In recent statements made on Twitter, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps MP, suggested that the Royal Air Force (RAF) boasts a greater lift capacity today than at any point since World War II. This assertion is inaccurate.
Contrary to Minister Shapps’ optimistic portrayal, which emphasised the impressive payload capacities of the RAF’s C17 aircraft—equivalent to around 28 of the WWII-era C47 Dakotas—the actual scenario reflects a reduction in total lift capacity.
Notably, the RAF has seen a significant decrease in its transport fleet due to strategic adjustments made last year. In June of the previous year, the RAF made a pivotal decision to withdraw 15 C-130J transport aircraft from service.
The @RoyalAirForce has greater lift capacity today than at any point since WW2.
In fact our C17s can today take the payload of around 28 of the famed C47 Dakota’s that made such an impact on D-Day. pic.twitter.com/Xnm2zxXlcb
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps (@grantshapps) May 6, 2024
This withdrawal left the force with a streamlined fleet comprising eight C-17A Globemasters and 22 Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft. The C-130J Hercules was a critical component of the RAF’s tactical and logistical support capabilities.
The reduction in numbers from the versatile C-130J fleet has inevitably led to a diminished overall lift capacity, contrary to the increase suggested by Minister Shapps.
Previous Lift Capacity (before C-130J withdrawal)
- C-130J: 15 aircraft × 19,051 kg each
- A400M: 22 aircraft × 37,000 kg each
- C-17: 8 aircraft × 77,519 kg each
Current Lift Capacity (after C-130J withdrawal)
- A400M: 22 aircraft × 37,000 kg each
- C-17: 8 aircraft × 77,519 kg each
Before the withdrawal of the C-130J fleet, the total lift capacity of the RAF was approximately 1,719,917 kg. After the withdrawal, the lift capacity was reduced to approximately 1,434,152 kg.
The reduction in lift capacity after the withdrawal of the C-130J fleet is 16.62%, approximately 285.765 tonnes compared to last year.
The remaining aircraft, although technologically advanced and capable of handling large payloads, cannot alone compensate for the versatility and frequency of deployment offered by the greater number of retired C-130Js.
This correction is vital for maintaining factual integrity in public and international discourse surrounding the RAF’s capabilities. Make no mistake, the RAF retains a significant air transport and logistics capability; however, it is essential that public statements from Government ministers accurately reflect its current state to ensure both transparency and informed decision-making.
The usual spin and cobblers,
What counts is how many tasks can be carried out and how many assets are available. The planes cannot be in two places at once.
This is an ongoing sore for me and the worst of the cuts last year.
Bonkers.
SF capability is affected, and the Atlas is NOT a suitable substitute.
Well Atlas will have to do because that’s the only Transport option for us in future. No more C17s being made either.
I’m afraid so, there simply won’t be another transport type introduced period….
Hopefully a clear case can be made for another 8 or so A400’s in SDSR2025 to replace the lost Hercules airlift.
It won’t replace the J’s capabilities in the SF arena, but they will have to either make do, or rely on USAF SF assets to deploy in future.
I suspect that it won’t be long before the transport of smaller loads falls to drones. I think they need to do some work on extremely quiet engines and they would need to be stealthy but to me that is another transport type.
Allegedly, Marshalls bought the RAF’s fleet for peanuts, let’s remember ‘They were withdrawn because they were beyond economic repair’
It’s interesting that Marshalls believe they can indeed replace or repair the centre wing box ( and outer wings??) and sell the aircraft for ‘a very good profit’ to a keen buyer who’s already lined up….
The RAF could obviously have commissioned Marshalls to do the very same thing, instead they flogged the fleet and spares inventory off cheap.
Just another cut, pure and simple ..
Pisses me off.
When did Marshalls actually buy them?
Maybe the timing doesn’t quite add up but the cynic in me thinks that selling to Marshalls got money in immediately to at least slightly reduce one month’s borrowing figures during this parliamentary term whereas doing what you suggest would have initially meant money going out rather than in (to fund Marshalls’ refurb) and the ultimate cash receipt, although more than the selling-off-cheap return, might not have happened before the next election depending on time taken to complete the refurbs plus agreeing the sales.
In short, very possibly an economically sub-optimal decision taken for purely political reasons.
I’m just going to quietly put down, the words, Marshalls and Turkey….
Two words, make of them what you will, I can’t possibly comment 🫣.
You might well be right, it was a simple fleet cut in the RAF’s finest traditions.
Unfortunately it leaves a very specific hole in the tactical lift capability,,that cannot be filled by the A400 ( too large) and our rotor lift options ( range to short)…it was a very bad decision…..
Well. 2 things stand out.
Which works best for you?
cons, the party of defenceless, and indefensible.
Indeed.
100% on the commentary Daniele.👌
How was your holiday, Chris?
Hi Daniele, so good thank you. Great weather and really affordable. My wife and our son are heading your way to Godalming in June. I cant get more leave to join them unfortunately.
If they have any big problems they need a local to deal with, contact me via here.👍
That’s kind of you Daniele, thank you.
The man is delusional!!! Britain’s Armed forces and support structure are on their knees and have been for several years because politicians have no idea how they work or what it takes to defend a country!!
Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. The guy’s a muppet.
I’d like to see any of you guys do a better job.
I’m sorry but 99% of the people on here could do a better job. Shapps is totally clueless about Defence as are most politicians.
Easy being a stay at home expert when you don’t have any actual responsibility.
Eh?
Before Mr Green was appointed he had zero knowledge or understanding of defence. But he did use a range of pseudonyms…..obvs qualified for a……
No, no, no, you’ve named the wrong bloke!
It was another name.
And most Minsters or Secretaries of States are not first hand experts in their departments. The Secretary of state for health isn’t a Doctor. It doesn’t mean they can’t do a good job. Most who use this site haven’t served in the Armed Force’s. They still have plenty of opinions about defence though don’t they. And what we should or shouldn’t be doing.
Up to the 80’s defence ministers had generally had some military experience.
The culture of the generalist is a post war civil service confection and is at the root of a lot of terrible decision making. That and the constant rotation of postings.
I tend to agree with your view SB.
“Most who use this site haven’t served in the Armed Force’s.”
What qualifies you to state this? You can’t possibly know.
The quality of posts on this blog underlines that many contributors have clearly served. I did – 22 years.
Thank you for your support.
Many have served, and many haven’t. I have used this site for a good few years now and seen all the ridiculous comments. And also the very knowledgeable comments. I have also served. RN, Fleet Air Arm. 14 years.
Hi Robert, personally I place defence in a slightly different space to other government departments, That being said, a few years of military service doesn’t whilst a person for the role.
On this site, folk often overlook the competing priorities of a limited budget, complicated by in service politics.
For me, the essence of the thing is an underfunded defence budget.
The man is a photocopier sales person, come dodgy dealer that got lucky…you could do a better job.
I don’t think any of us really understands what it’s like to be an MP, let alone a Minister or Secretary of State. And just what is involved. I’d say its an extremely demanding job with pressures very few of could understand. I’m not saying I like the man. But I can understand what an incredibly demanding job it is. And many think they could do better. I’d give them a week, before they would think very differently about the role. Actually no.Id give them one day.
You could always stand for your local council.🙄
I’m one of those people who do put my money where my mouth is as I am a councillor and I do put myself up for election.
In that case well done you. I did three terms myself, six years as leader, before hanging up my gun a few years back. You’ll know then that a lot of what’s said about politicians is pure bull.
Indeed, unfortunately for me chapps is one of those I would say is well beyond his competency level.
I’m a firm believer in the democratic system, and I honestly think we should be looking at how and why we select ministers of state…I think because they supported the Prime-minister is not they way…forward as they not appointed because of any electoral system but due to internal party infighting and influence ( which I despise in all the major parties as I think it’s damaging and is anti democratic).
Personally I’ve know a lot of councillors with a far better CV than shapps. I think high office needs to be for the very very best not just faithful lapdogs.
I would personally like to see the Primeminister and possibly ministers of state directly elected..I’m a great believer in personal responsibility and elections are the greatest expression of personal responsibility….I don’t think it works anymore voting for our local MP ( for which I look for specific characteristics) leading directly to a specific flavour of executive that is then essentially self selecting and has no specific link directly to the electorate ( sometimes I vote outside of my party for specific individuals I do or do not like an roles like police commissioner, councillors of various types etc).
I think the directly elected Mayors have been a real success in getting people to vote and having political leaders with direct accountability to the electorate…I would now like to see this go to the Primeminister and then ministers of state.
I agree with your point about the need to remove people who are unqualified and in many cases uninterested in the role of leading Defence. The psychological profile of today’s Twitter obsessed politician is not a good fit for a serious and technical office like Defence. The quality of defence decision making would improve overnight simply by removing the narcissist “pleaser” politician from the process.
