Pakistan Air Force Transport

[muhammadali233]

1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning.

CN-235 or saab 2000 kya sohial aman ki phuppo kay liye hain?
Jk in all seriousness
235,2000 and even IL-78 are being used so no need for addittional planes.

 

[GriffinsRule]

1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning.

There are 1200+ C-130s flying in air forces across the world. Out of these, only around 30% are the latest J model which was first introduced back in 1991 (75% of which are operated by USAF and USMC alone). So, there is nothing wrong with operating the C-130s from the 60s till now, but it just goes to show how durable and versatile the platform really is. PAF had its fleet refurbished and upgraded with newer avionics and engines over the years and will see service for quite some time. Hopefully there will be more H models coming on to the market that we could acquire down the line.

 

[razgriz19]

1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning.

Canada operates highly used C-130s with the most amount of operating hours than any other nation. If they can do it, so can PAF.

 

[SQ8]

1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning.

USAF

1952 - B-52
2018 - B-52
Planned retirement date 2045
Just took an aircraft first built in 1961 out of the boneyard to fly again.


1956 - C-130
2018 - C-130

Oldest C-130 in service built 1963.

That explains everything wrong with your attempt to draw some conclusions with years in service and then blanket attribute it to the PAF as some shoddy authoritative statement.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Yeah, the USAF just retired its 2nd oldest C-130 in 2015 or 2016 after in service for over 50 years

 

[PakShaheen79]

USAF

1952 - B-52
2018 - B-52
Planned retirement date 2045
Just took an aircraft first built in 1961 out of the boneyard to fly again.


1956 - C-130
2018 - C-130

Oldest C-130 in service built 1963.

That explains everything wrong with your attempt to draw some conclusions with years in service and then blanket attributes it to the PAF as some shoddy authoritative statement.

Sir Problem is they are doing it out of choice NOT OUT OF COMPULSION like us. An industry-level program is running for replacing them since 2010 and the process is underway.
Next, comparing a strategic bomber with a tactical airlifter to prove a point is simply beyond me. Both have very different purposes and roles. Plus, unlike C-130 being our only tactical airlifter, USAF has a plethora of options other than B-52 to bomb anyone anywhere in the world. So this comparison is misplaced.
Still, I am guilty as charged! No debate there. Now, agar Jaan ki Aman paon tau ....
What I actually wanted to highlight and everyone ignored (I am positive no deliberately) ... have we ever analyze the modernization of IAF tactical and strategic lift capabilities. Plus, when I said, "still C-130s" .. it does not necessarily means I am asking for induction of new planes, but new platforms like helicopters capable to keep our troops supplied with food and ammo so that we can avoid any more events like losing Jinnah Post and Chumak Glaciers.

 

[SQ8]

Sir Problem is they are doing it out of choice NOT OUT OF COMPULSION like us. An industry-level program is running for replacing them since 2010 and the process is underway.
Next, comparing a strategic bomber with a tactical airlifter to prove a point is simply beyond me. Both have very different purposes and roles. Plus, unlike C-130 being our only tactical airlifter, USAF has a plethora of options other than B-52 to bomb anyone anywhere in the world. So this comparison is misplaced.
Still, I am guilty as charged! No debate there. Now, agar Jaan ki Aman paon tau ....
What I actually wanted to highlight and everyone ignored (I am positive no deliberately) ... have we ever analyze the modernization of IAF tactical and strategic lift capabilities. Plus, when I said, "still C-130s" .. it does not necessarily means I am asking for induction of new planes, but new platforms like helicopters capable to keep our troops supplied with food and ammo so that we can avoid any more events like losing Jinnah Post and Chumak Glaciers.

Now you are focusing on strawman tangents to try and defend what was fallacy in the first place.

“1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning”

Your post seemed to imply something was wrong with both old designs and older airframes.. doesn’t matter if they are bombers or airliners..

Now you assert somehow that the US does it as an option?
Why would a $500 billion + Defense budget do anything as an option unless it was compelled to do so as well. They have a variety of replacement programs which have been delayed simply because of funds and also because the original airframe is still very good at the job.

The rest of your post is just pointless defensive tangents that have no relevance to C-130s, transport or otherwise.
Chumak post and helicopters have no relation to the PAF or C-130s and there is no need to offer them up as excuses.
You made a false assertion which all of us are guilty of at times and were shown the fallacy in it, end of story.

Chumak, Jinnah or Cheecho ki Malian has nothing to do with it and does not require you to be on the defensive.

Plenty of threads exist for helicopters and we are seeing procurement there as well, but to say that they are related to C-130s is ridiculous,

 

[Pogical Thinking]

It takes a C-130 to replace a C-130 that's how the saying goes in the USAF... Saw a couple of them and visited the cockpit on my visit to the USAF airbase in Qatar. Mighty fine planes they are.

 

[Armchair-General]

Which transport helis are used by the PAF?
And which one of these are the same as those used by the army (e.g. mi 17)

 

[PakShaheen79]

Now you are focusing on strawman tangents to try and defend what was fallacy in the first place.

“1963 - C-130s
2018 - Still C-130s

This explains everything went wrong with PAF's air lifting planning”

Your post seemed to imply something was wrong with both old designs and older airframes.. doesn’t matter if they are bombers or airliners..

Now you assert somehow that the US does it as an option?
Why would a $500 billion + Defense budget do anything as an option unless it was compelled to do so as well. They have a variety of replacement programs which have been delayed simply because of funds and also because the original airframe is still very good at the job.

The rest of your post is just pointless defensive tangents that have no relevance to C-130s, transport or otherwise.
Chumak post and helicopters have no relation to the PAF or C-130s and there is no need to offer them up as excuses.
You made a false assertion which all of us are guilty of at times and were shown the fallacy in it, end of story.

Chumak, Jinnah or Cheecho ki Malian has nothing to do with it and does not require you to be on the defensive.

Plenty of threads exist for helicopters and we are seeing procurement there as well, but to say that they are related to C-130s is ridiculous,

Didn't I accept that I am guilty? ....
Bold part explains everything went wrong with this discussion ... It reminds me lots of American foreign secretaries in recent times... "We have reasons to believe" similarly you implied what you wanted. And when I tried to explain it all ... you are still "your post seemed to imply". Jo chahy aap ka husan e kirshma saaz kare

I was under the impression that we are discussing C-130s in the context of thread title "PAF Transportation" ... which compelled me to bring in the reasons why do we need this in the first place and losses we suffered due to logistical failures despite having C-130s in active areas. (2nd bold parts). After reading your post it seems actually this is a C-130 thread where PAF transportation came as a reference. And Please sir, I never said helicopters are related to C-130, again you are "implying" out of context. (3rd bold part). Helis are part of PAF Transportation, my reference to them came out of this fact.

Apologies if failed to put my case in the proper manner. Peace.

 

[STRANGER BIRD]

C130 Hercules, AW139 SAR and F16 Vipers at PAF Base Shabaz

 

[syed zia Hassan]

transport aircrafts in the Pakistan Air Force. How they can be improved, do we have enough aircraft?

Sir PAF Made Jf-17 is a Fighter Jet , its very impressive made ... why Not PAF think about a Modern Transport Air Craft made at Home and better then C-130-J and C-17s, is it impossible for PAF tell me ..

 

[GriffinsRule]

Modern air transports are a necessity but they are not cheap and you have to look at what PAF requirements (guess work) are and then try to determine what aircraft might be best suited for its need and budget.

As far as C-17s go, there are none available as its no longer in production and too big and expensive for PAF's need anyways since its meant for strategic airlift. In Pakistan's case its size and range are overkill and will be underutilized.

Here are some of the options we have to look at. I will try to list them in the order of most likely and best suited in my opinion:
C-130E/H ... best bang for the buck are used C-130s. For example, we bought 5 ex-Australian C-130s from Lockheed for just $64 million, and they have been undergoing, along with all others in PAF, major avionics upgrade by Rockwell Collins for under $100M. So C-130J capability for the price of two new C-130s for 16 aircraft.

CN-235 ... still a requirement as PAF only bought 4 from IPTN in 2004, of the original requirement for over 20. PAF did end up buying some used C-130s after that but the requirement is still there I am sure. I think we paid only $10M each for the basic transport versions while the VIP version was $25M or so ... while no C-130s, the extended CN-295 can carry more troops then a base C-130. It falls short on carrying equipment like helicopters, trucks, APCs etc due to the width/height of the body, but should its a good tactical transport for moving men and pallets.

C-130J ... too expensive at around $70M. Better off buying older H models and upgrading them with newer e
engines and cockpits. But if we can get some used J models in the years to come, would be a good bet.

Il-76/78 ... quite a large transporter, even though a bit dated. I think we don't have a need for more than a couple more to add to our 4 in service already. Ours were bought from Ukraine but badly need an update similar to C-130s avionics wise and newer more fuel efficient engines. Used ones are around $50M or so.

