What's new

Pakistan Air Force Transport

Read my post again. I wasn't referring to new off-the-line C-130Js. If Pakistan was to purchase new, they would cost in excess of $60 million a piece. C-130H models manufactured in the 70-80s would be much cheaper, vastly more capable than the -E models that PAF mainly have, and would still have a lot of life left

for the price of 1-C130J, PAF can buy 5 C-130E's and upgrade them to H-standards. this is most cost-effective.

The issue with the -E models is they are prone to wing spar cracks and corrosion which are expensive to fix (and even the fixes aren't a permanent solution). The -H models addressed these issues.
 
I do not suffer fools lightly.

From the US via the EDA program. There are many C-130s stored at the AMARG. Also, the C-130 has a flight life of 60 000 hours. The USAF and USCG have utilisation rates of around 4-500 hrs/year. Many aircraft that are stored still have 30 years of life left in them. Why do you think Australia is selling it's C-130s for $15 million a piece?

All I've done is point out the flipsides of jets vs props. I did say that the IL-78 acquisition made sense given the requirements to transport the spada and jf-17 fuselages, and ultimately the refueling role they will fill.

Point out my foolishness the chart table you posted were min fuel burn data and I pointed out that to you. If you don't agree keep the discussion civilized and stick to the topic rather than slipping your tongue on this Thread/Forum.

Nobody disagrees with you, you need to understand the different roles, PAF picked IL-78 for a reason. Whatever Funds were available have been spent on C-130 upgrades acquisitions and il-78, clearly there is no room for procurement of more Transports for the next decade. Even through EDA PAF would get C-130H for min $20M add the upgrades. I did post long time ago regarding C-130s stored at AMARG even some of them had No# posted. I am in favor of procuring them for Transport as well as KC-130 specifically for Air Refueling for F-16 Fleet since A310/A330 are expensive at $250M-$300M, but there is no more room due to lack of Funds when you ave funds you can procure them in verity of variants operating along side IL-78 but No funds no new procurements.

On 9 May 2012, Canberra announced that it will retire the RAAF's C-130H fleet early, in hopes of saving A$250 million ($260 million) over the next four years. The type's missions are to be farmed out to other types such as the C-130J and the Boeing C-17.

Cost saving on C-130H fleet...did you notice that.
 
Following photo was taken in July 2009. Interestingly it shows transition from old to new serials on C-130s. Two nearest C-130s 3668(or 3660?) and 4282 are carrying COMINT antennas.

Now since its a Hi-resolution photo, I am expecting you guys to give me a count of C-130s visible...Spare some time, zoom in and play with brightness levels:D
w0RFP.jpg

Well, there are 6 C-130's in the pic. The one in the hangar is getting a wing change it seems, there is a wing outside the hangar if I am correct.

And in the first C-130 on which it is 4727 written, there is also 4282 written. Is this the transition period?

4727 was changed to 4282. (probably to match the construction number with serial number)
 
Cost saving on C-130H fleet...did you notice that.

Your eyes are blind on all else that moves. I guess the recent stationing of the USMC in Aus went over your head too.

To put it briefly, Aus is realigning it's interests in the region with the US and as such is expanding it's force projection capabilities. That's where the C-17s payload-range advantage over the C-130 comes into play. After all, someone needs to keep the Straits of Malacca open (and it sure as hell isn't going to be Pakistan!).
 
Do you mean locating their signals, since i believe all were killed and none were captured. ??

not just the signal but using it thermal imaging/night vision capability to locate the terrorists from the air. basically the the ac was directing the whole operation.
terrorists have been captured alive and more were captured from other places after their interrogation.
the no of terrorists was more than double of what was quoted in the news.
 
This is the some kind of EW C-130 (#4727), with no FLIR system. Before #4282 used to have this many antennas, don't know if 4282 has been re-numbered as 4727 or we have two 4727 & 4282 with some EW kind of equipment.

The C-130(#3702) in post#413 in the new woodland camo is the one having the FLIR system. If you guys can enlarge the pic, you will see the FLIR mounting in light gray color just under the nose.



The C-130 in the new woodland green camo with 2 IL-78s is having the FLIR system, very effective at night operations.

