Replacement for C130?

[John Penta]

Been thinking randomly here.

Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?

Specifically, for short/rough-field use?

I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?

[walt moffett]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:42:07 -0400,
John Penta > wrote:
> Been thinking randomly here.
>
> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>
> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>
> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?

the A model is, however a new shiny C-130J is available. I think the C130
will be flying for a long time.

it appears to have the durability of a pickup truck.

[Darrell A. Larose]

John Penta ) writes:
> Been thinking randomly here.
>
> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>
> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>
> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?
>
The C-130J seems to fit the bill

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
>
> Been thinking randomly here.
>
> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>
> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>
> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?
>

Depends on what you consider it's birthday. The specification that resulted
in the C-130 was issued by TAC in 1951, the first production contract was
awarded in September 1952, first flight was in August 1954, first production
delivery was in December 1956. While the C-130 has been in USAF service for
almost 47 years, the oldest C-130 in USAF service is a bit younger than
that. The C-130A, B, and D versions have all been retired, the oldest
version still in service is the C-130E, which was built from 1962 to 1975.
The newest version is the C-130J, which is still being produced. The C-130
will be around for a long time.

[Ulf Jørgensen]

The European A400M :))

Se the url
http://www.eads.com/eads/en/index.htm?/xml/en/businet/miltrair/a400m/a400m.x
ml&miltrair

Ulf

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
> Been thinking randomly here.
>
> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>
> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>
> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?

[tscottme]

Ulf Jørgensen > wrote in message
...
> The European A400M :))
>

Yeah A400M, if anyone lives long enough to see it fly. ;-)

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Gene Storey]

Anything with 4 turbo-props, and can carry a fully loaded
M-1 battle tank 700 miles.

[Demonpenta2]

>Subject: Re: Replacement for C130?
>From: "tscottme"
>Date: 9/26/2003 11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ulf Jørgensen > wrote in message
...
>> The European A400M :))
>>
>
>Yeah A400M, if anyone lives long enough to see it fly. ;-)

Which is a problem.

Since I'm seeing this (I'm the original poster, posting from an AOL account I
use while away from my normal comp), I may as well note that I was NOT
including the various models of the C130 in my question.:-) Rather, in a
PBEM/RPG/simulation context, I'm pondering creating an a/c to replace the C130.
Particularly in a short-field context (I note that the UN, SMOM, and several
other relief-type agencies appear to use C130s; A possible customer base
suggests itself, thus...).

[Jeroen Wenting]

the only replacement for a C130 is another C130.

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
> Been thinking randomly here.
>
> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>
> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>
> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?

[Lyle]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:40:20 +0200, "Jeroen Wenting"
> wrote:

>the only replacement for a C130 is another C130.
>
>"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
>> Been thinking randomly here.
>>
>> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>>
>> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>>
>> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?
>
there was the Boeing yc-14 and the McD yc-15

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/amst.asp#yc15

these were late 1970's aircraft that were meant to replace the C-130
but budget ran out.

[Bill Silvey]

"walt moffett" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:42:07 -0400,
> John Penta > wrote:
>> Been thinking randomly here.
>>
>> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>>
>> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>>
>> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?
>
> the A model is, however a new shiny C-130J is available. I think the
> C130 will be flying for a long time.
>
> it appears to have the durability of a pickup truck.

The last crew to deliver a B52 to Davis-Monthan for disposal will fly home
in a C130 - think about that :-)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Bill Silvey]

"Lyle" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:40:20 +0200, "Jeroen Wenting"
> > wrote:
>
>> the only replacement for a C130 is another C130.
>>
>> "John Penta" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Been thinking randomly here.
>>>
>>> Is there any replacement for the C130 anywhere?
>>>
>>> Specifically, for short/rough-field use?
>>>
>>> I mean, hell. C130s nearly 50, ain't it?
>>
> there was the Boeing yc-14 and the McD yc-15
>
> http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/amst.asp#yc15
>
> these were late 1970's aircraft that were meant to replace the C-130
> but budget ran out.

They note that the YC15 will come out of mothballs as an ATD airframe.
Interesting...

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Bill Silvey" > wrote:

> The last crew to deliver a B52 to Davis-Monthan for disposal will fly home
> in a C130 - think about that :-)

Well, if they'd ever stop *making* the suckers...

Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Herc's first flight (Aug 23,
1954), BTW.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[David Lesher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

>The newest version is the C-130J, which is still being produced. The C-130
>will be around for a long time.

Thought they had stopped buying same when Newt resigned. I read
several articles to the effect that the USAF had more Herky's than
they wanted, but seeing as how they were made in his District....nobody
asked them.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Bromage]

David Lesher wrote:
> Thought they had stopped buying same when Newt resigned. I read
> several articles to the effect that the USAF had more Herky's than
> they wanted

On the other hand, I have heard various logistics officers saying that
you can never have too many Hercs.

Cheers
David

[Tex Houston]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> >The newest version is the C-130J, which is still being produced. The
C-130
> >will be around for a long time.
>
> Thought they had stopped buying same when Newt resigned. I read
> several articles to the effect that the USAF had more Herky's than
> they wanted, but seeing as how they were made in his District....nobody
> asked them.


What about the contract awarded last year for the 67 aircraft (43 USAF, 24
USMC) to be delivered from 2005-09. Granted, these are the stretched
version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
C-130J/CC-130J.

Tex Houston

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tex Houston" > wrote:

> What about the contract awarded last year for the 67 aircraft (43 USAF, 24
> USMC) to be delivered from 2005-09. Granted, these are the stretched
> version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
> C-130J/CC-130J.

Sheesh. At this rate, they're going to run out of letters in the
alphabet.

C-130ZZ++, anyone?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Nick Pedley]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tex Houston" > wrote:
>
> > What about the contract awarded last year for the 67 aircraft (43 USAF,
24
> > USMC) to be delivered from 2005-09. Granted, these are the stretched
> > version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
> > C-130J/CC-130J.
>
> Sheesh. At this rate, they're going to run out of letters in the
> alphabet.
>
> C-130ZZ++, anyone?
>
Aren't they about to do this for the AH-1 Cobra?

Nick

[Cub Driver]

>
>The last crew to deliver a B52 to Davis-Monthan for disposal will fly home
>in a C130 - think about that :-)

Not graven in stone. They could, just conceivably, fly home in a DC-3.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Andrew Chaplin]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >
> >The last crew to deliver a B52 to Davis-Monthan for disposal will fly home
> >in a C130 - think about that :-)
>
> Not graven in stone. They could, just conceivably, fly home in a DC-3.

.... flown by a pilot whose *parents* weren't born when it was first
retired from first line duties.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Tex Houston]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tex Houston" > wrote:
>
> > Granted, these are the stretched
> > version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
> > C-130J/CC-130J.
>
> What is the weight capacity of the stretched version? How does it
> compare to the new Airbus plane?

Sorry, you will have to do your own research. I suggest "Air Force
Magazine" May 2003 and www.google.com .

Example:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm

http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/C_130_Hercules.html

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/

Airbus Military is at:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/home.html

but I know very little about them and I figure the chance of the USAF buying
the Airbus 400M as a C-130 replacement is nil.

Tex Houston

[David Bromage]

Hobo wrote:
> In article >,
> "Tex Houston" > wrote:
>> Granted, these are the stretched
>>version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
>>C-130J/CC-130J.
>
> What is the weight capacity of the stretched version? How does it
> compare to the new Airbus plane?

From official documentation of both companies.

C-130J C-130J-30 A400M
MTOW 69,750kg 74,393kg 110,850kg
Max payload 17,373kg 21,690kg 25,000kg
Range @ max payload 2729nm 2517nm 1700nm
Speed 356kts 356kts 300kts
Unit cost (US$) ~$48m ~$55m ~$80m

Cheers
David

[Darrell A. Larose]

David Bromage ) writes:
> Hobo wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Tex Houston" > wrote:
> >> Granted, these are the stretched
> >>version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
> >>C-130J/CC-130J.
> >
> > What is the weight capacity of the stretched version? How does it
> > compare to the new Airbus plane?
>
> From official documentation of both companies.
>
> C-130J C-130J-30 A400M
> MTOW 69,750kg 74,393kg 110,850kg
> Max payload 17,373kg 21,690kg 25,000kg
> Range @ max payload 2729nm 2517nm 1700nm
> Speed 356kts 356kts 300kts
> Unit cost (US$) ~$48m ~$55m ~$80m
>
> Cheers
> David
>
So the Airbus will be bought by many air forces as carries 15% more
payload. Has 60% of the range, is 16% slower and costs 45% more.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Darrell A. Larose) wrote:

> David Bromage ) writes:
>
> > From official documentation of both companies.
> >
> > C-130J C-130J-30 A400M
> > MTOW 69,750kg 74,393kg 110,850kg
> > Max payload 17,373kg 21,690kg 25,000kg
> > Range @ max payload 2729nm 2517nm 1700nm
> > Speed 356kts 356kts 300kts
> > Unit cost (US$) ~$48m ~$55m ~$80m
> >
> So the Airbus will be bought by many air forces as carries 15% more
> payload. Has 60% of the range, is 16% slower and costs 45% more.

That airspeed for the A400 seems awfully low - I've seen references to
speeds of 422 knots.

The payload is supposed to be closer to 35,000 kg for the A400.

The price is off, too. They're going for about $125 million each.

Here's a somewhat-recent story:

<http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030527-112105-4695r.htm>

The other advantage the A400 has is a wider and taller fuselage,
compared to the C-130. That interior landing gear wheel box gets in the
way of a lot of wide loads. Of course, the US tends to stick bigger
loads into C-17s.

Of course, the A400 isn't even supposed to get into their inventory
until at least 2009, and the US is already working on the Advanced
Theater Transport...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Oryx]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
...
> Hobo wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Tex Houston" > wrote:
> >> Granted, these are the stretched
> >>version, CC-130J, but are part of the planned or delivered total of 168
> >>C-130J/CC-130J.
> >
> > What is the weight capacity of the stretched version? How does it
> > compare to the new Airbus plane?
>
> From official documentation of both companies.
>
> C-130J C-130J-30 A400M
> MTOW 69,750kg 74,393kg 110,850kg
> Max payload 17,373kg 21,690kg 25,000kg
> Range @ max payload 2729nm 2517nm 1700nm
> Speed 356kts 356kts 300kts
> Unit cost (US$) ~$48m ~$55m ~$80m
>
> Cheers
> David
>

There's a mistake in the speeds you listed. The values quoted for the C-130J
and C-130J-30 are KTAS (knots, True Air Speed). The 300 kts published by
Airbus is, and they are very specific about that, CAS (calibrated air
speed). The values for the C-130's are, to be more specific, TAS at 22,000
feet. In comparison, an A400 doing 300 KCAS at 22,000 feet would be flying
approximately 425 KTAS, considerably faster than the C-130J. Even more, the
design cruise altitude for the A400 is 29,000 ft, at which 300 KCAS would be
approximately 480 KTAS. The cruise Mach number for the C-130J is listed as
Mach 0.59, while that of the Airbus is 0.68 - 0.72.

Also, Airbus quotes 37,000 kg as max payload. With this payload they indeed
claim 1700nm range. However, for a similar payload to the max payload of the
C130 (20,000 kg), the range of the A400 is listed as 3550 nm.