Why do we still operate this thing?

Because we still need to haul stuff around from Point A to Point B.

File: A400.jpg (30KB, 770x455px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 770x455px

You can go with that, this, or something Soviet.
Take your pick.

>>34678534
Why should we not?

>>34678534
The current version has astoundingly little to do with the C-130A, and has been continuously modernized. Great STOL capability, great rough field capability, very reliable. Good bird all around.

>>34678534
Because transport ships are slow and need a harbor.

Specifically we need it to haul shit in theater, we let c17s and c5s do most of our trans ocean runs, but we don't want them getting scuffed up landing at shit hole army outpost, that's the c130s job.

Source: AMC

>>34678534
>werks
>tons of parts now
>everyone and their father knows how to work on one or fly it
>it fills tons of roles
>can land in what is pretty much no distance

>>34678543
>>34678635
>>34678740
>>34678775
We have far newer and far better airplanes to do the same. the C130 (excluding the J variant) is oudated

>>34678874
>>34678895
OP, these are the only useful and insightful posts ITT.

>>34678534

Because it just works. Also Lockheed has spent over a billion of our taxpayer dollars researching various replacement designs (from simple twin engine jets all the way up to blended wing bodies) and they aren't done yet.

>>34679006
It's good enough for what we need, replacing everything right now would be pointless and expensive.

What do you propose the USN, USMC, USCG, and USAF do instead of keeping them?

>>34678534
It can, in the right conditions, land and take off from a carrier.

It is extremely unlikely that a C-17 or C-5 would be able to do that. Thus, highlighting the short take off and landing abilities the C-130 possesses.

>>34679006
>We have far newer and far better airplanes to do the same. the C130 (excluding the J variant) is oudated
Good thing we're modernizing to the J then. We keep them around because they're cheap, easy (relatively) to maintain and easy (relatively x2) to upgrade.

>turboprops are good on fuel economy
>props are better at low altitude and throttle response than jets
>less FOD risk
>it just works

>>34678534
Would you replace it with? Turboprop planes are ideal for delivering supplies to locations that don't have a very long runway (IE most places where combat ops are taking place)

>>34678534
Because sometimes you just get it right the first time.

>>34679006
>doesnt understand the vast size of the military
>doesnt understand time and cost to update and integrate equipment
>doesn't understand that decision and planning to do such things is a very slow process with lots of moving parts and coordination

>>34679006
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We spend enough time and money already trying to solve plenty of problems that largely don't exist.

>>34678534
The C130 is one of the best aircraft ever produced. fuck off you dumb cunt. have you seen the angles those things can climb at immediately after takeoff? seriously its an amazing fucking plane and basically youre just a little bitch

>>34679006
>We have far newer and far better airplanes to do the same.
no we dont. for what it can transport it is literally the best plane.

>>34678534
Why not keep the same plane design, but replace the propellors with jets?

Aren't jets more fuel efficient than propellors?

>>34679705
Turboprops are exceptionally efficient my guy.

>>34679705
jets are less efficient than propellers, and also have less throttle response

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (321KB, 1920x1275px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1920x1275px

Its still god tier at tactical airlift and is the most versatile airframe in the world. It does dozens of different jobs efficiently and reliable

LockMart just in the last year received orders for the C-130J from France and Germany because the A-400 can't do the roles it was promised it could do. Airbus is actually being forced to purchase the C-130s as compensation.

>>34679518
this

you don't typically "throw out" old planes anyways; it's not cost effective

File: Two_USAAF_C-47A_Skytrains.jpg (404KB, 3084x2400px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 3084x2400px

Why are we not still operating this thing?

>>34680147
Because flying museums are cool

>>34680147
They served for 30+ years until the c130 came along and could carry mych more and could fly much further. Still the DC-3 was probably the most exceptional cargo plane before the invention of the turboprop.

>>34678534
If it ain't broke, don't fucking fix it.

>>34680147
It's a bitch to unload.

>>34680147
low wing is not good for unimproved runways

>>34678534
When you are dead, the C-130 will still be alive.

>>34680964
┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂I

File: 74335654_5e88ca1c21.jpg (108KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x333px

>>34680147
We still own a few heavily updated ones.

>>34678534
Its cheap. Its robust. It got the job done. Why would you want to replace it?

>>34678570
BTW, Russians still use An-24 and its variants. First flight in 1959. Same reason.

File: Gas_turbine_efficiency.png (47KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x500px

>>34679705

Turboprop aircraft are more fuel efficient than even high bypass turbofans, as well as making better STO aircraft. The lower air speed they travel at is why they are not more widely used.

>>34681632

With the caveat that if you are traveling long distances at high altitudes, the high bypass turbofans are more efficient

The Air Force is still flying B-52's and you are worried about C-130s?

>>34679006
>We have far newer and far better airplanes to do the same
Really? Do tell

>>34679636
>muh angles
>muh hypotenuse
>bro can your aircraft even c^2?