Other newer options include:
Embraer's KC-390 ... still too new and untested, around $50M each.
Airbus's A400 ... twice as expensive as a new C-130J at $140M ... def not worth it
China's Y-20 ... another strategic airlifter that is brand new and untested. Is probably over a $100M each and has weak engines. Smaller then C-17 but larger then Il-76.

 

[Bossman]

Modern air transports are a necessity but they are not cheap and you have to look at what PAF requirements (guess work) are and then try to determine what aircraft might be best suited for its need and budget.

As far as C-17s go, there are none available as its no longer in production and too big and expensive for PAF's need anyways since its meant for strategic airlift. In Pakistan's case its size and range are overkill and will be underutilized.

Here are some of the options we have to look at. I will try to list them in the order of most likely and best suited in my opinion:
C-130E/H ... best bang for the buck are used C-130s. For example, we bought 5 ex-Australian C-130s from Lockheed for just $64 million, and they have been undergoing, along with all others in PAF, major avionics upgrade by Rockwell Collins for under $100M. So C-130J capability for the price of two new C-130s for 16 aircraft.
CN-235/CN295 ... still a requirement as PAF only bought 4 of the original 20 some it wanted to buy. Ended up buying some C-130s after that but the requirement is still there for a country our size.

CN-235 ... still a requirement as PAF only bought 4 from IPTN in 2004, of the original requirement for over 12. PAF did end up buying some used C-130s after that but the requirement is still there I am sure. I think we paid only $10M each for the basic transport versions while the VIP version was $25M or so ... while no C-130s, the extended CN-295 can carry more troops then a base C-130. It falls short on carrying equipment like helicopters, trucks, APCs etc due to the width/height of the body, but should its a good tactical transport for moving men and pallets.

C-130J ... too expensive at around $70M. Better off buying older H models and upgrading them with newer e
engines and cockpits. But if we can get some used J models in the years to come, would be a good bet.

Il-76/78 ... quite a large transporter, even though a bit dated. I think we don't have a need for more than a couple more to add to our 4 in service already. Ours were bought from Ukraine but badly need an update similar to C-130s avionics wise and newer more fuel efficient engines. Used ones are around $50M or so.

Other newer options include:
Embraer's KC-390 ... still too new and untested, around $50M each.
Airbus's A400 ... twice as expensive as a new C-130J at $140M ... def not worth it
China's Y-20 ... another strategic airlifter that is brand new and untested. Is probably over a $100M each and has weak engines. Smaller then C-17 but larger then Il-76.

A sensible and well thought post unlike most other on this forum.

 

[Readerdefence]

Modern air transports are a necessity but they are not cheap and you have to look at what PAF requirements (guess work) are and then try to determine what aircraft might be best suited for its need and budget.

As far as C-17s go, there are none available as its no longer in production and too big and expensive for PAF's need anyways since its meant for strategic airlift. In Pakistan's case its size and range are overkill and will be underutilized.

Here are some of the options we have to look at. I will try to list them in the order of most likely and best suited in my opinion:
C-130E/H ... best bang for the buck are used C-130s. For example, we bought 5 ex-Australian C-130s from Lockheed for just $64 million, and they have been undergoing, along with all others in PAF, major avionics upgrade by Rockwell Collins for under $100M. So C-130J capability for the price of two new C-130s for 16 aircraft.

CN-235 ... still a requirement as PAF only bought 4 from IPTN in 2004, of the original requirement for over 20. PAF did end up buying some used C-130s after that but the requirement is still there I am sure. I think we paid only $10M each for the basic transport versions while the VIP version was $25M or so ... while no C-130s, the extended CN-295 can carry more troops then a base C-130. It falls short on carrying equipment like helicopters, trucks, APCs etc due to the width/height of the body, but should its a good tactical transport for moving men and pallets.

C-130J ... too expensive at around $70M. Better off buying older H models and upgrading them with newer e
engines and cockpits. But if we can get some used J models in the years to come, would be a good bet.

Il-76/78 ... quite a large transporter, even though a bit dated. I think we don't have a need for more than a couple more to add to our 4 in service already. Ours were bought from Ukraine but badly need an update similar to C-130s avionics wise and newer more fuel efficient engines. Used ones are around $50M or so.

Other newer options include:
Embraer's KC-390 ... still too new and untested, around $50M each.
Airbus's A400 ... twice as expensive as a new C-130J at $140M ... def not worth it
China's Y-20 ... another strategic airlifter that is brand new and untested. Is probably over a $100M each and has weak engines. Smaller then C-17 but larger then Il-76.

Hi when you say weak engine and larger the IL-76 what’s the point of making it larger then
IL76 if the engine is week any more update is appreciated
Thank you