C-130 replacement...

[rwsmith]

The C-130 has been around a year longer than I have. It's one of the world's great planes. It makes sense that it is time for it to be replaced. Some air forces (Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary) are choosing the Brazilian Embraer C-390. Embraer make some top notch plane for sure ad their C-390 is no exception. But I wonder where the US i in all this and are we planning on a C-130 replacement?

 

[Kanewpadle]

It doesn’t need to be replaced. Upgraded yes. Just because the aircraft is old doesn’t mean that it should be replaced.

The C-130 is too important to replace. But the military being what it is, they are just looking for reasons to spend our money.

They need to replace the B-52 first followed by the KC-135.

 

[Chubbs103]

The Air Force has received new C-130s as recently as this month.

Edited: I need to switch the month on my calendar. I meant as recently as July.

 

[Beemerguy53]

What assignment does the military have that the C-130 cannot perform? Good grief, that airplane can do almost anything! Gunship, troop transport, cargo plane...you name it, the C-130 can do it. What else would do it better?

 

[AJ]

It doesn’t need to be replaced. Upgraded yes. Just because the aircraft is old doesn’t mean that it should be replaced.

The C-130 is too important to replace. But the military being what it is, they are just looking for reasons to spend our money.

They need to replace the B-52 first followed by the KC-135.

What he said!!

 

[Faulkner]

The C-130J Super Hercules is the most recent version of the C-130 Hercules aircraft, and is considered the most advanced C-130 ever designed, built, and maintained. The U.S. Air Force has ordered the aircraft in increasing numbers.

 

[Hair Trigger]

They need to replace the B-52 first followed by the KC-135.

KC-135's are already being replaced by the KC-46A, based on the B-767. It can carry 207,672 pounds of transfer fuel, compared to 150,000 pounds of transferable fuel in the KC-135. The KC-10's will have all been retired by end of FY2024.

They've tried for years to come up with a replacement for the B-52, the B-1B was one such planned replacement and the B-2 was considered. But the B-52 does a few things better than either one, and the USAF is actually bringing mothballed B-52's back after refurbishing and upgrading them. The J model will operate to at least the end of the 2020's.

 

[Onomea]

Check it out: High-Flying Milestone: C-130J's Global Journey Hits 3 Million Hours | SOFREP

 

[lihpster]

B-52's are gonna be upgraded with the Rolls Royce F-130 engines. Estimates are that will give the BUFF another 30 years or so of service. New engines will give it extended range as well as not leaving black smoke trails.

 

[Grayfox]

Lemme get this straight. You think it aught to be replaced just because its old? And you're asking this on the S&W Forum? Hell, most of us own and shoot guns a lot older than that airplane. Should we replace them?

 

[LVSteve]

I think the Embraer C-390 shows a lot of promise. It has about the same overall footprint of the C-130J with a longer cargo area and shorter wings. Jet power gives more speed and more service ceiling. Supposedly it can lift more than the C-130J, too. How the jets cope with austere runways compared with turboprops is a novel in itself. FOD ingestion must always be a concern with jets, but big props are not immune to damage either, according to the Interwebz.

I wonder if the US is standing pat to see how the C-390 works out for our allies. Right now the word is that the USAF is in major money trouble. The costs of the new ICBM are going ballistic (sorry, couldn't help myself ) and the latest F-35 troubles are not helping.

 

[fordson]

From a “hill” top in southern Iraq, I saw a C-130 Gunship do a night attack on an Iraqi position. A firestorm of tracers converging at one point while the 130 did a leisurely orbit. It was quite the a lights display - I pitied the troops there. My point is that the C-130 is a very versatile aircraft that fulfills many roles and that a replacement would have to be “better” in many respects- and that would be a higher bar to reach.

 

[fordson]

I think the Embraer C-390 shows a lot of promise. It has about the same overall footprint of the C-130J with a longer cargo area and shorter wings. Jet power gives more speed and more service ceiling. Supposedly it can lift more than the C-130J, too. How the jets cope with austere runways compared with turboprops is a novel in itself. FOD ingestion must always be a concern with jets, but big props are not immune to damage either, according to the Interwebz.

I wonder if the US is standing pat to see how the C-390 works out for our allies. Right now the word is that the USAF is in major money trouble. The costs of the new ICBM are going ballistic (sorry, couldn't help myself ) and the latest F-35 troubles are not helping.

