SHAH ALAM: How much is that Hercules C-130H transport aircraft in the window? Well according to the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) one C-130H cost US$2.25 million or RM9.945 million according to the current exchange rate.
Well, how did you know the cost then? RNZAF sold four of its retired C-130H aircraft to a US firm for US$9 million. Here is the release by RNZAF:
The Royal New Zealand Air Force’s (RNZAF) retired fleet of C-130H Hercules aircraft has been sold to an American aerial firefighting company for $9 million.
11 April, 2025
The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has finalised a sale of the four remaining C-130H Hercules aircraft to Coulson Aviation (USA).The aircraft will be prepared for flight and flown to Coulson’s Maintenance Base in Thermal, California by a commercial crew over the next few months.
Wayne Coulson, president and chief executive of Coulson Group, says they are looking forward to integrating these aircraft into their existing fleet of six C-130H Hercules.
“Coulson is honoured to acquire the NZDF’s four C-130H’s, solidifying Coulson’s position as the largest non-government C-130H operator worldwide.
“This acquisition strengthens our commitment to providing world-class aerial firefighting solutions and expanding our operational capabilities globally. We look forward to continuing our mission of protecting communities and natural resources with these proven, versatile aircraft.”
Following a substantial upgrade and conversion programme the aircraft will be deployed around the world as fire-fighting tankers.
Having served the NZDF for 60 years, the five-strong RNZAF fleet of Hercules clocked up more than 155,000 accident-free flying hours and nearly 100,000 landings at home and around the world.
The C-130H Hercules aircraft operated from Europe to the southwest Pacific, from Afghanistan to Antarctica. They left a legacy of providing support to New Zealanders and our neighbours in all kinds of environments.
One aircraft has already been delivered to the Air Force Museum in Christchurch where it will go on public display.
RNZAF retired the H Hercules after it took delivery of five J versions of the transporter aircraft. The fifth J was delivered to New Zealand in December last year.
With the sale of the Kiwi aircraft, one wonders whether we could get the same price for the 14 H Hercules, if we retired them soon of course. We are not of course as we planned to fly them well passed 2030. It must be noted that RMAF H is likely the lowest flying-hour H in service currently. There is no update for the upgrade programme tendered out last year.
— Malaysian Defence If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
Talks about Hercs is much ado about nothing. With the A400M we wont see the need to add more Herc in the foreseeable future. Low mileage or not, these are old Hercs so unlikely we will do extensive upgrading like rebuilding to J spec. Any future upgrades will be to keep in current standards with improved aviation requirements. I dont see them being heavily used either, with TUDM preferring to rake mileage into A400M fleet instead.
No, if the mission calls for Hercules or something smaller like CNs but it is not available, RMAF will use the Charlies as it is cheaper to fly them. Regional missions like the one to Myanmar, a directive from MKN, they have to used the A400Ms as it is faster.
That is by far, a great value for money.
A brand new C-130J costs upwards of USD70 million each.
Also to compare, the USD9 million price for 4x C-130H is significantly lower than the original cost of leasing four used blackhawks for PUTD.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lima-2023-contracts-army/
If we are planning to use something for 10-15 years, going for used is a practical option.
It will cost very little to outright buy used blackhawks for PUTD for example.
For TLDM ASW helicopter requirement, we can get used SH-60J to use for 10-15 years as now US Navy has already started planning for brand new Seahawk replacement. Japan already has approvals to transfer used military items to Malaysia, and SH-60J could be one of the items to be had. Japan is looking at offering Asian countries such equipment free of charge to enhance defense cooperation.
https://www.my.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_en/newinfo_10102024.html
https://t.co/bGyYOTaiqv
You cannot convert a H model into J. But you can upgrade them to a level arguably better standard than the basic J.
Glass cockpit screens, SATCOM, DIRCM, 8 bladed propellers etc can be added to the H model.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgCsBs2UcAA2LtK.jpg
Also we have extensive resource.and knowledge to support and sustain the C-130 indefinitely locally in-country. Combined with plenty of flying hours left with our C-130Hs, at least the newer half of the fleet (mid 90s vintage), we should be able to fly our C-130H to at least 2060.
Many of our neighbours, including Singapore has C-130 in their active fleet that is more than 60 years old (Singaporean oldest Herc, 720 is 67 years old this year)
TUDM youngest are around 30 years old (1995), and the oldest around 49 years old (1976). If we use ours as long as what RSAF is using them, our oldest is good up to 2040+, the youngest to 2060+
Even doing away with the CN-235s for the light transport roles has issues. A few are still available for that though. There are times only a single pallet needs to be lifted in a whole C-130.
The A400Ms are a major improvement because they came with various fancy high tech things but all those things require maintenance and support equipment. The C-130 doesn’t or even if it does; on a much lower level.
There is also a roundabout way to get Sea Hawks in Malaysia. Defence News has reported that OZ will have around 36 Romeos in service by 2026 but only a small number of ships to carry them. Perhaps getting the Romeos based in Butterworth with TDY in Labuan would be a good way to get the RMN much needed experience to fly and maintain Seahawks.
Using factor of 3, RAN would have 12 operational on board of its ships from the 36 overall they have. RNZN is also looking at retiring their Seasprites very soon, so if RAN have any extra, their 1st priority is probably to support RNZN rather than TLDM.
Alos they have quite a few ships to have those Romeos on board, From the Canberra-class LHD, to the Hobart-class destroyer and the future Hunter-class ASW Frigate. So they probably don’t have excess available even with the 36 strong fleet.
Other options for used are the US Navy own excess stocks.
https://www.twz.com/26395/the-navy-has-dozens-more-mh-60r-helicopters-than-it-needs-due-to-lcs-debacle
But IMO the cheapest, probably free option is to go for ex-JMSDF SH-60Js. They have around 90 retired and has been mostly replaced with the SH-60K with japan’s own proprietary larger airframe/cabin. But there are still a few handful SH-60J operational, and they were shown to TLDM personnel recently both in japan and during JMSDF Frigate visit to Malaysia.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gkmwua9bkAMFERj.jpg
… – “If we are planning to use something for 10-15 years, going for used is a practical option”
In principle yes but we can’t assume everything. What will need immediate replacing at the time of transfer or will need replacing in the near future? How much will operting costs and post flight maintenance increase as the used and aged platforms get older?
Various things have to be looked at…
Again getting used military equipment is the same as getting and old (more than 10 years old car) it’s expensive to run, not particularly safe (drive shaft may break during high speed cornering sending you to the ditch) nor particularly reliable (won’t start on one morning when you really need to get to work for a really important meeting)
you are not going to use the old car as long as a new car and eventually you do need to buy new car. Since you would eventually need to buy a new car. What exactly is the purpose of these interim jerry rig solutions rather than just buying one now?
At times buying used has its advantages but one has to be extremely selective. One also can’t assume that just because another user has no issues that it applies to everyone. Different users have different priorities and different budgets.
No point getting used and achieving short term savings if in the long run spares cost a lot or if it is not suited for ones requirements. If it suits requirements and is cost effective in the long run and is not used as an excuse to further delay other things then uers; per owned is the way to go.
“if the mission calls for Hercules”
Of course if only the Hercs could do it no choice then. But by largely TUDM now prefers to use A400M, this is evident by being hailed for raking in record mileage by any user.
With current trade war, Uncle Sam may just want us get more US products… hahaha
Nope, again RMAF prefers the Hercules as it is cheaper to fly and maintain them as all the problems with them have been solved in all these years by other operators. Unlike the A400M which we are still finding out the cost of flying them as reported previously.
It is the same with the Hornets and Flankers. The Hornets’ problems are well known and can easily be fixed unlike the Flankers as we found out in the last few years.
This is the conundrum we face. All these new gen platforms come with various things but that in turns leads to increase costs. Even with a mere 8 older gen Hornets we’ve struggled on account of our cheap way of doing things. Never mind an extra 20 odd more.
The A400Ms are mainly used for specific roles and the bureaucrats at times want them to be used as it makes good press. Problem is for our budget they are expensive to run.
As for the Seahawks,
Most of the navy public infographic shows what seem to be a silhouette of the wildcat for the MRSS and LCS. The deputy menhen also called the ASW helo as helicopter tempur in parliament. Which means that they are likely trying to fulfill 2 requirements in 1 go.
If the navy gets the Seahawks then the beancounters have to buy the army and attack helo and not just any attack helo would do because only the viper and Apache can do maritime strike.
Considering we ain’t exactly trying to find submarine in the middle of the Pacific but rather just off our coast which is within the range of land based MPA and UAV and that we aren’t unlike Aussie,sinkie nor nihonjin exactly need to fight alongside a tier 1 military in a highly undeniable situation.
The qualitative advantage that the Seahawks and Apache combo combined (as well as the eyes watering pricetags) are wasted as we ain’t exactly need the extra qualitative capabilities. It’s just like family of 3 buying a MPV. You can do it but you are wasting money and gas carrying empty seat around.
Zaft – “If the navy gets the Seahawks then the beancounters have to buy the army and attack helo”
You’ve brought this up before. No…
Zaft – *Considering we ain’t exactly trying to find submarine in the middle of the Pacific but rather just off our coast”
ASW is time extensive. A ASW asset has to fly to where the contact is in order to begin the whole process of getting a solution and engaging target whivh will be doing its best not to be located. Thus fuel is needed for both range and endurance.
If they had wanted to buy the Wildcats, they would have done so within the last five years, or so but they did not, the money was already available. This is because the evaluation showed that it did not meet the specifications, it does not have the range, it cannot carry a torpedo if it carries the dipping sonar. Only the South Koreans bought the Wildcats for ASW, and they found it wanting, everyone knows that. The Pinoys bought two and they have become hangar queens.
The only problem with the Seahawks is they are expensive, that is why some people are trying to sell other helicopters, but not Wildcat. There is no correlation between the navy buying the Seahawks and the Army buying the Apache. The Army may want to buy Blackhawks – if the navy got the Seahawks – though as it is cheaper than the ASW helicopters though with the leasing deal signed, their room to maneuver is limited. There is no inclination for the Army to do maritime strike.
The bean counters never wanted to pay for attack helicopters, which was the reason they jumped for the Little Birds when they were presented with an option. And this was after Lahad Datu. To the extent that they forego a leasing proposal from the French for the Tiger. This were to be from French Army stocks.
PUTD has a long history with ALAT, they even got French ALAT pilots to train with them locally, though I was told they complained that they were flying Italian helicopters, the AW109.
In the 1990s, I was told there was an agreement for both the Army and RMN air wings to buy and use the Fennecs but somehow, the Army bought the AW109.
Marhalim
Just curious about the PUTD and ALAT angle, when they do train together do the French speak English or do they have a translator with them? I’ve dealt with the French on a daily basis for a couple of years and there were times it was difficult to make sense of what were said unless one had some basic understanding of French sentence structure.
In the air of course, they speak English. How bad is the English of the French pilots? I have no idea. FYI a French Army pilot instructor was flying or instructing when one of the A109 crash during night flying.
Yes I also work with French people back in the early 90s, their English were pretty good though even the field engineers/technicians speak good English. They also have a smattering of Italian, Austrians and Greeks with them, all speak can speak English. Those who stayed more than three years could even speak passable Malay.
The ROKN came up with a novel way to do ASW with its Wildcats. One armed with torps and the other with a sonar. Not the most ideal or practical way of doing things however.
At one stage SME was offering
ex Bundeswehr Bo-105s to the army. No idea why it fell through.
The bulk of French people who are required to work abroad or with foreign non French speaking people do have a decent command of English. Pronunciation and accents can be a problem though. Both are also issues foreign military people face when dealing with the MAF and SAF. There was a report some years ago about a USN pilot finding it hard to understand his RAAF counterpart during training.
And its a requirement for them coming here to speak decent English, even the submarine instructors speak good English.
why are we talking about hercs, let alone kiwi herc when
1-it’s a non issue
2- countries like indon already going with land based atmaca for shore defence, atmaca joint production and even getting into Kaan production?
Do you guys like talking the same thing for the nth time?
On the ALAT people complaining the
A-109 is Italian; they’re just being typical French.
1. Why not.
2. Local production of anything are actually the cheat word for ….
dundun – “Do you guys like talking the same thing for the nth time?”
You don’t have to if you don’t want to.
dundun – “countries like indon”
Good for them.
I have my share of experience working with and in france. Biggest takeaway is to never schedule any meetings immediately before or after lunch with them.
As for shore-based anti-ship missile capability, i have talked abt this for quite a few times already. IMO something like the NSM CDS (Coastal Defence System) or ATMACA could be an answer for our near shore A2/AD of our maritime domain while also cover the long range precision land strike capability for our army.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeEqufDakAAkx9I.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Glvjsi3a4AA1fo_?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
… – “As for shore-based anti-ship missile capability, i have talked abt this for quite a few times already”
Indeed you have. “For quite a few times already” I’m worried we might not get the strike/recce capability which is needed in order to use the missile to its full potential.
… – “ATMACA could be an answer for our near shore A2/Ad”
A lot of things could be the “answer” if only we do it; albiet at the expense of other things after deciding what trade off we want. To achieve “sea denial” [A2/AD is a fancy term which China watchers came up with to describe something long in use; another is “fires”]. A land based missile however is ideally only one component of a sea denial; the others being mines, air power and other things.
