The US Navy have ordered a new ‘Fat Albert’ Blue Angels logistics aircraft from the UK, in the form of a used C-130J.
Scheduled for delivery in spring 2020, the $29.7 million contract was awarded to the Ministry of Defence on June the 13th for a divested C-130J Super Hercules.
The US Navy said in a statement that cost savings associated with acquisition of the used aircraft and other airworthiness requirements is approximately $50 million less than the cost of a new aircraft.
“This is a win-win for the U.S. Navy and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence,” said Capt. Steven Nassau, PMA-207 program manager.
“Just as the Navy recognized the imminent need to replace the Fat Albert aircraft, the UK MOD was divesting of an American made, C-130J; aircraft allowing us to acquire a suitable replacement aircraft at a major cost savings.”
We reported in March 2018 that congressional approval was granted to proceed with acquisition of the British C-130J with funding from Foreign Military Sales proceeds.
According to the US Navy, the last dedicated Fat Albert, a C-130T Hercules, retired in May 2019 and now serves as a ground-based training platform in Fort Worth, Texas.
It is understood that the Naval Flight Demonstration Squadron will continue flying Navy or Marine Corps C-130 Hercules assets until the delivery of the replacement aircraft is complete.
Dont they have any of their own sat in AMARG ?
Im sure they have hundreds, but they probably need a huge overhaul, and I’m sure the RAF Hercules will be pretty much ready to go and been looked after. Shame we are scrapping all of our Hercules c5 fleet, but atleast we are keeping the 14 c4 extended versions untill 2035.
One extended hull was lost during Op. Shader, so we’ll be keeping one short variant I believe.
Shame we can’t keep the lot Lusty m8
@ Cam – I suspect the A400Ms replacing those aircraft are far more capable …
AMARG only has one C-130J in inventory and only technically at that as it is the wreckage of USAF 08-3174 dismantled and in boxes after it was involved in a fatal crash in Afghanistan eight years ago. So that is a non starter…
Taking an ex-RAF C-130J has a significant advantage for the USN when it comes to transitioning the support crew and load masters from the C-130T. RAF C-130J are unique in having the older Dash 4a cargo handling system in the cargo bay rather than Enhanced Cargo Handling System (ECHS) that all later C-130J were fitted with. USN C-130T are fitted with Dash 4a so switching to an RAF spec C-130J makes plenty of sense in a logistic sense. All the equipment and procedures for loading a C-130T should carry over.
Whilst the vastly superior ECHS was considered the RAF/MOD rejected it thing it would be too complex. Remember the UK was the launch customer for the C-130J which was a Lockheed internal program rather than something requested by the US DOD. This led to some curious issues in respect of the RAF airframes which were built using the worn out jigs used to build the C-130H. This ironically led to problems when they tried to fit the Dash 4a rails only to find they wouldn’t go in without some bending and filing as the datum points were rather off due to the fuselages being built on old jigs.
A further irony as part of the offset work the UK PLc got for being the launch customer for the C-130J is UK industry built a brand new set of production jigs that were dispatched to the US meaning later examples built for the USAF and others didn’t have the same ‘Alignment’ issues that ours faced.
All rather comical really.
It must just be the c130 they have loads of in the desert then, the j was the upgraded version wasn’t it, ok I just read all of your post! Learnt some things.
Yes they have lots of older C-130 in inventory at AMARG including ex-USN examples.
Nevertheless the Juliet is becoming the dominant variant in service and the opportunity to get one at a significantly reduced price over buying new with plenty of life on it and the Dash 4a cargo system which is fitted to the C-130T that is being retired is opportunity not worth passing up!
@ Fedaykin – the ‘not quite fitting’ airframe parts is reminiscent in a smaller way of the problems BAE had fitting new wings to hand built old Nimrod fuselages ….
Ironic also, and comical as you say, that we built the jigs that made later C-130 aircraft better build quality.
It only seems like yesterday that the C130J was launched,the RAF being the first customer.I went to the IAT at RAF Fairford in 1994 (if memory serves me correct) where the theme was a celebration of the Hercules.
I can still remember flying in and jumping out of E models and controlling A model AC 130 gunships… Lord I’m getting up there…
Cheers!