The one you are referring to is just some EW equipped aircraft.
the nose of the ac in question is not visible in the pic so cant say, but i will take your word for it.
 
Following photo was taken in July 2009. Interestingly it shows transition from old to new serials on C-130s. Two nearest C-130s 3668(or 3660?) and 4282 are carrying COMINT antennas.

Now since its a Hi-resolution photo, I am expecting you guys to give me a count of C-130s visible...Spare some time, zoom in and play with brightness levels:D
w0RFP.jpg
I count 7 C-130s.
It must cost PAF quite lot of money to stock different types of paints. They are specialised paints and very, very expensive. I think PAF uses Sikkens out of Holland Denmark.

Since Talibs do not have Surface to Air weapons or an Airforce for that matter, intensive camo on the a/c are not needed. The typical grey should be standardised as most of these aircrafts are housed at major airbases.

My 2c's worth;-)
According to Fatman, the woodland camouflage is to be standardized for all C-130s in service.
 
What is the purpose of having both old and new serial numbers on an aircraft at one time?

Or is it the construction number of 4727? (But 4727 was indeed changed to 4282)
 
To put it briefly, Aus is realigning it's interests in the region with the US and as such is expanding it's force projection capabilities.

Thankyou that is why I am referring you and explaining it to you PAF has its Interests that is why it is sticking-procuring IL-78 for the specific reasons and C-130s are being used for specific reasons not including just transports as you can see from the latest images. For the last time I am all for c-130H/J for Transport roles and other missions and IL-78 for the much faster and needed heavy payloads and KC-130s for F-16s as Air Refuellers provided PAF has Funds of that sort since we are operating C-130s for a very long 48 Years now. See I am not blind, this is the real story PAF is doing what it can with its limited funds.

Everyone has their interested aligned and requirements we donot have similar requirements like india-australia-etc with verity of different Transports-MRTT-Gunship versions.

Case closed. No point in arguing or beating the bushes.
 
No point in arguing or beating the bushes.

I disagree. The issue with these defence forums is that the majority of posts are subjective. Where I see a factually incorrect post, I will flag it up. A number of your posts were blatantly wrong, hence the 'beating around the bush'.
 
The issue with the -E models is they are prone to wing spar cracks and corrosion which are expensive to fix (and even the fixes aren't a permanent solution). The -H models addressed these issues.

plently of H's are available in EDA stocks
 
Point out my foolishness the chart table you posted were min fuel burn data and I pointed out that to you. If you don't agree keep the discussion civilized and stick to the topic rather than slipping your tongue on this Thread/Forum.

Nobody disagrees with you, you need to understand the different roles, PAF picked IL-78 for a reason. Whatever Funds were available have been spent on C-130 upgrades acquisitions and il-78, clearly there is no room for procurement of more Transports for the next decade. Even through EDA PAF would get C-130H for min $20M add the upgrades. I did post long time ago regarding C-130s stored at AMARG even some of them had No# posted. I am in favor of procuring them for Transport as well as KC-130 specifically for Air Refueling for F-16 Fleet since A310/A330 are expensive at $250M-$300M, but there is no more room due to lack of Funds when you ave funds you can procure them in verity of variants operating along side IL-78 but No funds no new procurements.

On 9 May 2012, Canberra announced that it will retire the RAAF's C-130H fleet early, in hopes of saving A$250 million ($260 million) over the next four years. The type's missions are to be farmed out to other types such as the C-130J and the Boeing C-17.

Cost saving on C-130H fleet...did you notice that.

Its basically the failure of PAC along with PAF and PN too that they have not directed their interest on table. They had a good chance to do a JV with Chinese on two type of Transport plane one like C-130J-30 and other CN-295 class one but with some improvements like Composite airframe along with poerfull engine with 7 blades as well. If not wrong then we need:

PAF:
21 Y-9 Class
15 CN-295 Class
7 Y-9 Attack Class
7 CN-295 Attack Class
11 AEW&C Platform

PN:
11 Y-9 Class
15 CN-295 Class(7 for PN and 4 for SSGN and 4 for MSA)
3-5 AEW&C Platform

Although there will be civilan demand from airlines as well as from other countries military too.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom