Alan Minyard wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M.

Which is circular reasoning -- if you define the job the C-130 _can perform_ as
the job any replacement _should perform_ (no more, no less), then of course the
C-130 will be superior. After all, most U.S. military tactical equipment has had
its dimensions artificially limited to what will fit in a C-130 cargo bay. The
C-130's payload is size and volume-limited - U.S. military 'oversize' and
'outsize' cargo is that which _won't_ fit in a C-130. The A400M and AN-70 may or
may not be inferior to the C-130 while performing a role limited to that which
the C-130 is also capable of, but they can also take on jobs that the C-130 is
incapable of, such as carrying a considerable portion of the loads which only the
C-17 or C-5 would otherwise be able to carry. If you can only afford one
tactical airlifter, but you need to move a fair proportion of those oversize
and/or outsize loads by air, then the C-130 isn't the answer.

When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

At a far higher cost if you've got to buy and operate two different a/c, IF you
are otherwise able to get by with one. For the U.S., with the potential need to
deploy big, heavy cargo into theater trans-oceanically and then make a tactical
landing with the same load, the C-17's extra speed over a turboprop may make
sense, but most countries don't have such a compelling need that will justify the
price tag. The C-130's longevity has been based on two things: first, that it
was an excellent design to start with; and second, that it was the only a/c in
its class among western a/c. Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical
airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? Is there any doubt that competition, as exists among more numerous,
smaller and cheaper twin-turboprop tactical airlifters, would have led to far
fewer C-130 sales, and its obsolescence and replacement much sooner? The C-130
was the only game in town, big brother had already paid for its development, and
in many cases was willing to help with the payments or even give the a/c away.

Guy