I also agree that direct democracy is a good break on the ambitions of today’s dysfunctional political class. However it is not a good choice for choosing Ministers of State. People tend to vote for tickets not for individuals.
A better option might be to copy the US system. The Prime Minister directly appoints qualified people to the role. The appointment would then need to be validated and approved by Parliament. This way although the appointment is political you at least get someone appointed who is experienced and knowledgeable and isn’t wasting half his day playing Westminster politics or posting nonsense to Twitter.
Sorry for the delay.I’ve been a bit under the weather the last few days. The problem is the squabling at nationa level for sure. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The problem though with direct elections is how can it be done? A prime minister of one party trying to lead a mutli party cabinet of twenty plus and fifty odd ministers of state. Could be mayhem. Look at the yanks and that’s just a president.
Directly elected mayors is another thing. Andy Burnham seems a decent sort, Houchen seems sound, Khan…? BUT they are all in positions where they have to prove their worth so yes , worth looking at.
Being an ex disrict councillor I do believe that all day to day activities should be moved down to the lowest form. I may be biased but to me the district seems the best level. Frankly parish councils spend a lot of money doing very little; take education away from the county and the same applies. Most of the county activies are agencies ie policing. All are involved in planning, roads, litter, housing etc. > why?. I do believe we could save billions and make everything more democratic. The problem Jonathan is that apart from thee and me who is going to do it. 🙄
That’s a tough gig mate. Glad someone is willing to do it. 👍
Are you and some Govt minister involved in a secret tryst? Mr Blay, there is no defence to the cr@p Govt we have at the moment.
No. But everyone thinks they are an expert when they don’t have to take any responsibility for what they say or do online.
Robert.
He doesn’t do his job.
He doesn’t cover his brief.
He makes asinine comments about Govt investment in Defence.
His plans to increase investment were torn apart by Prof M. Clarke to the extent they, the Cons, are bringing us back to 2010 levels.
Stop defending the indefensible behaviour of this Govt towards towards Defence.
Pretty please.
I’m not defending the government’s record. I’m stating that the job of defence secretary is far more demanding than people think. And are letting personal dislike of Grant Shapps blind them. He is not a military man, and neither are most fellas who use this site. They still have plenty of opinions, though. He is briefed by civil servants and serving members of the military. It’s a vast subject to learn about every corner and capability of our Armed Force’s. But he is a very experienced politician. And that is what is needed. Whatever way you spin it, the MOD is getting a big budget increase over the next few years. The politics behind it is another matter.
Forces News demonstrably deconstructed the spending to show that it just brings us back to 2010.
Stop repeating mistruths.
You’re a con, your coffin.
Bear in mind the Cons sent good men to their coffins in 1982.
As to Scrapps, car crash can’t happen soon enough; sorry, what is the barsteward’s real name? I forget, he has used so many.
Your comment about the Consevatives in 1982 is one of the saddest and most unfortunate, and I am being polite, posts I have ever seen here. I presume you have conveniently forgotten Blair and Brown and thier getting us involved in two wars we needn’t have had anything to do with.
I lived in Barrow, actually stood under the keel of Sheffield as she was launched, what followed was unnecessary; that Thatcher then led her 1983 election campaign to the waving of the Union Flag was sickening.
Well said Geoff 👍
To be honest I would say there was one war that was justified and that was the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they were an enemy of the west and had struck our ally with a brutal mass casualty attack…I never understood Iraq 2, Saddam was completely contained and never really acted against the west ( his wars and conflicts were always about the Middle East)…
I’m not sure about Afghanistan. Assorted powers have been trying to tame it for centuries and have most achieved very little. Iraq 2. Completely pointless. If anything made things worse. Now we are stuck with Iran, again, and no counterbalnce. Saddam was a thug but a useful thug.
The whole nation building in Afghanistan was a bit pointless to be honest, but al Qaeda needed to be attacked with all the power of the west after 9/11 and the government that supported them suffer the consequences of that support.
And what mistruths have I said? Its been announced the defence budget will rise to 2.5% by 2030. Its been announced how it will get there, year by year. Labour have also committed to 2.5% but without the timeframe. I couldn’t care less about 2010. It was 14 years ago. The world was very different in 2010. Do I agree with the cuts over the last decade, no, of course not. But you can’t go back in time, so why waste time and energy going over it. 75bn is a big chunk of cash. And will certainly provide some certainty for future capabilities and projects.
Thank you for your comment Robert. I agree with what your saying here. It is a committment of sorts but it may offer up a challenge to Labour, who knows. Either way the future is the only place we’re going. I just wish, for my grand children’s sake that the future looked more stable.
