These two superb aircraft have been in production for decades with no sign of their usefulness tapering off or lack of interest from customers


They just keep upgrading and updating both airframes and they seem just as relevant as ever


They appear to be immune from obsolescence, especially the Chinook, and why not, it has an unparalleled combination of payload capability and speed that is steadily improving with more powerful and efficient engines



Perhaps the C130 might be improved with a wider fuselage but the A400 has that and it’s not really sold well, in the meantime I expect Lockheed will keep upgrading it



These are two obvious examples, there may be other platforms that are in this category, perhaps the AH64

Not to be a jerk, Q, but what’s your question?

What would it take to build a VTOL tilt-rotor with C-130 size and capacity? Is that something that could be done?

LyleLanley wrote:

Not to be a jerk, Q, but what’s your question?

None in particular, interested in people’s opinions and a discussion on the subject

Newark727 wrote:

What would it take to build a VTOL tilt-rotor with C-130 size and capacity? Is that something that could be done?

Not exactly the answer to your question, but hopefully close enough:

https://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Researc ... /LCTR.html

The only reasons they were kept in production longer than 20 years, is because of the MICs influence in the US and because the US state keeps them artificially alive as job programs. Under ideal market conditions they would have been dropped decades ago. Under those circumstances, anything can become a "succes"...

They're nearly immortal because their mission is extremely simple and they can be built very cheap. No expensive sensors, no outdated computers, no delicate stealth coatings. No ever-increasing armor, no need for noise and emissions regulations, no maintenance issues thanks to unlimited support by the USAF.

VSMUT wrote:

The only reasons they were kept in production longer than 20 years, is because of the MICs influence in the US and because the US state keeps them artificially alive as job programs. Under ideal market conditions they would have been dropped decades ago. Under those circumstances, anything can become a "succes"...

Somewhat true for the C-130 but the CH47’s continued international dominance of it’s space imho, probably being a favorite even in Germany to expand it’s customer base, proves it’s not simply a job program. Even for the Hercules, competitors have come and gone but can’t create a user base with global parts/availability/training that can knock it off from export business.

VSMUT wrote:

the US state keeps them artificially alive as job programs.

Like the eu does with airbus?

texl1649 wrote:

Somewhat true for the C-130 but the CH47’s continued international dominance of it’s space imho, probably being a favorite even in Germany to expand it’s customer base, proves it’s not simply a job program.

The Chinook is exactly the same. Technology has moved on in bounds and leaps since that antiquity first flew. Its presence is stifling innovation.

texl1649 wrote:

Even for the Hercules, competitors have come and gone but can’t create a user base with global parts/availability/training that can knock it off from export business.

Thats easy to say when the US has been handing out C-130s as military aid since it was first created. You could put any transport plane in the C-130s place, the result would have been the same. It says nothing about the quality of the aircraft itself, only about the vastness of the organization behind it. But even the USSR had the good sense to halt the An-12 when technology moved on.

ItnStln wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

the US state keeps them artificially alive as job programs.

Like the eu does with airbus?

Nice try, but Airbus or the EU didn't keep the C-160 alive for 50 years. When it ran out of orders, the line was shut down. When technology advanced, they developed a new innovative airlifter. Not to mention that the EU has nothing to do with Airbus.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single Airbus product that was kept artificially alive for longer than it was economically viable. The A300, A310, A340 and A380 all shut down when orders dried out. You never saw the French, German, Dutch, British and Spanish governments keep buying airbus products for several decades after their air forces stopped requesting more.

VSMUT wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Somewhat true for the C-130 but the CH47’s continued international dominance of it’s space imho, probably being a favorite even in Germany to expand it’s customer base, proves it’s not simply a job program.

The Chinook is exactly the same. Technology has moved on in bounds and leaps since that antiquity first flew. Its presence is stifling innovation.

Neither the C-130 or CH-47 are exactly the same. The dynamic components (engines, props/rotors, etc) and electronics on both aircraft have been considerably upgraded, and both aircraft can haul more payload than their previous versions. Let's look at what's happened; in the absence of innovating competitors (ie. the Soviet Union), the basic airframes can do well when upgraded with modern gear. Look at the F-15 and F-16. They're still being produced but are really much different compared to their ancestors (in the same planforms) from decades prior.

When you're talking about slower vehicles that don't need stealth, the basic airframe doesn't need to change much, as opposed to fighters or other high-speed aircraft that benefit immensely from improvements in aerodynamics, maneuverability, etc.

However, that's not to say that it's not important to do some upgrades, but is it worth the effort? Sometimes. Look at the CH-53K, which is really an all new aircraft, new materials, new everything, that happens to look like its predecessor.

As for the C-130 and V/STOL, I would put money on the eventual plan being a quad tilt-rotor derived from the V-280. The Air Force probably knows this, but they can't scale that to C-130 size just yet.

Boeing Bell Lockheed have studied the quad tilt-rotor's for a long time.

One of the issues however is an inter-service rivalry; why would the USAF operate such vs. the USA? That's the main reason it hasn't been pursued/funded, though the delay will just lead to a more capable aircraft I believe, closer to an AB609/V280 than certainly the 1st Gen. V-22's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boei ... _TiltRotor

Neither the C-130 or the CH-47 are obsolete. They dominate their markets because they effectively and efficiently perform the tasks they were created to do. Countless other airframes have come and gone in the markets the C-130 and CH-47 reside in. The strength of the product, the breadth of the product and at times the luck of the product have all tilted in these two airframes favor.

Heck look at the A400M. Designed DECADES after the C-130 started defending freedom and it is a.......4 engined turbo prop that loads from the rear. Well, I'll be, that's a new design!!!!!!!!!!

Even those that have bought the A400M (France & Germany) have bought.....C-130s.....after buying A400s.

Both of these aircraft (C-130 and CH-47) sit in markets that are not "sexy" and have high barriers for entry. Their market domination has continued because to a certain extent you really can't do a "better" job than they do it without a ton of money, ton of effort and ton of time to get a new airframe to do the same thing. You also buy into a design that is constantly being updated, upgraded and having new accessories made for it. Why buy a competitor who doesn't have that ability?

The same can be said to a degree about the F-16. Great little fighter but a jack of all trades, master of none. It performs well though, at a competitive price point. It has been proven in combat for decades and continues to get fantastic upgrades that are available from the US or other Allied Nations. There may be a better, newer design but not at the price point, with the available support and continous upgrades that you can buy an F-16 Block 70 for.

Overall, the C-130 & CH-47 haul trash, do it well and are known platforms. Until the USAF for the C-130 or the USA for the CH-47 decide to buy a new horse, the Hercules and Chinook will keep right on rolling along.

The YC-14 and YC-15 were in competition to replace the C-130, in the 1970's.
Perhaps the question should be asked why the competition did not result in production of one of these.
It's easy and sometimes justifiable to cite the Military/Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned of, however in these cases the responses above highlight why.

In the early 2000's there were ideas around a new heavy lift chopper from EADS, which looked like an EH-101 on a lot of steroids, Germany had a requirement, France still lacks choppers in this class, (unless the RAF provides a few), Italy once built CH-47's for itself and others, (including Libya which tells you how long ago that was).
There are your major partners, yet nothing happened.

Has the AN-12 really been replaced by a type in a similar class, the IL-76 being larger, more of a C-141 with a wide body?

Out of the AMST competition, Douglas won with their YC-15 which became the C-17, so there’s that.

GDB wrote:

It's easy and sometimes justifiable to cite the Military/Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned of, however in these cases the responses above highlight why.

Interestingly, Donald Trump wants to punish Germany for its weak defense spending by moving US troops to other countries -- and moves them to countries that spend even less (Belgium and Italy), but are F-35 customers. Influence of arms procurement on politics ...

GDB wrote:

Has the AN-12 really been replaced by a type in a similar class, the IL-76 being larger, more of a C-141 with a wide body?

It was supposed to be replaced by the AN-70, a plan that failed due to the Russian-Ukranian conflict. Influence of politics on arms procurement ...

The CH-47 has a fundamental efficiency advantage inherent in its layout. With all the expensive layout specific development costs sunk decades ago It's now sized and priced at a sweet spot in the payload/capability/range/cost to operate trade off matrix.
What's hard to believe is that no-one else has developed a rival twin rotor.

To VSMUT--how hi-tech does a heavy transport helicopter or medium lift transport have to be? If it still does the job, why change it? What other aircraft could replace them. The EU has a large enough customer base that they could come up with their own aircraft, but it hasn't happened.

Noray wrote:

GDB wrote:

It's easy and sometimes justifiable to cite the Military/Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned of, however in these cases the responses above highlight why.

Interestingly, Donald Trump wants to punish Germany for its weak defense spending by moving US troops to other countries -- and moves them to countries that spend even less (Belgium and Italy), but are F-35 customers. Influence of arms procurement on politics ...

There will still be 24000 troops in Germany after the move and even if they move those troops to other locations Germany will still host more US troops than any other European nation. Additionally both Italy and Belgium have already bought the F-35, why would moving troops there now have anything to do with politics. Ironically Italian and Beligium commitments to the F-35 will not compare to the US acquisition of the FREMM frigate. It again doesn't make sense for the US to move troops to Italy after recently awarding an Italian company a multi billion dollar contract. Shouldn't it go the other way, should Italy now base troops in the US to say thanks...

Noray wrote:

GDB wrote:

Has the AN-12 really been replaced by a type in a similar class, the IL-76 being larger, more of a C-141 with a wide body?

It was supposed to be replaced by the AN-70, a plan that failed due to the Russian-Ukranian conflict. Influence of politics on arms procurement ...

The AN-70 ended long before Russia and Ukraine heated up. The Russians has already withdrawn by Apr 2012,

In April 2013, Antonov admitted the Russians had withdrawn from involvement in the test programme in November 2012 because of frustration at its slow progress.

http://miragec14.blogspot.com/2014/04/a ... tests.html

and that was only after aircraft development had been started and stopped at least three times in the previous 20 years.

johns624 wrote:

To VSMUT--how hi-tech does a heavy transport helicopter or medium lift transport have to be? If it still does the job, why change it? What other aircraft could replace them. The EU has a large enough customer base that they could come up with their own aircraft, but it hasn't happened.

Don't waste your time. VSMUT knows the C-130J was a commercial program whose first two customers were the RAF, who launched the programme, and RAAF. The USAF didn't start operating the C-130J until 2004, five years after the RAF and RAAF.

Additionally, the claim that the C-130J didn't improve on previous variants is patently false,

These changes have improved performance over its C-130E/H predecessors, such as 40% greater range, 21% higher maximum speed, and 41% shorter takeoff distance

Yes the C-130 has benefited from US orders maintaining production but that doesn't stop it from being a right sized and capable aircraft for the role users acquire it for and for it to continue to win orders. The claim that MIC support keeps airframes in production is flawed, the F-15 and F-16 have both had no US orders (until recently with the F-15EX which is of the back of massive Saudi investments in the aircraft) for two decades for the F-15 and a decade and a half for the F-16.

GDB wrote:

the IL-76 being larger, more of a C-141 with a wide body?

C-141 and IL-76 are comparable in size internally...the 76 may be a tad wider internally but it is not a "wide body" in the commercial sense. From the outside, the IL-76 may look wider but I believe that is just an "Ilyushin"

Ozair wrote:

Don't waste your time. VSMUT knows the C-130J was a commercial program whose first two customers were the RAF, who launched the programme, and RAAF. The USAF didn't start operating the C-130J until 2004, five years after the RAF and RAAF.

Some of that is correct, and some of it is..... questionable.

