The ABC has reported the retirement of the C130-H RAAF farewells flying Cadillacs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
What are they replacing that capability with?
Impending retirement of the C130 Hercules. Air vice Marshall Evans in interview comparing the C130 with a cross between a Cadillac and a Land Rover.
RAAF farewells flying Cadillacs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Posted here because the C130 was/is- roughly contemporaneous with the S 111 & perentie Land Rovers (34 years).
The ABC has reported the retirement of the C130-H RAAF farewells flying Cadillacs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
What are they replacing that capability with?
You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.
As far as i know the J model is not retireing but we are getting more c17s we just lose 1 sqn of hercs
PS: just found this http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nat...-1226519854974
seem we are also getting more of the j model
RAAF still has J models.
They also have more C17s than they can crew/use.
I believe they have also signed a deal for a LTAC replacement....as in a new Caribou type aircraft.
So they should have all levels of distance, load and access sorted.
They are looking at further C17's as are the Uk, Congress want to close the line, so more orders would help. Boeing are also seeking civilian certification for the C17.
The new medium transport is the C27J Spartan, some would say we should have gone with the other tender from Airbus, but as the USAF, is on the vege of retiring all its nearly new C27s, then one wonders why the C27J?
Perhaps we should buy the US airforce C27 and refurbish them. The US Airforce also retired their Caribous very early while Australia contnued to use them decades later, but the Caribou did us good service for many years.
Same with the F111. The USA got rid of them but we continued to use them. And they were a great plane--very capable for what they were designed to do.
But the US keeps spending Military budgets, and you cannot but new toys while you clutter up the place with the old ones, so in order to always get a new toy they always retire the old ones while they have decades of life left in them.
And the companies selling the New toys spend billions on the buyers in order to get the orders. So that buyers will always be telling Mummy Purse Strings-- We need that new Toy, buy it for us.
See the US always want gigantic planes, thinking bigger is better, so a relatively small plane like the C27 does not suit their mentality. And Boeing do want to sell more Planes & Parts, so one that is compatable with the C130 in parts and instrumentation-- a pilot can hop from one to the other, does not suit them so they would be pressurising the US to buy more toys, and discard the old ones.
I have often thought the C27 would be an ideal Caribou replacement-- Assuming it has no mechanical problems/is not a lemon.
I don't know what they want more for, they can't use the ones they have. Sure they are in the process of crewing up but is there a need for more? They can't even park the ones they have as they have shared real estate with the MTTR.
Good question about the C27J.....also made a little gray by the fact that Defence didn't even tender.
How does the C27J compare to the V22 in load and range? I suspect it could fly faster and further. Just wondering if the V22 has reduced the need for the C27.
There is no real replacement for a Caribou, there is a slight capability shift. They lack the awesome STOL of a Bou...not that they are bad but can't get in where Bous can. However, they are a lot quicker and can fly further. I'm certain they can carry more load.
However, there were some Australian trials of the LTAC options and all proved to be less robust than the Bou, with damaged props, gear doors and bellys.
Shed load more reliable I bet though.....LOL!!!
V22, good but very very very expensive....
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks