It’s been around for a century and it’s not going away. The only way we can got off that train is if we accept inferior tech for our kit. The Russians are finding out right now the downside to that.
But we only fire tomahawk from our astute class submarines so how many do we actually need or can use. Say an astute filled half its bomb room with tomahawks that’s only 16 missiles…we are only going to have 1-2 astute available in any given potential conflict and they would then have to come all the way home for a reload. We also have storm shadow as an air launched option as well as our escorts will all be getting 8 navel strike missiles each. If we had strike length mark 41 silos on our escorts then yes we would… Read more »
Your only thinking round 1. So they initially fire off 16 missiles each, that’s 32 or half the stock used. They go back to base to reload and now full stock used and only week 1 of the war. If it was Falklands and operating too far from base to reload the we have enough, but is a pretty niche case. I think we have enough kit for an initial attack, just not sure about a sustained conflict. Look at libya, they had to scale back fast and start risking Apache because they couldn’t sustain the attacks beyond the initial… Read more »
They would go to their (most likely USN) Tender. Why loose off your TLAM’s 6000KM away and take weeks RTB?
Ask the russian navy that, it’s exactly what they have been doing all year.
In a prolonged war things get repaired and so it will be a constant job to taking out airfields etc as they get repaired or replaced.
Only the US and maybe a handful of other counties have the capability to use overwhelming power to take out the other counties ability to fight on day 1.
Any Sale Proceeds goes back to the Public Purse. Otherwise the Army would of sold everything by now
It’s unfortunate but my understanding is that the upgrade required is extensive. The decision only makes sense if those funds are used to expand the A400M fleet.
It’s not actually . The UK’s -J is the newest variant of the C130. Other nations will be wanting these.
They are basically shagged out due to how heavy they have been used, AFAIK they will need re-sparring which is an expense taken on by the new owner, but which the RAF is not prepared to pay.
I recall that Water Bomber that folded up pulling out of a shallow dive . So if we’re selling them off before they become scrap it doesn’t seem so bad then .
That water bomber was a C-130A and it was lacking NDT crack testing that would have revealed it’s faults. Not relevant atall to the RAF C-130 J fleet.
A war that the government supports. The threats that magnify from that. The new and additional capability gap that directly impinges on SF operations. All for a small saving in the budget? No. This decision was and now is negligent nonsense.
The RAF is known to work its C130 hard. Probably the hardest worked aircraft of the J’s. also the RAF were the first people to get the J so they are the oldest.
I think they got these ones in 1998-99. 24-25 years old.
plenty of life left provided the are re sparred . The SAAF C130 B fleet is 60 years old now. (but thoroughly knackered)
Anyway, woulda coulda shoulda !
Whilst clearly this aircraft has made an outstanding contribution is it not perhaps time to move on? Could this airframe seriously continue in service and if so for how long? Is it time to bite the bullet and move on to something which might or might not be better?
I think a good marker will be to look at who these planes are sold to. It’s likely that they will be sold to be torn apart for spares.
If they are sold to an air force for immediate operation for many years (without expensive upgrade) it would be concerning.
We sold some to Bangladesh who contracted RAAF to do training and work up – the Aussies were a bit taken aback by how worn out and hard worked the 4 frames were. I think we got good value out of them 🙂
With the A400M not able to fully take over the role yet I think the sale is a year, 18 months to early. It’s a same to see the herc go but it’s to much of a strain to keep 4 different AC types for the mobility force.
I am hoping the money from the sale and savings from training and maintenance etc will be used to buy more A400M’s or even used to buy more c-17s from the Americans if they have any kicking around.
To echo other comments the Herc’s have given great/long service and it wouldn’t be so bad withdrawing them at this point and consolidating down to fewer types if the overall transport fleet was being bolstered by more A400 now rather than a vague mention of some in the future if the cash is found. C17 and A400 are also big aircraft that are like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut in some situations. It’s a pity we didn’t look to get half a dozen of something slightly bigger than the Falcon/Envoy to replace the BAE 125/146 that could mitigate… Read more »
Should we be concerned about the hours on the shrinking fleet? E.g., there are only 8 x C-17s and they get worked very hard.