Lockheed Martin received the launch order for the J-model from the RAF, which ordered 25 aircraft, with first deliveries beginning in 1999

The Australian Government ordered twelve C-130J Super Hercules in December 1995 and deliveries began during 1999.

But the problem I have is the alleged delay before the US military took an interest.
Not so much five years later; maybe five months. And arguably less than that.

Here's Fiscal Year 1996 machine 96-8154 (built 1997) in 1999, i.e. concurrent with the first RAF & RAAF deliveries.

And Fiscal Year 1994 machine 94-8152. The earliest photo on this database is from 2002, and it may be that this particular machine was loaned back to Lockheed for some years as a demonstrator.

And here are 98-1356 and 98-1358 in 2003 and 2004 respectively, although several others from FY98 were delivered by the end of 1999, at a time whilst the RAF still only had a single a/c to play with. Finding photos of them from that period is not so easy.

We have no idea what occurred behind closed doors. Could be the Brits and Aussies asked for the US to step up first and bear the testing, trial run, shake down expenses. Hey, we are are buying 40-50 aircraft max and you will have hundreds. Can you help us out here and scratch our backs?!?!

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Here's Fiscal Year 1996 machine 96-8154 (built 1997) in 1999, i.e. concurrent with the first RAF & RAAF deliveries.

And Fiscal Year 1994 machine 94-8152. The earliest photo on this database is from 2002, and it may be that this particular machine was loaned back to Lockheed for some years as a demonstrator.

And here are 98-1356 and 98-1358 in 2003 and 2004 respectively, although several others from FY98 were delivered by the end of 1999, at a time whilst the RAF still only had a single a/c to play with. Finding photos of them from that period is not so easy.

Yes you're right good pick up, the page I got my info from was incorrect. I did a review of the GAO 98 report here, https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/225537.pdf which does support the commercial delivery and the RAF being the first acquirer but yes identifies earlier USAF deliveries than I was aware of.

As has been discussed previously in the A400M thread the USAF has issues with early C-130J deliveries as did the RAAF. Not a great surprise, I can't think of an aircraft built in the last 30 years that hasn't some teething issues into service.

I think we will get another C-130 version soon. It will be fitted with engines with improved fuel burn. It will also have more advanced 8 bladed props similar to what the E-2D hawkeye has.

Reducing fuel burn on a trip means it can carry more payload before hitting MTOW. Or with the same payload it can then takeoff at a lighter weight improving runway performance.

Overall I would expect the new version to be able to carry 10% more payload a distance 10% further while operating from a runway 10% shorter than the current C-130J. This might seem like a minor improvement but it would absolutely dominate the market.

The improved engines would significantly flatten out the payload range curve. With light loads say around 5000kg it may be able to fly as far as the much larger and expensive A400m. The C-130 would then become useful doing light strategic flights on transatlantic missions and in the Pacific region.

I really doubt a re-engined C-130 will be rolled out soon. The AE2100 doesn’t really have much competition in the market, and I’m not sure that a dissimilar engine would really help win more sales for Lockheed, or be well received by USAF.

But maybe I’m wrong, what other engines in development/available today around 1500-2000 SHP are available?

RJMAZ wrote:

I think we will get another C-130 version soon. It will be fitted with engines with improved fuel burn. It will also have more advanced 8 bladed props similar to what the E-2D hawkeye has.

The C-130J already has engines with much improved fuel burn, and it already has advanced 6-blade scimitar propellers. Eight blades might seem sexy, but I don't believe they are any more efficient per se

In 2010 a C-130H was fitted with the same Hamilton Sundstrand NP 2000 (8- blade) propellers found on E-2Ds, E-2C Hawkeye 2000s, and even some C-2C Greyhounds. Apart from retrofitting these props to a handful of Antarctic LC-130s, the idea hasn't taken off.

Here's one of those E-2Cs. Surely they are going to recycle those blades?


And here is LC-130H 83-0491 showing 4-blades in 2017, and 8-blades in 2018.