File: 18765558_10100286480677967_5618159819925059452_n.jpg (15KB, 309x206px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 309x206px

>>34678534
We still use H models up here in Alaska. A solid plane, the 12 was built in the early 80's.

File: 18837005_10100286480782757_1742691258012080113_o.jpg (97KB, 2048x1364px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 2048x1364px

>>34681958
Here is a larger photo, and a fun fact it cost 20000 USD to fly this thing per hour.

>hating on the C130
For what purpose

>>34683131
some anons are just faggots, anon

>>34681749
jej

It's practically an 18 wheeler truck with propellers. Fly boxes one way, fly soldiers the other, then turn around and haul in munitions and aid packages. Lands in places so nasty that mules have to back in, takes off where the cliffs start at the end of the runway. But damnit, 18 wheelers have been around for so long, surely all road cargo could be moved by drones by now right?

The real reason it hasnt been replaced is because we havent had a real war to force us to upgrade our tech. These proxy wars just cost us money, we need a WWIII or something.

>>34684177

Better not mention war to the USN. Now there are guys with desperate aviation issues.

>>34680147
My grandpa flew these over the Himalayas, delivering fuel and supplies to the Chinese to fight the Japanese. He had great stories, like the time he had to reach a rubber hose out on the wing to siphon fuel from a barrel in the cargo bin to the wing tank after a fuel selector failed and wouldn't select the other side. He said it doesn't get much worse than hanging out the side of a plane with a mouthful of gas.

File: Military Folding Shovel.jpg (8KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 355x355px

Why do we still use a shovel? Every soldier could just be equipped with a fully functional dragline instead.

>>34679006
these aircraft have been upgraded thousands of times throughout the years, they aren't the same aircraft.

If you make a design that is more economical and provides more tactical advantage than the hercules, submit it to your local DoD office.

>>34684177
you realise that hercules aircraft arent used in combat, right?

and no, gunship doesnt count.

>>34684198
Navy aviation program is fine stfu land lubber

>>34684335

Sure things. Enjoy your scrap yard renovated birds, sailor.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine/2016/06/23/marines-pull-aircraft-from-boneyard-get-used-navy-jets-amid-aviation-crisis/

>>34684382
>marines get scraps
What else is new.

But really though the state of naval aviation is appalling right now in terms of readiness and retention.

>>34684422

OP and you both touch on something similar. There are a lot of old plane platform in the US now. While it is heartening that so many old planes can still be kept flying and saving the taxpayers the purchase of replacing systems for a whlle longer, it seems odd that the next generation of systems are not even ready on the paper. The Herc keeps being renewed and I honestly can't think of what replacement could do the same job better and cheaper. But the Hornet, the A-10, the B-52 ferchrissakes - where is the logical next step? Why the B is even in use after you mastered rocketry is beyond me. The F-35... sure it is a great plane, but how expensive does a plane have to be before the Pentagon starts frowning on the costs?

File: http-%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F08%2Fsprucegoose-11.jpg (238KB, 1200x810px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1200x810px

>>34681702
Are propellor craft more fuel efficient at long distances at lower speeds?

Could you make giant propellor craft like the Spruce Goose for massive tonnes of cargo and have them fly at lower altitude and lower speeds around the world?

Sounds like you could carry a lot more for longer than Jets, if you don't mind the increase in time.

>>34684564
They are more efficient, but a large high bypass turbofan makes a lot more power with a lot less maintenance

>>34684564

And how do you deliver to frontline troops with that monstrosity? The most efficient way to supply expeditionary troops is clearly bringing back gliders

>>34684606
>And how do you deliver to frontline troops with that monstrosity?
Dig a really really big artificial lake

Land and take off planes in it

In all seriousness it just seemed like a heavier option than jets, while a faster option than cargo ships for cross ocean transport.

>>34684624
Ostensibly youd have to unload them at the coast, and then transport them over land some otherway

>>34684606

Gliders were a fucking disaster even in their time. Good chance of crash landing, and utterly unable to defend themselves against anything. Plus, haha, your old time glider could at best find room for a platoon on board. But fear not, nowadays we got this fancy thing called 'he-li-cop-ters'.

Except, bwahaha, how old are most of the lifting choppers of the US? Chinooks, line up.

>>34684606
No Gliderfags allowed, fuck of

File: DerpNedry.png (278KB, 470x471px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 470x471px

>>34684606

File: py.jpg (281KB, 1230x480px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1230x480px

>>34678534
if it ain't broke why fix it?
ever notice the number threads about weapons that work, where some faggot thinks it's shit?

File: fd.jpg (59KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x453px

>>34680147
some still are

>>34684261
>He said it doesn't get much worse than hanging out the side of a plane with a mouthful of gas.

Top kek.

>>34684564
>Could you make giant propellor craft like the Spruce Goose for massive tonnes of cargo and have them fly at lower altitude and lower speeds around the world?
Sure, something like that was talked about a few years ago. Google project pelican.

>>34686271
>project pelican
link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican

>>34678534

Cause it works.

>>34678534
because they're much cheaper t repair comprared to C-17s

>>34686432
And are less fussy about where they can land