With a total reduction in airframe numbers – as the C130s will not be replaced one for one with A400s – aren’t we at risk of working the remaining fleets into the ground?
Sad to see the binning of these iconic aircraft with no replacements planned. So typical. Lose a huge capability and then try and defend the reasons why.
It does seem similar to the withdrawl of Harriers. Hasty scrapping/selling before a replacement capability is in service.
Short tern financial lead decisions ahead of capability requirements.
Issue with that BAEs grounded the UK Harriers by removing there flight certification on the basis they would not service the airframes Due to Asbestos. Governments cannot ground a aircraft only the manufacture.
Don’t know where this info came from. I was part of the team servicing/overhauling the Harriers at the time they were “scrapped” by the bean counters. We’d pretty much just about completed upgrading the whole Harrier fleet at the point the government decided it was the right thing to remove them from service. No issues with Asbestos that I’m aware of and I worked on Harrier GR 7/9 for around ten years both with the RAF and BAE.
That,s right Andy. They sold the whole fleet of our Harriers for the price of One to the yanks half way through their upgrades allegedly.
I Just wonder if the A400 Airframes will be around in 50+ years as the Herc has done Bill
Surely the replacements are A-400Ms?
Sorry Graham l must have missed that order for 14 A400’s!
Good one Bill, that’s the heart of the problem!
At least we’ll be able to defend something!
My concern is simply that assets are disposed of, prior to replacement capabilities being in place. Simplistic? Agreed, but to a layman like myself, it seems logical.
Think it’s crazy but has paulw says hopfuly help to finance a few more A400Ms,it’s not like we don’t need them 🙏
yeah consider the C-130J is old and frankly, the design itself is nearly 7 decades old it is time to move on to something more modern
The RAF Hercules are reasonably recent, it’s just that they have been very intensively used.
25 years old and worked very hard. A quarter of a Century is hardly “reasonably recent”.
Reasonably recent is a fair comment, the C130K’s were in service in one way or another for 47 years.
The thing is, we’re not “moving on” to anything. The Atlas is already in service, and there is no replacement order.
This is exactly the same situation with the CHF.
We “replaced” the in service 33 Sea King HC4s with in service Merlin of the RAF. rather than the planned SABR. One of G Brown’s raids on defence, the rotary budget especially.
It is, just another cut, dressed up as an enhancement.
Absolutely correct Daniele, it’s a cut in anything but name.
Many people are making statements on here and have never had the requirement to use the Hercs in the areas the A400M’s simply cannot. I suppose ‘we’ are content on either not performing a tasking where we know we cannot do it with the replacement assets, or, are we going to put servicemen in danger by asking them to do things our assets are incapable of getting them out of.
My argument exactly mate, with a reduction of assets, such as the C130, it reduces options and therefore may make a bad option, the only one. The herc, is in fact a bit of an expendable asset in regards to some taskings and the Atlas will, and is, to much of a gold plated platform to risk.
Spain talking about cancelling 13 A400m orders. If HMG had any sense there could be very attractive options on those orders.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spain-may-cancel-remaining-airbus-a400m-orders-sources-2023-03-13/
It would seem the obvious decision, if the RAF took on 8 of these it would replace the airlift lost by the 13 J’s.
Farewell noble Hercules. On the plus side I think you might be able to carry an Archer in an A400.
Just to point out to all the C130J’s are old and worn out design comments. They’re still in production in the last 4 years they’ve had orders for 43 new airframes and 31 of them just from Aus who are doubling their fleet and NZ who couldn’t find a suitable replacement for the 5 Hs other than 5Js. Since 2015 they’ve delivered 200 airframes. Now I like the A400M I’ve been an advocate for them on here but we need enough of them which we don’t have and even if the speculative 6 extras still be short. It also Can… Read more »
The main issue looming with the C130J, is it’s extensive use in the war on terror, burning up airframe life. It could certainly go on for a few more years, but before long, it would require new wing centre boxes and outer wings, plus updating to the currently standard…. All quite doable, but it’s actually cheaper at this point to hook into Uncle Sam’s production and trade in for a new batch. This is exactly what Australia is doing, replacing and expanding the fleet to 24 new C130J models. I actually think the RAF should buy another 8 A400’s and… Read more »
@LongTime, You are 100% spot on.