The improved engines would significantly flatten out the payload range curve. With light loads say around 5000kg it may be able to fly as far as the much larger and expensive A400m. The C-130 would then become useful doing light strategic flights on transatlantic missions and in the Pacific region.

And with light loads an Airbus A318 might be able to fly as far as the much larger and more expensive Boeing 777.

texl1649 wrote:

I really doubt a re-engined C-130 will be rolled out soon. The AE2100 doesn’t really have much competition in the market, and I’m not sure that a dissimilar engine would really help win more sales for Lockheed, or be well received by USAF.

But maybe I’m wrong, what other engines in development/available today around 1500-2000 SHP are available?

I suspect you meant to say around 3500 - 5000 shp, in which case does the PW150 get a look-in, despite it's age?
Or maybe you envisage the new C-130 going on a serious weight reduction program?
Apart from that, yeah, you nailed it.

texl1649 wrote:

I really doubt a re-engined C-130 will be rolled out soon. The AE2100 doesn’t really have much competition in the market, and I’m not sure that a dissimilar engine would really help win more sales for Lockheed, or be well received by USAF.

But maybe I’m wrong, what other engines in development/available today around 1500-2000 SHP are available?

The C-130J has 4,637 shp per engine.

Pratt has had a 4500 to 7000hp next gen turboprop under development for the last few years. Embraer was planning to use it on a larger turboprop based off the their Ejet fuselage. Pratt is pushing for this to be used on the C-130. This engine has 15% better fuel burn than the best turboprop on the market. It is the same size and weight as the AE2100 but with more power. It is the perfect C-130 engine which is why I expect it to be fitted by the end of the decade.

There are multiple C-130J competitors that can be knocked out of the market. The extra range of the new engines expands the C-130's role into a whole new market. The KC-390, Shaanxi Y-9, Ilyushin Il-276 and Antonov An-178 are all within 20% of the C-130 's size.

The improved engines and props would allow the C-130 to match the C-27J takeoff performance making that a hard sale. The improved range would make the C-2 and A400m less attractive and potential smaller air forces could just stretch this new C-130 aircraft into the strategic role.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The C-130J already has engines with much improved fuel burn, and it already has advanced 6-blade scimitar propellers. Eight blades might seem sexy, but I don't believe they are any more efficient per se

In 2010 a C-130H was fitted with the same Hamilton Sundstrand NP 2000 (8- blade) propellers found on E-2Ds, E-2C Hawkeye 2000s, and even some C-2C Greyhounds. Apart from retrofitting these props to a handful of Antarctic LC-130s, the idea hasn't taken off.

It seems you know little on how props work.

The 8 blades props works very well at high altitude cruise which is why the E-2 works well with them in the AWAC role. This is also why the lightly loaded Antarctic C-130 aircraft use them. At denser altitudes the engine would need more thrust to fully benefit from the 8 bladed prop. A normally loaded C-130J can struggle to climb to the altitude where the 8 bladed prop gives an advantage.

The Pratt NG engine would have far more thrust to fully use the 8 bladed prop to its full potential on takeoff. It would have a shockingly short takeoff role. The 8 bladed prop combined with the NG engines would improved performance right across the board.

But does the P/W NGT still plan to come online/be available...anytime soon? I haven’t read anything on it since 2016 or so, and I thought it was designed for a 90-pax new TP from either ATR or EMB, which obviously are unlikely in the current climate. If anyone’s seen anything on it please do post it.

Finally, I don’t think Lockheed has been losing any sales it really wanted to win, of note, for the past few years, and the A400 is about to end it’s production run, while the KC-390 can’t seem to gain much real traction outside of the Portuguese speaking parts of the world. I’d love to see a “C-130XL” concept revived (meaning enlarged/made better), kind of like a Super Hornet of cargo lifters, but that will have to wait at least 5 to 10 years, and even then it would be finally competing with some quad tiltrotors I bet that could be attractive alternatives.

A ton of different/wild configs have been studied over the past 70 years;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ects.2035/

texl1649 wrote:

But does the P/W NGT still plan to come online/be available...anytime soon?

It was at the point where Pratt was ready to produce a test engine. Now they are waiting for an aircraft.

texl1649 wrote:

Finally, I don’t think Lockheed has been losing any sales it really wanted to win, of note, for the past few years, and the A400 is about to end it’s production run.

If Lockheed rest on their laurels then the C-130 might end production entirely and have its role replaced by aircraft above or below it. For instance the USAF might launch a small strategic aircraft for the transatlantic role as the C-17 fleet builds hours. The Army might push for a quad tilt rotor of C-130J capacity.

Now if Lockheed can increase the range of the C-130 by 20% then it would kill the business case for any small strategic airlifter. If Lockheed can get the C-130 to operate from runways 20% shorter then that opens up even shorter runways and kills the business case of a quad tilt rotor. The C-130 with just new engines would then remain in production for another 30 years.

Nothing can really happen with JMR-Ultra (the notional FVL program for basically a quad tilt rotor with C-130-ish capacity) until the OMFV finally produces some specifics/a winner that can be spec’d into the lift. And OMFV has been one big disaster for forever (appropriate, since the Bradley development effort was as well).

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/sho ... y-on-omfv/

Ideally I am sure the Army would like the MPF to also be capable of transport by this notional new version, and any relatively complex C-130 derivative that could be offered to short-circuit/compete with JMR-Ultra. But again the light tank program is not...proceeding quickly. But notice that the MPF is not to fit on a C-130, only the C-17. Could 30 tons be lifted, let alone carried internally by a future quad tilt rotor though? It would be difficult vertically, but with the J model Herc of course the actual limit is only around 15K off today. But my point is I don’t think a Herc derivative, nor JMR-Ultra will be spec’d/studied seriously until the specifics of these two types of armored vehicles (weight/size) are completed, which might be 5 to 8 years away.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/gao ... -vehicles/

aeromoe wrote:

GDB wrote:

the IL-76 being larger, more of a C-141 with a wide body?

C-141 and IL-76 are comparable in size internally...the 76 may be a tad wider internally but it is not a "wide body" in the commercial sense. From the outside, the IL-76 may look wider but I believe that is just an "Ilyushin"

It was just an Ilyushin, love it!

Few would deny the great track records of both the C130 and Chinooks. I guess the end of the cold war & efforts by States / industries kept the lines open for decades.

At this stage the C130 seems secured by a congress-LM lobby, bypassing DoD, which has no alternatives to replace geriatric C130s with updated C130s. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/busi ... loves.html,

Many systems & technologies of the C-130 have been updated & meet the latest requirements. Many not, they trace back 60-70 yrs. Congress has made sure orders are added, overruling DoD requirements. It has become a flag waving congress program, rather than a DoD program. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150978

The Army has been pushing, unhappy vehicles are designed to fit the tactical C130s, rather than meeting changed field requirements. But with no success so far. Like the Chevy One-fifty, the C-130 is a great design. But from a different age.

As said Pratt is developing a better engine (I worked on the T-56 myself). I won't be hard for LM or Boeing to develop something much better meeting todays operational requirements, without costing $300m a piece.

If this example was a US designed, build, powered aircraft, there would be little discussion. https://youtu.be/URSit14R9OE. But it's not obviously, so little chance.

keesje wrote:

The Army has been pushing, unhappy vehicles are designed to fit the tactical C130s, rather than meeting changed field requirements. But with no success so far. Like the Chevy One-fifty, the C-130 is a great design. But from a different age.

.

The Army can load things in a C17 which is arguably just as capable as the C130 in performance and even more so in weight (can take an Abrams tank).

TWA772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Army has been pushing, unhappy vehicles are designed to fit the tactical C130s, rather than meeting changed field requirements. But with no success so far. Like the Chevy One-fifty, the C-130 is a great design. But from a different age.

.

The Army can load things in a C17 which is arguably just as capable as the C130 in performance and even more so in weight (can take an Abrams tank).

But the truth is the USAF won’t likely ever land a C-17 at a forward base near the FEBA. And we are limited in how many C-17’s are available in theater. The Army realizes the truth is IED’s etc. are driving heavier/larger vehicles today, vs. the 50’s.

The battle to come post-2025 or so is over the quad-tiltrotor to lift/carry new armored vehicles; it is a fight between the USAF and Army.

texl1649 wrote:

The battle to come post-2025 or so is over the quad-tiltrotor to lift/carry new armored vehicles; it is a fight between the USAF and Army.

It seems more between LM, Air Guard, their friends in Congress versus DoD, trying to meet changing requirements.

TWA772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Army has been pushing, unhappy vehicles are designed to fit the tactical C130s, rather than meeting changed field requirements. But with no success so far. Like the Chevy One-fifty, the C-130 is a great design. But from a different age.

.

The Army can load things in a C17 which is arguably just as capable as the C130 in performance and even more so in weight (can take an Abrams tank).

Vehicles are not exactly a frequent cargo for C-130's, it is primarily pallets of cargo. That's often the most frequent cargo for a C-130.

texl1649 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Army has been pushing, unhappy vehicles are designed to fit the tactical C130s, rather than meeting changed field requirements. But with no success so far. Like the Chevy One-fifty, the C-130 is a great design. But from a different age.

.

The Army can load things in a C17 which is arguably just as capable as the C130 in performance and even more so in weight (can take an Abrams tank).

But the truth is the USAF won’t likely ever land a C-17 at a forward base near the FEBA. And we are limited in how many C-17’s are available in theater. The Army realizes the truth is IED’s etc. are driving heavier/larger vehicles today, vs. the 50’s.
The battle to come post-2025 or so is over the quad-tiltrotor to lift/carry new armored vehicles; it is a fight between the USAF and Army.

The irony of the silly A400M claims is that those new heavy vehicles are too heavy for the A400M anyway… In that context the C-130 can continue to be used by the US Services as it has for the last 50 years in moving people and cargo around the tactical battlespace and when a real revolution comes along then they can move towards it. I’m not convinced a quad-tilt-rotor will get the gig yet, I cannot see it being capable of lifting whatever the Bradley replacement is, but the USAF and Army are certainly in no rush.

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

JBo wrote:

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

It's cross section has become too small for new vehicles/ loads and 4 engines is a bit rich for a few pallets/ folks.
But USAF has no options than to just buy more to replace very old ones. LM, congress, reserves/guards covered it.

keesje wrote:

JBo wrote:

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

It's cross section has become too small for new vehicles/ loads and 4 engines is a bit rich for a few pallets/ folks.
But USAF has no options than to just buy more to replace very old ones. LM, congress, reserves/guards covered it.

The C130 needs all the power it can get for the mission profiles it can do like flying in to austere environments where power is king.

TWA772LR wrote:

keesje wrote:

JBo wrote:

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

It's cross section has become too small for new vehicles/ loads and 4 engines is a bit rich for a few pallets/ folks.
But USAF has no options than to just buy more to replace very old ones. LM, congress, reserves/guards covered it.

The C130 needs all the power it can get for the mission profiles it can do like flying in to austere environments where power is king.

Exactly. It's a tactical airlifter, designed to get into small, rough places to offload cargo and personnel. Anything bigger is going to require a larger footprint on the ground.

JBo wrote:

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

That's an accurate analogy.

JBo wrote:

The C-130 is kind of like the 737 in that, while the basic airframe dates back several decades, the engines, avionics, and so many other components have been so drastically upgraded and updated over time that it performs just as well as their more recently-designed counterparts.

A more relevant analogy with one major difference.

The 737, the CH-47 and the C-130 all have a huge existing operatir and logistic base that build incentive for buying and building more.

However, the 737 does have a "newer" competitor with it's own huge global foot print by most account has challenfed and chipped away the 737 as the industry leader.

Neither the C-130 nor the CH-47 have any comparable challenger.

bt