- e.g. cross the Atlantic without refueling with 15-20t - Did you read the statement made by Slug? It was about small operators, not Atlantic crossing ones...
Small operators cross the Atlantic often. Or was the following a delivery flight via Nevada?
Belgium have eleven C-130 and do not fit into the category as defined earlier in the thread. The question remains though, does it directly impact capability if the Belgian C-130 has to cross the Atlantic a slightly longer way? The answer is no.
(noting Belgium is an original partner in the program and has a clear intent to replace its C-130s with the A400M. Good luck to them and it makes sense in their use case but we aren’t discussing their use here)
Yes, but that doesn't make it go away.
Nor does it justify them acquiring an aircraft that can lift those payloads.
also small operators do long distance, it's unrelated. Trouble / involvement is everywhere.
Only in your attempt to justify a use case. The vast majority of the small operators we are talking about do not go anywhere near the distances you are suggesting as indicated by the list of operators lower in the reply.
Nope. Only a few specialized C130J can do it. Not something a smaller operator can afford.
Malaysia, Indonesia, Sweden, Chili, Brazil, Kuwait, Morocco, Singapore, Argentina. Plenty of operators there with small and large fleets… If we talk the actual small operators then no but so few of them operate AAR tankers anyway the point is completely irrelevant.
As for the capability, yes the KC-390 has it out of the box, the C-130 has the option for it if required and enough current flying KC-130s were modified from standard aircraft to demonstrate it can and is done. A KC-130J also isn’t that expensive, approx US$71 million in 2014. That is hardly a sum that means a nation should go out and acquire an airframe at nearly three times the cost to refuel and transport at the same time. KC-130s can also refuel and carry cargo like a normal C-130 should the need arise.
Yes, they do. Flying low / VFR isn't an advantage in populated areas anywhere.
Keesje, again look at the use case we are discussing. Small operates such as Botswana, Bangldesh, Camaroon, Chad, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, UAE, Uruguay and Venezuela.
These are hardly world travelling nations and the vast vast majority of their transport fleet time is spent supporting local forces and issues. The requirement to cross the Atlantic, or even half that distance with the payloads you are suggesting does not exist.
- land on unprepared terrain - ???
Yes? like no hardened runway?
Are you actually trying to suggest that the above small operators only land their C-130 aircraft on hardened runways?
- support special operations on longer ranges - ??? There is little to no difference in the support of special forces between the platforms. Again Keesje, we are talking about nations with small fleets.
Yes there is, like the RAF says. E.g. for relief operations you can fly in excavators, hospital, relief goods, like in the Caribbean.
Nothing you have quoted above is for Special Forces. In fact if we look at the Harvest Hawk adaption for the KC-130 it is the most capable transport for supporting Special Forces and troops in general from a reasonably simple modified base aircraft.
Getting back to the original suggestion that the A400M can get up to 70% of the smaller operators, Air Forces that have 6 or less C-130s, if anyone critically looks at the list of small operators above then it is clear the suggestion is fanciful...
Last edited by Ozair
on Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.