To be fair i think it was more to do with the L100 age than anything else. Bit of a obscure fact, the plane we used was the same one that was in the 7 Days to Entebbe film. Of course it was painted slightly differently to how we had it.
According to this article, the LM C-130XL is basically a paper plane that sits as a placeholder while waiting for the US to come up with some firm requirements. This dates from the 2008 period, and not much seems to have happened since.A fag packet C130XL is not a C130J and that cut and paste rather undermines your argument and strengthens mine because thats not as you said
Which along with subsequent graphics rather suggests the existing aircraft could do it, instead whats being talked about is effectively a new aircraft using some existing bits.
So whilst c130XL could use C130Js wings and engines, The fuselage wing box* etc are all new - So there isnt simply the structural reserves in the design - to massively increase payload as you claimed -
Let me think
I want 50% more payload than a C130J hmm A400M or fat potentially underpowered STOL compromised C130J XL.**
I reckon the A400 walks away with that one. Chances are Lockheed did to and decided it wasn't worth competing - unless Uncle Sam wanted it in which case NIH is cash in LHs pocket.
Edit to add - I had heard of the Far Herc - i just didnt connect your statement and it.
* An area requiring careful attention on Hercs.
** Same engines extra weight = reduced power to weight ratio. Same wing increased weight is going to affect your stall speed. Thats a longer take off roll and higher landing speed right off the bat.
The USAF has acknowledged it may need an aircraft with more payload capacity than the C-130 after 2015. The US Army currently plans to acquire manned ground vehicles for brigade combat teams equipped with the Boeing Future Combat System that exceed the C-130's payload limits.
Worked a lot with civilian C130 version, L100 and ex Russian mil IL76's out in Afghanistan. So many variables on what an aircraft like those can carry. Never ever look on Google for max payload etc, it will never correspond to real life! One of the issues we had with the L100 is we had to load it up quite close to its departure as it could not sit on the ground with all up max weight for long periods of time.. Something to do with the stress on the wing spar/undercarriage.
IL76 on the other hand was typical Russian engineering and rarely if ever broke down. Only issues we had were tyre blow outs on landing. L100 was a little more delicate but still had good serviceability. To be fair the choice to move around would be the IL76 but its own issues of runway length limited where we could deploy it.
Good article here of one of the 1st IL76 missions and I am conviently out of shot in the pics!
According to this article, the LM C-130XL is basically a paper plane that sits as a placeholder while waiting for the US to come up with some firm requirements. This dates from the 2008 period, and not much seems to have happened since.
PICTURE: Lockheed Martin unveils wider, larger C-130XL to fight A400M
The central problem is that the US saw the C-130 as being too small to carry the vehicles that were coming up in future, and a larger plane would be needed.
The US are facing the same sort of problems with their ground vehicles that UK tank designers did in the WWII era when tank sizes were limited by UK railway gauge considerations. The solution for the Americans is to buy a new generation of larger planes to carry the new larger vehicles the army would like to buy. The issue though is money.
Depending in the size of the order, LM could, in theory license build the A400m should the US decide it meets their needs.
Be interesting move if they did. Engine wise, RR-Allison or PW could pick up the engine.
Atlas flaps down and nose well up, Caracal nose down and going perhaps not quite flat out.The French general directorate for armaments (DGA) has conducted the first AAR with fuel transfer from an Atlas to a helicopter.
View attachment 498986
A400 has the flaps full down, the Herc hasn't, thereby indicating that the Herc is managing better at low speed and could theoretically go even slower. I don't think that the A400 had that option.
PhotEx,mustn’t disappoint you..
and of course, the C-130 can refuel at a higher rate after the A400M helichopter refueling ‘fix’
“ORLÉANS, France, Sept. 19, 2019 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered the first of two KC-130J Super Hercules aerial refuelers to representatives from France’s Armée de l'Air's 62st Transport Wing at Orléans-Bricy Air Base today.....
.....As the preeminent tactical aerial refueling tanker, the KC-130J is a battle-tested solution that takes full advantage of the tremendous technological and performance improvements inherent in the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. A true force multiplier, the KC-130J refuels both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft as well as conducts rapid ground refueling.”
ORLÉANS, France, Sept. 19, 2019 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered the first of two KC-130J Super Hercules aerial refuelers to representatives from France’s Armée de l'Air's 62st...news.lockheedmartin.com
True to a certain point.As long as you forget the C17 exists.