We still have 4 airworthy short body C-130J, that are unsold. I would convert them to simple ocean patrol/SAR, as the RAF looks like it will only have 9 P-8. I do not think it wise to use a high end sub hunter to find a lost trawler/yacht. Better to use a C-130J fitted with a surface search radar & an EO turret. The USCG has already done this. They can still use the cargo bay for freight. Also handy for disaster relief, as the sensors can be used to survey the damage, while bringing in aid.
I would swap them with the US for 4 C130 gunships then fly them in a circle over Brussels during brexit negotiations. But that’s why I’ll never be PM
I’d vote for you!
Kind of a pointless exercise considering Brexit negotiations are over as has been repeatedly pointed out by the EU.
It is either:
1) Accept the Withdrawal Agreement
2) Withdraw Article 50
3) No deal followed by the UK in utter humiliation coming back a few weeks later begging to accept the Withdrawal Agreement
That is your lot…
@ Fedaykin – I am sad you felt the need to go down that road. But as you have you forget that with the EU its never over until it is over. If it was why have they extended matters twice?
1. The WA as brought back by the PM is dead in Parliamentary terms.
2. To even consider withdrawing Article 50 would cause a constitutional crisis and the destruction of UK democracy if some 350 MPs tried to overturn the declared wishes of 17.4 Mn electors. Those proposing such a stupid act should be careful for what they wish because no future General Election result would ever stand.
3a. There is no such thing as ‘no deal’. That is a fabrication by those of the Remain persuasion who create expressions like ‘Hard Brexit’. We leave on WTO Terms (the same terms under which we ship 60% of our exports outside the EU) unless the EU agrees to a) a new version of the WA without a never ending backstop or b) invoking Article 24 of GATT which has been proven can be done (by the WTO no less) as we already have a ‘deal’ (our EU membership) and can extend those same terms while we negotiate an FTA. As a certain trade expert, Dr Lorand Bartels, normally wheeled out by Remainers now agrees as well.
3b. Why would the UK ask the EU, having left, to invoke a WA that would by then be totally redundant?
It is worth remembering a WA is just a mechanism created by the EU simply as their interpretation of Article 50 for the EU’s benefit. They even declared they were unable to discuss an FTA until AFTER we had left! They are in breach of that Article as they have made little reference or commitment to ‘the future relationship’ (ie an FTA). We actually do not need any agreement to leave as we have triggered Article 50 (and in law some say, currently sub judice, we left on March 29th) although it would make life easier. The PM’s particular WA was never a runner as it collared £39 Bn of our money for no advantage and then, by failing to agree an FTA the EU could keep us entrapped until they permitted us to leave.
To be fair to Fredaykin all he did was correspond to a stupid comment that dragged Brexit out of nowhere. Considering how pissy everyone (society in general not this site) in recent times has got about milkshake throwing jokes, reckon its alright to respond to a stupid comment.
1. WA may be dead but as the EU have repeatedly said we’re not getting something miraculously different like Boris etc seem to suggest we will. Tentatively I can see a tweak to the backstop but doubt major change.
2. Withdrawing article 50 without democratic support would yes be madness. As a result of a second referendum (I know controversial topic) less so. Just as we don’t vote once and have to stick with an MP forever, if there has been a change in the landscape around EU membership and withdrawal of said membership I don’t see why public shouldn’t be consulted again.
3a. There is very limited amount of our trade which occurs under WTO rules without ammendments see the following link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41859691). a) I agree change to backstop would be the ideal, fingers crossed. b) we cant just arbitrarily use article 24, EU would have to agree to interim, as with all trade we can’t just tell them what they have to do (https://fullfact.org/europe/article-24/)
3b. I’m guessing that Fed was implying we’d leave without an agreement, immediately regret it and come crawling back but I wouldn’t want to guess his view.
Yes £39billion of our money, but £39billion we’d committed to before announcing we wanted to leave. Amount paid yes should form part of negotiation, but ultimately we committed to that spend then announced we’d leave, EU aren’t to blame for us changing after making a commitment.