Good evening Geoff. I guess whatever happens with either party. The defence budget is only going in one way. Up. It is a shame we get excited about such things or the need to do it. I guess it’s a human flaw. We have a long way to go before the human race finally grows up, and it gets over our petty hatreds. It’s a strange old world.
I don’t think the human race is ever going to grow up Robert, not in my lifetime anyway. I look around me these days and I see anger, corruption, discord, squabling and violence. A little boy is killed because he doesn’t look right; an old lady is stabbed for her purse. Dear God, what a mess we are all in.
So would you rather Argentina take the Falklands? unless of course, it was a Labour gov who sent the task force? Then that would have been ok in your mind.
Robert we really don’t need a politician if the words of the politician is disingenuous. If the direction of travel of the politician is self serving and the leadership of the politician is insufficient to solve acute and imminent problems.
The problem however is not Shapps. The problem is the Sunak leadership and culture of Treasury led Defence.
Funding 2% of GDP is not a sign that you’re doing a grand job if 2% only delivers a perpetual spiral of Defence cuts.
Shapps fails because he doesn’t address the actual problem. That being we have an increased and increasing threat and we have an armed forces still in decline. Over the next few years at a time of heightened threat we will have fewer ships, soldiers and aircraft. Our frigates are worn out, our Destroyers need to go through a maintenance programme, the size of the army has been reduced and a lot of its kit as been gifted to Ukraine. The air force has lost its C130s and is about to lose it Tranche 1 Typhoons.
This ridiculous outcome has to be stopped and reversed. The nice man in the Treasury has to learn that he has had his time running defence into the ground and he now just has to shut up and write the cheques and allow us to attempt to mitigate all the harm he has done.
David…why don’t you just say you would like us all to vote Labour and have done with it?😇
Because I had a run in with the candidate for Barrow in Furness and she is challenged with veracity. Or put another way, her sophistry is hard to stomach.
They just cant stop lying. It’s a function not a fault of who they are.
That might be slightly harsh, this is basically an utter failure of researchers who provide the information for someone to stand up and read out the blurb.
The guy probably wouldn’t know the difference between a C17 and a Sopwith Camel….
It’s just another symptom of our lackluster and quite frankly laughable rabble of a government….
😂 Yes. I bet the information was put together by a civil servant who normally put this sort of thing together and fact check them. It would probably have been correct if it had been a direct comparison between WW2 and today (ignoring what has gone on in between). We were spoilt with Ben Wallace as I suspect he might well have spotted such a glaring error. Not sure there will be anyone from any of the other parties who would know what lift capacily is – a little like Schapps.
A Civil Servant will not have fact checked this or directly written it.
They will have logged on to the t’interweb net, whilst sat at home eating avocado and Chia seeds on toast made from organic multi seed artisan bread, drinking a skinny oat milk decaff latte made with volcanic spring water.
It will have been GPT or some other such AI brief writer.
GIGO.
If you don’t frame the question correctly this is what you get.
Oh…I may have gone a bit over the top ref the toast and decaff. 😏
😂No I don’t think you went over the top at all.
A civil servant will have most definitely written and fact checked this. It is taken verbatim from the government publication Defending Britain released 23rd April 2024.
This one isn’t Shapps going off the cuff.
I just wanted to add that it might not have been an MOD Civil Servant as the document came out of the Cabinet Office.
His mouth was moving, his fingers were moving.
Same difference.
Well that’s a Conservative Defence Secretary for you. 🙄 Who knows Labour government may buy some Hercules back 🤗 🇬🇧
Extremely unlikely they buy them back after theyd been retired. Better to expand the A400 fleet.
Of course mate just joking about C130s ,never going to happen. Agreed more A400 welcome but that maybe a hope and a pray 🙏
Stick to tiffies. Whoosh.
It also dose not mention the fact that with the forced retirement of the Hercules the RAF still have not cleared the A300 to drop Parachutists so after the guys have got the wings jumping out of civy Sky-Vans and passing out with just 4 jumps under their belt not 6 as it was up until a few years ago (as that is all the MoD can afford) they have to wait until the French or the Yanks have a aircraft free to bring their jumps up and to military standards. By retiring the Herc it has had a number of knock-ons and the reduction in military lift capacity is just one.
Sorry it was suppose to read A400 not A300
Yep Bonkers getting rid of Hercules 🙄
I thought that UKDJ had stated recently that A400 has now been cleared for Para-Drops ?.