FOD is an issue and concern with many aircraft, including helicopters. Thats why we do FOD walk-downs, even on carrier decks, before launch. We (the U.S. DOD) are always seeking to create an “all-purpose “, one-size-fits-all aircraft. We’ve gotten close to that by accident (ie, F6F, F-4, F-18, C-130, etc.) but purposeful design has fallen short of that goal. Compromise in design gets you compromised performance, and as you pointed out, at an increased cost.

 

[Farmer17]

I worked at Tinker AFB in Midwest City, OK and we had a lot of B-52, B-1, and a few B-2 bombers. You would see many B-52s stripped down to the frame and being rebuilt, kinda like a 1911 military pistol that keeps going strong after a hundred years. The B-1s have a few advantages but their engines were so powerful they would cause concrete runways and tarmacs to flake off small pieces of FOD (Foreign Object Debris). FOD is VERY bad for jet engines to suck up and is not a little problem it's a huge problem. We tried experimenting with higher strength concrete and different kinds of concrete and could never complete solve the problem. The B-52 had no such issue and were very cost effective to make combat ready.

 

[jaguargolf]

Our jet engine upgrade to the C-130 is the C-17. It's larger than the C-130 and smaller than the C-5. Unlike the C-5 it can use unimproved, dirt airfields, like the C-130.

 

[WR Moore]

The F4 was originally designed-for the Air Force- when it was believed that "dogfights" were impossible at supersonic speeds. Thus, it had no guns, but used missiles.

You can blame/credit Robert Strange McNamara for ramming it down the throats of the other services. He didn't believe in purpose built equipment, including soft skinned military vehicles, Detroit iron was good enough. His effort to save money resulted in massive additional costs and reduced performance. No idea how many lives the compromised bird cost. While typing this I wonder if he was the lackwit responsible for the aborted MBT-70 project? )

ADDED EDIT: After fact checking some later posts -or at least by "Wiki facts"- it appears both the Air Force ROTC and my late father misinformed me on the origin of the F4 design. Dad did a lot of work for the DOD. The fighter jocks on the ROTC instructional staff griped about the extra airframe weight needed for carrier operation.

 

[TAROMAN]

Actually, the F4 was developed as a Navy fighter, later adopted by the USAF.
Just like the Skyraider.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The C130 can do many things very well. One function that I personally remember, but have never seen mentioned elsewhere is preparation for dental work.

A brief flight in the cargo hold of the C130 will usually rattle all the fillings out of your teeth, maybe shake loose a molar or two. Your dentist won't have to look very hard to see what needs repair or replacement.

Hearing protection is good to have also. The crew personnel all have headsets for communication and external noise abatement. All the passengers get is headaches.

Seating for passengers is usually limited to the jump seats, fold down webbing benches on each side of the cargo bay, intended primarily for paratroopers preparing for a parachute exit. For more simple troop movements we just sat on the steel floor with straps across our legs to keep us from being launched around in turbulence or during takeoff and landing. Lacking in comfort when carrying a full rucksack and weapons load.

Landings and takeoffs in active combat areas were always interesting. Very steep angles on approach or departure with rapidly changing spiral paths to make targeting more difficult for surface-to-air rocket fire.

Truly amazing capabilities for short fields and unimproved fields, but not very comforting for us grunts in the back hanging onto web straps.

No TSA nonsense; nobody cared if I had my nail clippers, knife, rifle, pistol, grenades, claymore mines.

No boarding passes, just loadmasters shouting at us while packing our butts on the plane like sardines in a can.

No in-flight beverage services. Barf bags usually available. Private prayer sessions were quite common.

Ah, old memories of the C130.

 

[mojave30cal]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[TJm15.38]

There is no replacement for the C-130. It may be the most versatile airlift aircraft in the history of USAF. The majority of my Air Force pilot hours are in some version of the C-130, although I have time in several other aircraft. I have flown WC-130E/H, C-130H2 and C-130E. It will always be my favorite aircraft. I regret not having flown the C-130J, but people I know assure me that it is even more capable of doing all missions. The C-130 does more special missions than any other aircraft; special ops, fire fighting, aerial spray, weather recon, and electronic warfare, just to name a few. What it really excels at is it's primary mission which is to deliver troops and cargo to austere locations in a combat theater either by airdrop or airland.