Ultimately as much as I’m pro-remain and voted so, I reluctantly think we probably should leave as much as I think its a bad move for the country. However, I’m bored of this shit of 17 million voted to leave keeping them happy is all that matters. Only slightly less voted that infact we should remain, and their views are equally valid. So yes we should leave but not purely under what the most extreme leavers want. If remain had won would you quietly have accepted we take the most extreme Pro-EU approach (federalise, one army, etc.)? Compromise is needed, i.e. A Brexit that is palatable to remainers.
@ Robert1 – As to why Feadaykin replied as he did its quite easy – He is a staunch Remainer and felt the need to put someone in their place. The original (unnecessary IMHO) remark, intended in humour possibly, could have been ignored. There is a difference between ‘stupid’ and ‘funny’ and its all in the eye of the beholder.
1. Not much different to my PoV but unless the Backstop is changed to be at least time limited it will not pass the Commons.
2. Democracy only survives when those who lose a vote accept that decision. As I did for many years when labour won elections. What has happened is Remainers and in particular the Establishment and Political Class have NOT accepted the decision made in June 2016 (and yes it WAS a decision because that is what the Government promised in that £9 Mn leaflet we all got).Yes they played lip service early days, misled the electorate in 2017 but have played a vicious guerrilla war ever since aided by the Leftist Media, the BBC, Channel 4, 350 MPs, about 500 Lords and God knows who else. If this is the ‘New Way’ then can we go back to the pre -2017 GE numbers because I didn’t like the result?
3a b) I never said we could arbitrarily trigger Article 24 of GATT. In fact I made detailed replies to Fed’s two allegations I was. The key part is by agreement and given it is mutually beneficial why wouldn’t the EU agree?
3b. While parking your first point you are however seriously wrong over the £39 Bn. That was never ever mentioned before the Referendum by the Ramain supporting Government and campaigners. Indeed it only came up when the EU demanded some £100 Bn as its opening requirement (before citizens rights no less) at the start of the WA negotiations. The UK never ever committed to any of it before the Referendum. Our only Treaty commitment was to fund the 7 year EU MMF until December 2020 by paying in our average £13 Bn a year. So the maximum payable on leaving on March 29th was only ever (£13 Bn x 1.75 years = £22.75 Bn). But even then that is by agreement as once we leave we are not members and therefore owe nothing. And that is assuming the EU maintain regional funding here and before our major share in EU assets and our shareholding in the ECB.
In conclusion I respect how people voted (Remain or Leave) and I especially respect those like yourself who voted Remain but accept we must leave. That is a difficult acceptance and I thank you for that. Would that others had the same acceptance. I for one (and I know many like me) want to leave the EU with some transitional deal to ease the moive to a new Free Trade Agreement. There are various methods open to both parties and I hope they have common sense to find a way forward. However if the EU refuse to move or agree a way forward for whatever reason then I will accept we must still leave on October 31st but on WTO Terms. To do otherwise creates a democratic place I do not want to see.
@ Chris H
” I am sad you felt the need to go down that road”
Your emotional state at any given time is not my problem.
“But as you have you forget that with the EU its never over until it is over. If it was why have they extended matters twice?”
They are trying to help a friend not totally annihilate its economy.
“The WA as brought back by the PM is dead in Parliamentary terms. ”
Totally agree
“To even consider withdrawing Article 50 would cause a constitutional crisis and the destruction of UK democracy if some 350 MPs tried to overturn the declared wishes of 17.4 Mn electors. Those proposing such a stupid act should be careful for what they wish because no future General Election result would ever stand.”
I agree it would cause a crisis maybe even a constitutional one. Those 350MPs are members of our ‘Sovereign’ Parliament and can do so if they so wish. The wishes of 17.4 Mn voters on one day in June 2016 is not set in stone and the 16.1 Mn voters who voted to Remain and those who didn’t or couldn’t are entitled to a view as well. That it would lead to the destruction of democracy is purely your own opinion, there are millions like myself who think stopping Brexit would save democracy…such is personal opinions.
“There is no such thing as ‘no deal’”
You had better tell Johnson and Hunt that as they are mentioning it a lot at the moment.