If my poor memory serves, I thought so as well.
It did.
It has passed initial tests but there is still a large que of Para’s and others waiting to get their first real jumps in, and given the demand on the few aircraft we do have then I guess they will be waiting for some time to come.
Grant Shapps has now retweeted, thanking UKDJ for the correction.
A bit late now, Mr Shapps?
You, HMG, have left the RAF with less capacity than it had, and denuded the UKSFG, the aces in our pack, with their DEDICATED fixed wing assets.
Diverting Atlas, unsuited to this, only mean they now CANNOT do other tasks if they are on the SF mission.
Urgh!!! These people have some brass neck slashing capabilities and then trying to claim the armed forces are somehow more capable as a result!
He would have meant to say that RAF can now lift 18 WW2 planes of cargo with one plane but it’s been written completely wrong.
I doubt he even wrote it.
The goal of leaving Britain unarmed is advancing well
Next steps.
SDR 2025
1 one of the carriers sold/mothballed
2 LPD,s scrapped
1 Bay sold.
Reduction in the army, only 140 tanks will be built and reduction in the armoured squadrons.
Thyphoon tranche 1 withdrawn confirmed and further reductións in the training squadrons.
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence spending.
The first responsibility of the nation state is Defence.
The FSB kompromat is going to plan to convince the gullible that we have wasted money on carriers that don’t work and have no aircraft, that service in the UK forces is pointless and the UK has no status in a post imperial world. All lies but advantageous to the FSB regime in the Crimlin.
Misinformation is much cheaper than armed conflict that exposes the corruption and incompetence of the the terrorist state RF.
It will be clarified no doubt with “greater distances moved requiring less sorties and aircraft for the same loads.” or some such stat fudging.
As ever the svengali like Think Defence has done some great work on transport, aircraft, load capacity, range and stuff you can get into them including, spookily enough…pallets…
I suggest a look but be warned you will end up going down rabbit holes…
Vehicle Transportability – Think Defence
The play on numbers and figures by the Def Sec is shocking, it only shows what he wants the public to know. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find we had a few hundred in the RAF in WW2. Also a different time and capability, a lot of stuff was moved by Sea/Road in WW2 as we had a larger capacity with ships and more of them.
I read this site everyday, in the hope that every now and again there will be a positive announcement, “we are buying more”, “we are upgrading”, “we are buying new”, “we are reversing cuts or increasing numbers of anything”. Instead I’m greeted by a politician, being advised by someone who between the pair of them know nothing. Then the defence of the cut or loss, seems to be “we’ve got more than Belgium or in this case our planes are bigger than they were in 1945” or something equally daft. We either want to be world leader, and fund it or we want to an Ireland and try and pretend the worlds problems are other peoples problems.
Then it gets posted here, where we blame Labour or we blame the Conservatives or we blame BAE or we blame the civil service or on the rare occasions we all agree, we blame the SNP and sometimes my favourite- France. It feels more like what we need, as a country is to step back, decide what we want, work out a way to depoliticise it and get it written into our unwritten constitution, then hold our politicians, civil service, industry or France to account.
Now who wants to put that together? I for one don’t want to be as irrelevant to the world as Belgium or Ireland, expecting our old or small quantities or equipment to be a a sufficient deterrent. I’m sure there’s an expression about talking softly with a big stick or something like that. Would you like to sit in a room and talk sovereignty with Putin, with a dozen half finished Ajax behind you or two fully equipped armoured divisions. Would you like to discuss nuclear proliferation with Iran, with a flight of Typhoon, which we keep moving around to create the illusion that there is more or fully deployable squadrons (plural) of fast jets? Would you like to talk about upholding democratic rights with China, with all 6 of our SSNs safely back in port or a couple of the worlds best SSNs sat underneath each of their aircraft carriers?
We need a bigger stick and we need to find a way of doing that doesn’t involve a politician with no further visibility than the next election.
Technically his comment wasn’t correct. But A400 has been brought into service gradually since 2014, whilst the last C130js remained operational until the order of 22 A400 was complete. So the better comparison is between lift capacity in 2014 and now. The 2024 capacity is significantly larger.
As others have pointed out, the loss is really of SF airlift for which the current fleet is less suitable. Perhaps a tilt rotor might be the best option?
The tory arseholes have sold c130s off ,plenty of life in them ,just go to show what a fxxxxxxg useless government, thank god they will be gone but what’s in its place thats another thing, if labour do sod all then we are screwed ,whatch this space