Crews who flew C-130J Hercules pay tribute to RAF's 'Swiss Army knife' 

Lucky you , any idea what they going too do with them ? Selling em off probably ?

@@thecovidprisoner Thanks, it was a great thing to experience, looking it up this was when I was 16 and was at Lyneham, we were doing touch and goes and they opened the back I seem to remember, I have no idea what they are doing with them but will prob sell them and put some at bases as a display maybe because that happens with old aircraft but it's quite large so who knows what will happen it's damn annoying when this stuff happens like the A10 tank buster the usaf are binning that which is sillt because it does an incredible job and I think it's not that expensive in the great scheme of things.

Airframe hours more relevant than age.

@@typhoon2827 Exactly! Someone gets it and ours have had a lot of very hard hours put on them (small fleet - long range wars).

Please provide me with one example of how the A400 is 'inferior'? I will in return give you a list of advantages.

You allege the A400 is rubbish? If you were at Lyneham then you will not have flown the A400 will you (ask me how I know)? The Atlas can lift twice the weight, offers twice the volume over twice the range and at a higher cruise speed than the Fat Albert. It can lift freight a Hercules cannot and position it on landing strips a C-17 cannot go into. And you call that 'rubbish'? Forgive me if I smile. Why scrap them? Well as an engineer you should know the answer - The RAF fleet has very high hours and they have been hard hours (small fleet - long distance wars) and the airframes are now very tired. Which adds costs to maintenance. Carrying stores and staff trained on a fleet of 14 when there are 22 larger more efficient A400 aircraft in fleet just is not a tenable option. All I am seeing is a lot of people throwing emotion about (and I share that) but then because of that make out we have a less than optimal alternative. Which is nonsense.

They're still being used by the majority of nations. It's just being axed from the RAF.

Yes it really speaks to the current state of the military here... A real shame.

Yes but stop that kind of thinking! That's no way to make money for our industrialists in Europe.

Nothing to do with funding at all. And as it happens the RAF is adequately funded as witnessed by fleets of new aircraft (48 x F-35s, Typhoon upgrades, 14 x Voyagers and 22 x A400s) No its simply a case of the 14 x C-130s have had a long (20 years) and hard (small fleet - long distance wars) life and have buil;t up a stack of hours. Carrying the spares and extra maintenance costs for a small fleet of aircraft is untenable especially as the A400 is far more capable in every measure. Oh and you seem very keen to support Yank businesses and jobs and reticent about the thousands of UK jobs dependent on Airbus UK who make the wings, other suppliers who make large systems and even RR who own the majority of the engine builder. I wonder why?

@@1chish On the contrary, retiring the Hercules has a lot to do with funding. If the A400Ms didn't cost so much to purchase and maintain, perhaps then it would have been possible to keep the Hercules fleet in service. Those planes will prove they still have a few years of life left in them when they start their new lives with other allied forces. An Airbus A400M costs upto $152 million US. Yes it's certainly bigger and a more capable aircraft than the Hercules in some aspects. But some would argue that their are situations when a Hercules is a more suitable choice of aircraft. Germany and France have the largest fleet of A400Ms, but they still manage to retain a small number of Hercules in service. A Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules costs upto $75 million US - over half the price of an A400M. The RAF first started using Hercules in 1967. 56 years of using more or less the same type of aircraft (still in production) proves how reliable and admired it is. This is not a debate about me supporting Yank businesses and jobs over UK jobs. All major air forces the world over use a variety of aircraft made by various manufactures from different countries. Those F35s you mentioned are American made, some of the components are actually built in UK.

@@Mr_Chris__ OK lets disassemble your ignorance. 1. It is nothing to do with LACK of funding. That was my point but then you knew this. However retiring the C-130s will save millions that can be used elsewhere. They are now very expensive to maintain and we don't need a small fleet of 14. 2. You make repeated mention of the costs of the A400s. When in fact you have no idea what the Government pays. 3. The A400s were bought to replace the ageing C-130s. So your argument about 'costs of A400s' is a total non sequitur. 4. As regards costs (again?) you expect to pay more for an aircraft that delivers twice the payload, twice the volume, twice the range and do it at a higher cruise speed and go into places the C-130 cannot go. The C-17 (@ $340 Mn) cost 450% more than the 'published' cost of a C-130 (@ $75 Mn)when in production. BECAUSE IT IS MORE CAPABLE! 5. I would suggest because the French and Germans do something is a very good argument for us to NOT do it. They aren't exactly leaders in military capability. 6. Once again you throw random numbers about but if the A400 is indeed twice the cost (God not costs AGAIN?) but is twice as capable (which it is) but faster and better on fuel that is a nett saving moving a fixed amount of freight. 7. When the RAF first used an aircraft is irrelevant to a decision on the fleet in use. We used to fly Beverlys, Argosies and Belfasts but they all came to end of their lives. The VC-10s and Comets were in service for decades but so what? The Voyager is a far better freighter, troop carrier and tanker. 8. Being 'reliable' is not an absolute. The RAF fleet of C-130s are now 20+ years old and are long in hours that were hard hours. Last year a survey reported the A400s were delivering far better availability than the C-130s. So you are wrong about 'reliability'. And finally yes it absolutely is about you preferring to support US jobs over British jobs. Absolutely it is if you want us to buy US equipment where UK taxpayer money goes into a foreign country and is never returned. Buying British (or British part built) returns some 40% back to the government in taxes and other incomes and supports local economies. So knock 40% off of your 'costs' above. Oh and the F-35? We are the only Tier One Partner, we build 20% of EVERY F-35 built and over the life of the programme as a country we will earn more from that work than the costs of buying 138 aircraft.

First sentence is a total fabrication. The A400 is already capable of doing what the C-130 could do (with maybe the exception so far of low level RIB launches for SBS) and do it faster. There are no 'reliability issues' as RAF records show and the SF are not 'hamstrung' by using it. You fabricate a scenario that does not exist. But do please give some examples if you can. Oh and the A400 lifts twice the payload, offers twice the volume over twice the range, at a higher cruise speed and burns less fuel. Those are huge and many advantages which you just belittled.

Bangladesh

The airframes were worn out and it made no sense to spend money on 20+ year old airframes. We are not the USA who buy hundreds, use them sparingly and can therefore keep them for decades (witness the KC-135) but we battered the hell out of our small fleet. The A400 is a far better aircraft and the UK is invested in its manufacture.

or see @scottstewart5784 's comment.

Atlas A400M

I flew aboard the C-130 during my time of service in the 80s. Yeah, its a turboprop but it is such a reliable go anywhere workhorse. Another wrong British decision to give it up I think.

@@JCStaling Please explain why it is a wrong decision? is it because we aren't spending more UK taxpayer money on US aircraft? We have 22 x A400s each of which lifts twice the payload, offers twice the volume over twice the range and at a higher cruise speed. It is more efficient by a huge margin. Plus the UK makes the wings and other large systems like the engines. When was the last time the US military spent US taxpayers money in the UK?

Many of us who knew and worked on the incredible C-130 share your attachment but time marches on and for our small fleet it makes no sense to keep them flying as we have 22 of the far more capable A400.

They’re already promised to Bangladesh.

Cheaper to operate and maintain one platform (the Airbus A400M Atlas) would be my guess.

@@nh6central so those are replacing it now?

A400m is better. The issue is retiring earlier, that's to save money.

They are being replaced with new Atlas C1s (Airbus A400M) One reason I read was they were worn out because they had been used more than was expected.

End of Life - the airplane only has so much flying time. It can still fly, but it can no longer be relied upon to be safe for military missions. The replacement plane is a modern plane, still 4 prop engines, and is larger than the C130 and has more modern capabilities. Plus it's good not to put all your eggs in the Lockheed Martin basket (F-35s).

Well in New Zealand the RNZAF bought our 5 C130 Hercs brand new in 1964/65, we are still flying them. Our new ones are not due until 2025.

Wasn’t operation “Black Buck” the first offensive action for the RAF with the Vulcan’s during the Falklands conflict ?

Why?

What a load of emotional and political cow manure. No argument the C-130 has been a terrific aircraft. However there is an argument for keeping a small fleet of 20+ year old aircraft with too many and hard hours on them because the spares and maintenance costs are just getting bigger. To suggest we can't get our forces to where they need to be is also untrue and unfounded. You then peddle the usual C-130 fans tripe about "the Airbus M400, is proven not up to the job and capabilities of the Great Hercules". Sorry Wendy the A400 works just fine. We have 22 and each offers twice the payload, twice the volume over twice the range and at a higher cruise speed than any of our 14 x C-130s. As someone who knows the Fat Albert probably better than you I share the sense of loss but its time had come. Ours were worn out and had to go while there was still some residual value.

When did they say it wasnt

@@curt6926 hey, i like the UK, just be honest. The Harrier was British, we still fly them in the USMC, im a former Marine. they are cool. wats so hard bout it? why cover up.

@@JCStaling no one said anything about the c-130 being british

There is no anti Yank stuff about this so park your own insults dude. Just as you Yanks make sure you buy only US built kit we prefer to buy kit we either build here or of which we build a large part. We build the wings, many large systems and own most of the engine builder for the A400. As we do for the A330MRTT Voyager tankers. You know the tanker the USAF wanted but your Congress forced the KC-46 boondoggle on them to keep money pouring into Boeing? While the AV-8A and C Harriers were UK built the AV-8B, the B-57 Canberra and the T-45 Goshawk were all US built.

You have NO idea of what you’re talking about. The C-130J has been in service for just about 25 years and technologically is right up there with any other. Bigger is also not always better.

My experience is different. Hercs also bring scientists and others to Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica, and provide regular medical evacuations for the military and civilians. For some it is literally a sign of survival.

You obviously haven’t flown in one.

The war means funds are needed else where and our enemy is getting weaker.

Why not railroad cars? Aircrafts are hardly ideal.

@@tomsherwood4650 You can chop these up for single people, people with animals, single child families. You could make a community centers out of them. But it would just be temporary while new housing is being built nearby.