“That is a fabrication by those of the Remain persuasion who create expressions like ‘Hard Brexit’.”
To be honest who coined the term is lost to time and frankly I don’t care.
“We leave on WTO Terms (the same terms under which we ship 60% of our exports outside the EU) unless the EU agrees to”
That means massive tariffs are imposed on multiple industries, just because the UK trades on WTO terms with certain nations outside the EU doesn’t remove the damage caused if the UK is forced to do the same with the EU.
“a new version of the WA without a never ending backstop or”
The EU have said no as negotiations are over. The Backstop was invented by May and it is there to save the Good Friday Agreement.
“invoking Article 24 of GATT which has been proven can be done (by the WTO no less) as we already have a ‘deal’ (our EU membership) ”
No totally wrong, total nonsense that has been debunked so many times I am surprised you are bringing it up. Article 24 of GATT can only be used by two nations that are reaching an agreement. For it to actually by used would require both sides to accept the Withdrawal Agreement.
“and can extend those same terms while we negotiate an FTA. ”
We can’t negotiate an FTA unless we settle our accounts, solve the NI border issue and sort out Citizens rights. So nope again
“As a certain trade expert, Dr Lorand Bartels, normally wheeled out by Remainers now agrees as well.”
Never heard of him and I am closely involved with the Remain campaign. I can happily point you to the vast majority of trade experts who disagree but I doubt you would bother to educate yourself on the matter.
“Why would the UK ask the EU, having left, to invoke a WA that would by then be totally redundant?”
Because it is the only deal on the table. Leave without a Deal and when we come back begging after our economy has had a thorough thrashing the EU will simply put the WA back on the table.
“It is worth remembering a WA is just a mechanism created by the EU simply as their interpretation of Article 50 for the EU’s benefit.”
No WA was largely drafted by the UK negotiating team and contains things the EU don’t want.
“They even declared they were unable to discuss an FTA until AFTER we had left! ”
Yes, that is how the process is laid out in Article 50.
“They are in breach of that Article as they have made little reference or commitment to ‘the future relationship’ (ie an FTA). ”
No Article 50 Process requires a WA first before any trade negotiations.
“We actually do not need any agreement to leave as we have triggered Article 50 (and in law some say, currently sub judice, we left on March 29th) although it would make life easier. ”
Actually yes but the self inflicted damage to our economy and to our very social structures plus the inevitable break up of the Union make it rather unpalatable.
“The PM’s particular WA was never a runner as it collared £39 Bn of our money for no advantage and then, by failing to agree an FTA the EU could keep us entrapped until they permitted us to leave.”
The 39bn is not a bill, it is a settlement of commitments made by the UK. It includes things like Pensions for UK EU staff and MEPs. So it is very much something to them and again if the UK doesn’t pay the EU have clearly stated no Trade deal.
Have a nice and better informed day Chris 😉
@ Fedaykin – I thought we had got past your need for sarcasm and to project your superior attitude. But evidently not. I am as well informed as your good self Sir. The difference is I choose not to make it personal unlike you.
So I will just leave it there rather than take many column inches to take each of your points apart yet again. Others can read into my comments as they wish. We have nothing further to discuss.
Oh my days are very well informed thank you, not that you and other Remainers add much to the sum of my knowledge.
@Chris H
As you are well aware and we have discussed before I have no patience for deluded factually incorrect nonsense and will respond with darkly cynical sarcasm when I see it.
The moment I read “Article 24 of GATT” I laughed out loud! If that is all you have, a debunked magic fix then what is there to talk about?
Your protestations have no affect on me.
@ Fedaykin – And there we have the total attituide of superiority poured forthe for all to see. Quote:
“I have no patience for deluded factually incorrect nonsense and will respond with darkly cynical sarcasm when I see it”
No you respond with cynicism and sarcasm at every turn. You can’t help it as in your mind you are always totally, absolutely and without fail correct. When you aren’t. You refer to other people’s opinions as ‘nonsense’ unless you agree with them. Your attitude is typical of those of the Remain persuasion who never offer one positive for the EU but spend their whole time abusing and disrespecting others who simply hold a different PoV. It has been this way for 3 years.
As for ‘Article 24’ It appears your mirth is a tad too premature and displays your rather dismissive attitude. Three requirements must prevail for GATT Article 24 to be invoked:
1. A current trading arrangement
2. Mutual agreement
3. Discussions to create a new agreement.
So:
1. We have a current arrangement – as confirmed by our being signatories to all the relevant EU Treaties?
2. If the EU are, as you allege, ‘helping a friend’ then why would they not agree to carry on terms as they are now?
3. The EU have declared their intention to, once we have left, to engage in discussions on a wide ranging Trade Agreement.
Article 24 is not an end game it is merely a means to an end acceptable to both UK and EU.
Article 24 is, as confirmed by the WTO itself, a viable alternative to the now defunct WA as long as those certain conditions are met. Indeed Dr Lorand Bartels of Cambridge University (an expert of whom you have never heard) has drafted a short, bare-bones trade agreement to show that this is technically possible.
Anyway do have a read of this briefing note as issued by The House of Commons Library:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/
Interestingly it also mentions the Malthouse Compromise (that nearly reached a majority in the Commons) and which is based around Article 24 basics.
These are not ‘protestations’ Old Son they are my opinions based on rather a lot of research. Of course all you offer is opinions as well. But I am always happy to assist anyone who doesn’t seem too clued up on the subject matter.
@Chris H
You are still pedalling Article 24 of Gatt as the magic fix all solution… It isn’t
Sigh
@Fedaykin – And you are still projecting a fabrication to suit your PoV. As you and all Remainers do. Its all you have after all. That is not what I wrote at all and I was merely pointing out that your mirth was somewhat premature as Article XXIV CAN be triggered given all the requirements are met (apart from agreement with the EU which, as you say, is ‘trying to help a friend’).
It was also fun showing you (someone who allegedly knows everything) who the expert (that you hadn’t heard of) actually is and the fact he is referenced by no less an authority than the HoC Library. He has also appeared on the BBC (the Bollocks to Brexit Channel) ‘Politics Live’ agreeing with one Jacob Rees-Mogg that it could indeed be a) a solution and b) it was an option.
Maybe you should make sure you are in full knowledge of the facts, or maybe even listen to others, before ridiculing those who evidently know somewhat more about the subject matter than do you.
Is too bad the Brits aren’t willing/don’t have the money to convert a few of those short C-130Js into gunships. They would be useful in supporting their ground forces.
While gunships are great in theory and look scary as hell aren’t they quite a huge target for any adversary with even a half decent anti-air capability?
It’s interesting, I actually thought the C130 gunships where being phased out due to threat of short range sams, but the US has just purchased 32 brand new ones based on the C130 J. They must still be very effective in uncontested airspace. The amount of firepower they can unload in comparison to a single drone or even a fleet of drones is on a completely different level.
I’d read years back that DSF were interested, given their experience in Afghanistan.
Effective they are but that is only part of the story. The real strength of C-130 gunships is first the ability loiter for long periods of time, and second the ability to use accurate gunfire instead bombing allows for closer support of ground forces
The 40 and 105 has less splash damage than say a hellfire, so can be used in built up areas or danger close with less risk of collateral damage.
The USMC have modified some of their C130s to Harvest Hawks. These are fitted with Hellfire, Paveway 4 and Griffen unguided rockets. They are also fitted with a plethora of electronic surveillance and warfare kit. There are plans to fit a 40mm gun to one of the side doors.
These aircraft are dual role and can have the gunship kit removed to be return the aircraft as a tanker. So its not completely out of the question of the RAF ones having the same modification to generate a cheap close air support gunship.
Having called in a Spectre in Afghan, I can contest they are undisputed Kings of close air support. However, that environment was benign, there was no immediate threat to them, as they operate above effective small arms range. A couple of manpads were used, but due to their suspected age failed to properly operate.
They are still being used in Afghan, but also in Iraq and Syria. Again in Iraq there’s next to no threat. In Syria, they have to be lot more careful.
I believe a Spectre was shot down during Gulf War2.
I think the last one shot down was in Gulf War 1 (it stayed out till mourning and was flying at low level.
Several were shot down in Vietnam though.