… – “Biggest takeaway is to never schedule any meetings immediately before or after lunch with them”
Speak to the Malaysians who went to Brazil to work with the locals on the ASTROS deal or people who do business in Norway during summer. Then again foreigners who come here to with with us find us very laid back and have to adapt to our pace.
” A land based missile however is ideally only one component of a sea denial; the others being mines, air power and other things ”
Of which as a maritime nation straddling the busiest maritime chokepoint in the world we need to have all of them as an option.
Mines i have spoken abt multi-role OSVs and LMS-X being able to be used as minelayers. Also glide naval mines deployed from fighter jets such as the MKE Uca.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoJJSgYaIAAaM6W.jpg
Air power AShM and Cruise missiles such as the new Korean Cheonryong
Other things are submarines, of which just 2 is not an ideal number.
Norway, summer… that jogs memories lol.
… – “Other things are submarines, of which just 2 is not an ideal number”
Neither is anything we have but we also have other areas which need addressing. We are not Vietnam which decided to focus on subs at the expense of other things and like many other things subs tend to be more effective when paired with other assets. We also can’t place too much reliance on any one system or piece of equipment as it comes with a major risk. Nor can we assume that in the event of a war we’ll be able to effectively operate something. The event has a vote.
… – “Mines i have spoken abt multi-role OSVs and LMS-X being able to be used as mine layers”
Anything with a GPS and rails can lay mines. The key is ensuring the enemy is not able to deal with the mines without being harassed.
” We also can’t place too much reliance on any one system or piece of equipment as it comes with a major risk ”
I am for one don’t plan on relying on just one system. A reason why i talk abt shore-based AShM, mines and more long range effectors for our combat aircrafts. But to have an effective submarine option, 2 subs is not enough. Both Singapore and Vietnam thinks the number is 6. Even with that, we need to have supporting systems for our submarines to survive without its normal base in Sepanggar available. One of it is with the OSVs as submarine tenders, another is I don’t know why marhalim censoring my mention about it when it is explicitly mentioned in other medias…
Hulu “Mines i have spoken abt multi-role OSVs and LMS-X being able to be used as minelayers. Also glide naval mines deployed from fighter jets such as the MKE Uca.”
The German are already deploying mine with the K130 by just installing mine rails.
Not to mention K130 is a proper corvette and can to some extent deal with sea denial activities. Something you might encounter when I don’t know you try to deny the sea to the enemy by rigging the ocean with mine.
Thus your OSV and small civilian patrol boat with containers on it LMS-X would still need to be escorted by a proper surface combatants like the K130.
The k130 that you want to get rid off and turn into an OPV to buy your OSV and LMSX.
“Nope, again RMAF prefers the Hercules”
Not sure how accurate that is when
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/rmaf-sets-another-flight-record/
You dont be breaking mileage records with something you dont prefer to use right? Being more expensive to run doesnt help either. And if we are heavy user, the Herc fleet would too have been record breakers as well. Something doesnt jive here.
As for the French, just as with any multinational persons I worked with (Swede, German, French, Italian, Russian, Jap, Bolivian, black African), will have sufficient English communication skills. Its the way when doing multinational business. Their nations might have preference for local language back home (esp Japan), but largely arent going to push that when dealing externally.
As for ASW chopper, its more than likely not gonna be Seahawks and TLDM chiefs are aware. Any other Western equivalents (NH90, Merlin) are just as costly or unreliable (NH90). The only realistic within affordability will still be Wildcat, unless TLDM are okay with a much smaller number of 2-3 Seahawks for the price of 6-7 AW159s. Its too bad Poland cancelled their H225M orders as one config was ASW, which we could have rode on if it happened.
” Nor can we assume that in the event of a war we’ll be able to effectively operate something ”
The problem is right now TLDM is assuming in the event of a war they can effectively operate surface ships like GOWINDs and Turkiye Corvettes. That is what they are hedging for. My solution OTOH strengthens the submarine option, something that cannot be relied upon with TLDM Original Force Structure 2040 plan of only 2 submarines.
Based on CAP55 plan, its shown the presence of 1x Strategic Transport / MRTT squadron & 2x Tactical Transport squadron.
From my understanding, the Strategic Transport / MRTT squadron will have the 4x A400M. Optimally, I believe we should get another 2x A400M.
As for the Tactical Transport squadron, what do the AF foresee as the c130h replacement?
Is it c130 sized or c295/c27j sized?
It is from the horses mouth.
… – “The problem is right now TLDM is assuming in the event of a war they can effectively operate surface ships like GOWINDs and Turkiye Corvettes”
You still don’t get it. You are “assuming” . What the service is doing is adressing other key areas. Weve gone through this before but you are assuming subs will be the answer and that we will be able to deploy them effectively.
… – “OTOH strengthens the submarine”
That’s a mistaken assumption on your part.
” The k130 that you want to get rid off ”
Where is the K130 or Kedah class in the latest 31 ship TLDM Force Structure 2040 plan?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlQLZrxWIAE516T.jpg
… – “with TLDM Original Force Structure 2040 plan of only 2 submarines”.
You have a lot to say but overlook the other parts. Try looking at things from a diffrent angle rather than just your very narrow and subjective perspective [you might deny it but it’s very evident]. If you want to go doen this rabbit hole whivh has been done to death; I’ll humour you.
In case you bring it up yet again, I realise the utility of subs and yes we should get more but there are other dynamics at play…
” You still don’t get it. You are “assuming” . What the service is doing is adressing other key areas ”
My alternative plan addresses many of the other key areas, such as the underwater infrastructure (oil&gas pipeline, data cable, christmas trees of oilwells etc.) surveillance/defence, increased air defence capability (ARROWHEAD140), increased ASW surveillance (with 6x GOWINDs, 8x SH-60J, 6x modular ASW systems on LMS-X), increased strategic sealift capability (RORO can move 1 full mechanized battalion or 1 full cavalry regiment or 1 full MBT regiment. JHSV/EPF wit high speed can move 1 mechanized company or 1 cavalry squadron or 1 MBT squadron), agile MCM capability with obsoletion not tied to any ships (4x MCM modular mission systems), dispersed lethality with frigates supported by LMS-X carrying extra missiles. All with the same level of funding.
“You dont be breaking mileage records with something you dont prefer to use right”
Marhalim has already clarified why the service prefers using the C-130 irrespective of any records. When there’s no choice or the preferred option the A400Ms is used. At times policy makers prefer the A4OOM as it makes good press.
….-“But to have an effective submarine option, 2 subs is not enough.”
Si you keep saying and so nobody disputes. Reality however is we also have other areas which need adressing and subs are not more important as you claim.
… – “Both Singapore and Vietnam thinks the number is 6”
Both have diffrent threat perceptions. Vietnam a pointed out to you multiple times has focused on subs at the expense of other things. The RSN has more funds and a larger pool of submariners.
… – “I am for one don’t plan on relying on just one system”
That’s the impression you’ve given for a long time. Again, there will be times when we can’t deploy subs effectively and like everything else subs are deployed under conditions which are advantageous to them as possible.
You really think we can deploy our subs if they’re expected and in an area where there are surface and air ASW units, plus other subs and mines. We’ve gone through all this before.
… – One of it is with the OSVs as submarine tenders, another is I don’t know why marhalim censoring my mention about it when it is explicitly mentioned in other medias”
We don’t need sub tenders any more we do oilers or hospital ships. As for
bases being destroyed; a sub tender can only tend subs for so long and can be sunk. As for “censorship” you really want to go down this route again? The last time around you asked for over sites and were “uninvited” after insisting there was censorship. You left for a while and came back with a different pseudonym.
At times the A4OOM is needed because of its lift capacity and at times the decision makers want it because it makes good press. Ad far as possible however the RMAF uses the C-130 because it’s far less resource extensive.
… – One of it is with the OSVs as submarine tenders, another is I don’t know why marhalim censoring my mention about it when it is explicitly mentioned in other medias”
We don’t need sub tenders any more we do oilers or hospital ships. As for
bases being destroyed; a sub tender can only tend subs for so long and can be sunk. As for “censorship” you really want to go down this route again? The last time around you asked for over sites and were “uninvited” after insisting there was censorship. You left for a while and came back with a different pseudonym.
… – “But to have an effective submarine option, 2 subs is not enough”
So you see fit to repeat and so does everyone else agree.
… – “Singapore and Vietnam thinks the number is”
You persist in using both as examples. Again; both have different threat perceptions. The RSN has the funds and a larger pool of submariners. Vietnam has focused on subs at the expense of its surface fleet. Ponder on these issues rather than regurgitate a Skipwith Camel to Ta 152 comparison.
