Thanks guys.
Just some FYI's:
A comprehensive study was done to determine the C-130 replacement. It was decided to replace the C-130 with the C-130J. It looks like the original design, but was completely redesigned from the inside out. Better materials, Glass cockpit MFDs, etc. They saved thousands of pounds of weight by replacing cables with fiber optics (In fact, the cockpit is so light now, that the titanium armor cover is a standard option on all models, military and civilian. Otherwise there would be no way to trim the airplane.) The bottom line is that the C-130 is a proven design (some 50 countries use it) and has unsurpased rough-strip landing capability (IMO the A400 will need to prove it has the endurance to take repeated rough-strip landings.)
Source: "Airborne, A Guided Tour of an Airborne Task Force" Tom Clancy
Of course, Donald Rumsfeld put the C-130J program on hold, along with M1A2 SEP and a whole host of other legacy programs. I havn't been able to determine if they have reopenned the Medium Tactical Transport research program or what? Does anyone know?
The Bradley was looked at as an Interim solution but they determined it has too big a logistic tail, (tread spares and horrible gas mileage) and too heavy for what they wanted.
Source: I don't know the date, It's something I remember watching on C-SPAN, General Shinsheki testifying before Congress.
The USA's procurement process is at least partially broken!!
How dare you characterize the US like that. What gives you the right to make such an unsubstantiated claim? Where is your source? As an American I'll have you know that the USA's procurement process is an absolute perfect
completely broken huge mess.
My favorite example of the system is the abuse it has taken from Senator Trent Lott. The Navy had to buy 2 warships ($1.2 Billion) it didn't want because the Shipbuilding Yard is in Lott's home state. It was good of Lott not to let some fly-by-night, mickey mouse operation like the US Navy ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF SHIPS IT NEEDS!!!!! *sigh*