JC I actually don’t think buying 10 new airframes and either trading the olds or scrap then for parts to sustain the fleet is a bad option, if the mods are going to be that pricey. Another 8 A400 would definitely help plug some of the gap. The US didn’t have any C17s for Aus 2 years ago it another reason the C130 order was so large but on that front there’s no new design on the horizon so what will USAF do? I think Spartan was a missed opportunity in the 1st place but I believe the USAF ones… Read more »
Absolutely, 8 A400’s replaces the lost physical ‘lift’ from the J fleet.
Certainly one of the reasons I would go for C27J is there is a genuine demarcation between this and The Atlas.
A fleet of 12 for light transport and SF use would really fill the neche capabilities.
Perhaps even with a few gunship kits for dedicated SF support, or replacing the airfield falconers in keeping the resident pigeon problem under control!
As I said JC if we can find 10-12 C-27 we should be flying them away whilst the ink dries in my opinion. It would allow us to retire the Hercs knowing it was leaving a capability gap and I’m fine with that. I just don’t think we should be leaving SF guys short of anything as it’s something we are well respected for. As DM said above a removal of an option may only leave the Bad option on the table when proverbs fall all around.
Yeah the Hercules is only still in production because for the United States they pretty much wedded to the Hercules who have nothing to replace the design, whereas the British are not wedded to the Hercules and replacing the Hercules was the point of the A400M from the beginning of the A400M development
No it’s really not just open for the US, as I stated the orders are still rolling in from nations all other the globe.
Yes the A400M was “supposed” to replace the A400M but 2lead nations in the project say it can’t I all roles and have brought Hercs because of that. It lost in competition to Hercs and I’m a bloody supporter of the Atlas but alas
It was typical European politics that A Made sure the A400 was years late and B massively more expensive than it should have been. Instead of keeping to the original plan of keeping FLA jet powered with a suitable off the shelf engine, the Europeans decided to go prop and develop an engine specifically for the aircraft! Even had this gone without fault, it would have been fashionably expensive, it didn’t, they royally screwed up the certification, had numerous teething issues (they are only just getting round now) , so turned the whole thing into a typical European circus of… Read more »
You just know we’re going to buy more down the line
Sad to see. We should be retaining a number, maybe 3 or 4, for special forces roles, then ordering more Atlas.
I agree. Hopefully another medium transport may be bought in the future for such roles.
Better get the Short Skyvan back in production! As long as ‘they’ don’t make it too expensive!
We should let Ukraine have them😉
Why don’t you address the obvious question of which aircraft replaces the Hercules?
Shame that this is still going ahead. I would say that we need a small fleet of aircraft like C-27s.
Absolute disgrace!
Sad to see them go. I had more take-offs than landings in the C130 in the early 70’s. Happy days.
I was at RAF Upavon in 1968 when it was still Air Support Command. I remember seeing them doing circuits and bumps, I think it’s the year they were introduced into service. It’s been a great workhorse over the years and I don’t believe we have a direct replacement. Nobody ever listens.
My first C130 flight was at Abingdon – air experience flight and standing in the open door to see what it was like! But my aircraft drops at Abingdon we’re from an Argosy. Didn’t get to jump from a C130 until Cyprus onto Ladies Mile DZ.
“were”. Darned auto correct.
All on HMT this. Europe is close war and we carry on selling and decommissioning kit. At worst, these should be kept in storage. It’s completely illogical.
All nations retire equipment. The USAF wants to decommission 310 aircraft next year including 30 odd F22’s. A10 fleet, F15C’s. JSTAR fleet and E3’s. Its not just us.
I get that but the usual arguments about being down to the bare bones apply here. We don’t have the luxury of numbers. We should be straining every sinew to get as much life out of our kit as is possible.
I know, but the money does work like that. A400 is the future now. Its a very capable aircraft, with a big payload/range advantage over the Hercules.
Until you lose one. Then, we will be right up the creek.
Ok we all Love the Fat Albert. But it has Limits and in RAF service its been replaced. UK committed to the A400 and was if not still the largest operator.
Payload and size is a Issue and the Pure Fact they have been worked very hard.
sell them now and there are countries that would want these airframes.
Keeping a airframe just because the SAS wants it, But wont pay to support it Army refused to pay to keep the C130J and over played there Hand.
But between C17s/A400s/Voyager Herc is now redundant and Slow
You’re mistaken. It’s not just the SAS who need the capability. I’ve lost count of the number of times we were inserted by Sea King/Merlin from a range of platforms and had the heavy equipment and transport brought in by Hercs. Are you going to tell me you’re happy knowing the SAS, SBS, Para’s and Royal Marines will lose the ability to have kit brought in, in bulk, on strips that look like the back end of the moon and are too short for the A400M? What do you mean by “But wont pay to support it”? “Army refused to… Read more »
very interesting post ExMarine. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Evening Klonkie, NZ is also ordered the new Hercules. Sensible decision for the region that Australia doing the same. It’ll be interesting to see who picks up the RAF’s Hercules, Bangladesh, India, Phillipines, Indonesia, anybody?
Hiya Quentin – yes indeed, five ordered I believe, not sure on delivery dates though. I think South Africa may also be a candidate for these aircraft.
Evening Klonkie, Yes, definitely got to keep SA on side to counter China-Russia influences with recent naval manoeuvres and increasing presence on the African continent.
Quentin I believe we might struggle with India as they ordered a 2nd batch of 6 in 2013, Indonesia ordered 5 a few weeks before NZ and the Philippines have ordered 3 with option for 2 more last year but no official word on delivery window.
South Africa and Bangladesh seem like the most likely candidates to bolster their fleets.
A bad decision amongst a lot of previous and recent bad decisions! The lack of a Herc ensures the Atlas becomes even more gold plated, and in doing so has ensured we have a reduced number of choices for considerations. This reduced set of options can make a bad option, your only option…..if you understand what I mean!!!!!
The herc is a little bit expendable, so much more so than an Atlas, and this can be the difference between a go/no go job.
Growing up in the 1950 I had a model B52 on my ceiling. Still in service in USA today. I have flown in Argosy (great), Belfast, Beverly, Bristol 170 (Vibrator) all crap but the Herc was the best go anywhere do it.all aircraft from the 60s till now. If it is not broke don’t fix it. The Nimrod Ewfs were replaced by even older airframes. Harriers still great ground attack would be ideal in Ukraine. Put the Herc on care and maintenance until something better comes along. We will all be very old by then. It is only obsolete when… Read more »
Do they never learn? How many times have they made this mistake before?
I’m starting to ask whether those who enter the equipment side of the military have their “intelligence” chip removed when being posted. These aircraft are capable of many tasks the A400M simply cannot do. Of course, we don’t expect those making such decisions to ever be at risk from their folly! I know from personal experience on Op PALLISER 20+ years ago the Herc is still needed. There’s no way the A400M could have done the work carried out by the Herc’s. The strips were unbelievably short and rough. We would have been stuck in country without a great deal… Read more »
Maybe Ryanair can help us out.
https://corporate.ryanair.com/about-us/our-fleet/
Ping, we are about to make our final approach into rough strip airport in the arse end of nowhere, please ensure your seats are in the upright position and tables stowed away…
Please ensure no personal Firearms are left behind and all grenades and ammunition are removed from the overhead lockers.
Thank you for flying Ryan military air bridge Ltd and we hope you choose our services again at the conclusion of your combat operation , ping..
Cabin baggage limited to one bag 😂
followed by a rapid spiral descent from 20,000 feet- happy times!
Some people are too funny.
This is another really stupid mistake. Take them out of service yes but keep them in dry storage. Dont they know there is a war going on?
Obvious points, any equipment/aircraft are useless without trained people to use them. Pilot training seems to be a bottle neck in RAF and I imagine unless they are current on AC type skills will fade. Manpower is expensive hence accountant types like fewer bigger multi-capable machines. It is same in army with trucks. Problem if you loose 1 large plane 100% capacity gone with 4 smaller for same lift one down leaves 75%. When I was a child I thought the grown ups knew what they were doing. As a junior RE officer I thought those up chain of command… Read more »
If this greedy and ignorant government thinks that reducing our conventional warfare capability until all we have left are our four Trident submarines , then they are going to look pretty stupid when the unimaginable conflict of the future hits our shores .
That’s a real shame. The Herc has been central to RAF transport for what seems like forever! I have fond memories of journeys in the belly of the Herc, with 101 Fwd Control Land Rovers and various stores in tow.
Pity we cannot justify keeping them as missile trucks, dropping missiles out of the back like the Americans plan to do. Possible gunships too. It would be an excellent role and could even be delegated to a flying reservist force, if we had one.
This is a big mistake as the 400M cannot do everything the Hercules can.
We now appear to have armed forces whose primary criteria is to ensure that we have a requisit tick box number of ethnic and diversified people rather than having the best people for the jobs. We are slipping further and further down the worlds military leader board. We have insufficient ships, aircraft and fighting personnel to protect overseas yet alone trying to project ourselves around the globe.
And yet we still spend a not inconsiderable amount on defence….. Procurement is so broken, that we try to gold plate everything instead of thinking about the equipment actually needed. We all know ( despite the promise of reform) we will do exactly the same again with Puma replacement. Instead of a simple UH60 procurement, we will spend four times the amount, reinventing the wheel with Leonardo… This will lead to 30 being ordered instead of 44 and at least 5 years late as the cost runs out of control. The usual excuses rolled out of ” vital UK sovereign… Read more »
The UH-60 has the same problem that it is old and frankly the British have more modern helicopter designs available to choose from plus after the trump administration years,
Europe needs to be less reliant on the Americans because we could easily get a US Government who do far worse than he did and leave the Europeans in the cold and then you would really have a problem
I disagree, Blackhawk had been constantly upgraded as the years have passed. It is a totally known product, no teething problems or unknown issues, does exactly what the Army and Air Force require it to do, at a great price point, with deliveries starting next year if we wished. We also have the possibility of ordering some SF variants too. I see absolutely no downsides to UH60. We are utterly reliant on the Americans anyway, to pretend otherwise is laughable to be honest and we have effectively been so since the war. The reality is we have pretty effectively disarmed… Read more »
An end to the goes homey bird.Sad had some fun on them
What a disaster the Airforce is heading towards third country status when it comes to aircraft numbers. The A400 is too big to clumsy to noisy and a huge waste of money. Sad sad day
Just reminds me of the abject failure of the UK’s government regarding her indigenous airplane projects of the 1960s. The Short Belfast 4-engine turboprop heavy transport was more capable than the C-130 then and about all the A400M did was get back to that capability. That was squandered at just 10 built and about a decade in service for the RAF. Before being sold off for use by others for a couple more decades. And IIRC, the RAF charters them back for the Falklands and 1st Gulf War.
Rotten thinking by someone. Its as plain as day we will need those before the summer is out in Europe. How else are we going to supply the troops.
More stupid government thinking retire the proven assets to make way for unproven expensive rubish c130’s proven to do job well a400 unproven should never of retired the might c130k
I hope these aircraft will fly directly to Ukraine.
I was expecting a repeat of the Nimrod fiasco.where perfectly good airframes were scraped so decisions could not be reversed.
as a result of that UK has had no MP capability for years, and the new so called MP airframe does not seem able to go any further than the Moray Firth or Irish sea.
probably have to pay-per-mile or some other stupid system.
I remember our Shacks going off on 12hr patrols, now hardly ever see any activity from Lossiemouth, probably can’t afford the fuel any more.
politicians – *********