Again; the reason the RMN has staggered it follow subs in because that’s what the government approves and because it places less strain on what is a small all volunteer under resourced navy. Subs are inherently resource extensive and they require resource and time extensive submariners. On top of that the RMN has other things it has to focus on.
” We don’t need sub tenders ”
Multi-role OSV is not just a sub tender. Instead of single role MCMV, OSVs can be a mothership for MCM crews, or Sub support crews depending on what mission it is tasked.
https://frettatiminn.is/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/361977534_666590458832776_6175510010202373036_n.jpg
We can have one OSV at a random port on standby to support our subs, one training with MCM crews while another checking the integrity of our underwater infrastructure with ROVs
… – “Multi-role OSV is not just a sub tender. Instead of single role MCMV, OSVs”.
Then add it to the long list of things the service might like to get or would find useful but have to be put in the sideburner because priority is on other areas…
As a sub tender we don’t need it – superflous. If things reached a, stade where Sepanggar was destroyed the tender would probably be sunk and one can only use a tender for so long before that tender has to be replenished. The main reason navies use sub tenders is to support out of area extended ops; which we don’t do. Same reason we have no need for an oiler or a hospital ship.
… – “My alternative plan addresses many of the other key areas”
Yes and you see the need to remind the rest of our mere mortals the various – on paper – advantageous points with your various alternative points.
… – “Multi-role OSV is not just a sub tender. Instead of single role MCMV, OSVs”.
Then add it to the long list of things the service might like to get or would find useful but have to be put on the sideburner because priority is on other areas…
As a sub tender per see we don’t need it – superflous. If things reached a stage where Sepanggar was destroyed the tender would probably be sunk and one can only use a tender for so long before that tender has to be replenished. The main reason navies use sub tenders is to support out of area extended ops; which we don’t do. Same reason we have no need for an oiler or a hospital ship.
“It is from the horses mouth.”
Perhaps so, but its like cakap tak serupa bikin. Its not like our air transportation logistics had a paradigm shift with the into of A400M, we dont sudden go on intercontinental runs because they can fly that far with payload. We are still doing the same things as before but now we have option to use A400M other than Hercs and weirdly we wouldnt rack up so much mileage if they were less preferable to run. Like having a Ferrari at home, since its that costly to use (fuel & maint) we wouldnt be using it as a daily driver car would we?
“At times policy makers prefer the A4OOM as it makes good press.”
Good press to whom? Its not that were calling the media come to report each time we fly them. You want to maximise use of media coverage for a purpose, but the usage doesnt jive in maximising publicity. The only ones in media I seen are LIMA, and recent rescue & HADR supply missions but how often does natural disaster strikes? Also the award by Airbus for record breaking didnt appear in mass media so to use as press is kinda moot.
What can they do, the aircraft were already here might as well used them. The record breaking feat was done when the aircraft was under full warranty and so RMAF went ahead. Even at this time, RMAF leadership complained about the higher costs of flying them. It was also at this point the minister wants to go everywhere on the A400M even on a short hop to Senai.
Now that they had to pay for everything, one can see that they are not used that much. Especially as the RMAF chief when the aircraft was being readied for delivery declined to buy the VIP RO-RO seats. That of course did not bother the former minister. His successors as others would rather fly on the Hercules VIP Ro-Ro seats even if the flight to Sabah takes around 3 hours. It was around two hours to KK on the A400M just like MAS flights.
The RMAF prefers the C-130 due to reasons explained. Marhalim has also made it clear. The A400Ms is resource extensive. All this is a fact.
You are putting too much in this record thing. As door the good press and your question. Noticed the A400Ms gets more press? Do you know the actual hours the fleet flew compared to C-130s on average based on the numbers disparity? How many of the sorties flown were due to the fact that it was because the C-130 had insufficient load capacity?
We have C-130 VIP RORO seats?
yup as well as economy RORO seats plus RO-RO WC.
If we have something like this, it is built on a normal 463L pallet. It should be able to go onto the A400M too.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GopTbWPXkAATT-w.jpg
… – “We have C-130 VIP RORO seats?”
How do you think we configure it for VIP taskings?
“…Hercules VIP Ro-Ro seats…”
owh now I got it, thats why instead of a A400M, a Charlie got the VIP mission for late Taib.
I was told that it will not RORO seats will not fit on the A400Ms, likely the locking mechanism does not work on it. That is the reason they were never used on them.
The CN has a toilet. Does the A400M?
Yes, it has two actually. Unfortunately, I never managed to try it.