Lockheed Martin Offers India Upgraded C-130J 'Super Hercules' with Attack Capabilities for Special Ops

U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin has put forth a proposal to supply India with a customized C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft designed explicitly for special operations. This offer aligns with the Indian Air Force's (IAF) tender for Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA).

Lockheed Martin aims to leverage the IAF's positive experience with the standard C-130J, which has already proven valuable for rapid deployment by India's National Security Guard (NSG). The proposed C-130J-SOF variant boasts further enhancements, catering to the diverse needs of special forces operations.

This specialized aircraft promises versatility, combining traditional transport capabilities with advanced features for combat search and rescue, infiltration, exfiltration, and mid-air refueling. Its ability to provide humanitarian relief adds to its wide-ranging utility.

Notably, the C-130J-SOF can transform into a potent combat asset when equipped with a 30mm cannon and precision-guided missiles, offering close air support and armed reconnaissance capabilities. Enhanced defensive countermeasures, sensors, and night vision capabilities will further amplify its operational effectiveness.

Lockheed Martin underscores the aircraft's adaptability and customization potential, allowing the IAF to tailor the C-130J-SOF to their unique requirements. This proposal signifies a considerable advancement in India's pursuit of a world-class special operations capability.

 

[Anant]

SOSA is non binding !

I know. I mentioned that in my comment. However, despite their voluntary nature, there is a certain amount of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" when it comes to companies' entering SOSA.

 

[Anant]

Build your own design develop manufacture don't rely on foreigners

You need three things to develop a local design: Time, money, and expertise.

We don't have too much time, we don't have money to spare for this, and we have limited expertise.

Sure, an indigenous design is better, but it isn't as easy as just saying "develop an indigenous design" is. That is more of a long-term goal.

 

[Anant]

C-2 ??? Which one is that ??

The Kawasaki C-2. Japanese airlifter, but an aircraft that is said to be very expensive and isn't offered for MTA anyways.

 

[Anant]

Don't buy American when you Airbus & Emraer to choose. Americans not trusted anymore look at GE Engine fiasco

And you feel Embraer or Airbus will bend over backwards and are somehow immune to supply chain disruptions?

 

[Anant]

Mixed 40 to 50 c130j + few c2 or a400 to replace il76

The A400M is a sub-optimal replacement for the Il-76. Instead of that, it may be a better idea to join the US effort of developing a new airlifter, and lease / buy a few C-17s in the interim.

 

[Double Tap]

lol made in india

 

[Akshat]

I recently learnt that India's defence exports which have sky rocketed in past few years is mainly because of 1 country. The US. US is the largest customer for our defence exports.

this is mainly because of its offset commitments when we buy american defence equipment. Unlike france, US fulfills its offset commitments. We should buy more from US, as it means US will buy more from us and help grow our exports.

regarding the delays in delivery of some of our american orders, we recently signed an agreement called SOSA with america. This means we will be prioritised when it comes to fulfilling orders.

Spreading lies and misinformation as usual.

While US does buy the most from us, it’s not because of offsets alone. There are many companies and orders where they buy from us because we are the most competitive one. For example, we are exporting parts to LM from TASL even after the offset period is over.

Regarding fulfilling offsets. Remember Boeing signing a deal with DRDO to set up a test facility and then refusing citing US laws? CAG said that the test facility was an important one and now there is no way visible to meet those offset obligations.

On the other hand, France met all its offset obligations in the Rafale deal and exceeded them in the Scorpene deal.

So when it comes to offsets, France has an amazing track record while US, like Russia, has cheated us even after having signed contracts.

 

[AK S]

Spreading lies and misinformation as usual.

While US does buy the most from us, it’s not because of offsets alone. There are many companies and orders where they buy from us because we are the most competitive one. For example, we are exporting parts to LM from TASL even after the offset period is over.

Regarding fulfilling offsets. Remember Boeing signing a deal with DRDO to set up a test facility and then refusing citing US laws? CAG said that the test facility was an important one and now there is no way visible to meet those offset obligations.

On the other hand, France met all its offset obligations in the Rafale deal and exceeded them in the Scorpene deal.

So when it comes to offsets, France has an amazing track record while US, like Russia, has cheated us even after having signed contracts.

Usual French propaganda. True France has been one of the most reliable defence partner and supported Indian cause under duress too.

For Offsets and ToT, French are no better. They have been fined too and most likely they’d fined under Rafale deal too. On top of it, French commercial terms are super exploitative.

 

[beencensured]

I wouldn’t say that the USA are only buying products because of their offset obligations. The main priority is to delink indirect Chinese military trade and foreign content from American military products like dual use technology, components, chips, parts, electronics, raw materials used, rare earth minerals, robots and other services. At the same time they want to boost the Indian economy to slowly replace China and importing from India is better as it grows our economy. Also with the recent sanctions and laws passed by the USA against China in primarily refusing to buy products or raw materials produced or manufactured from the Uyghur slave labour has made an impact as well so USA companies have turned to India.

Also the USA have delayed in discharging some of their offset agreements regularly with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, textron etc have even been fined. One reason why we aren’t purchasing more ASW P8I is because of that delay. Other countries have been fined as well like Dassault, MBDA, Thales and companies from Russia, Italy and Switzerland and Israel.

They are only buying because of offsets and costs are cheaper in India and that too only components and not whole systems. So there is not favors there.

Americans have never been a noble people who had high morale. They are the most grotesque and debauched people in the world. They support terrorist, drug dealers, and genocide as that is their history.

 

[beencensured]

Fantastic idea. The C-130J is a rugged aircraft type with a very distinguished service history, both in India and abroad. Moreover, keeping in mind that the type has even carried a 105mm gun on it at on point (the AC-130 variant), there is definitely both the scope and the need for such a variant.

On top of that, if we do go with the C-130J under MTA, we could also get a small number of KC-130Js to augment the Il-78 fleet while those are gradually replaced over time.

C130j has had two accidents. Any person with shame would not advertise such junk.,

 

[beencensured]

You need three things to develop a local design: Time, money, and expertise.

We don't have too much time, we don't have money to spare for this, and we have limited expertise.

Sure, an indigenous design is better, but it isn't as easy as just saying "develop an indigenous design" is. That is more of a long-term goal.

Another arm lobbyist liar, we have time, money, and engineers. Instead exporting talent we can develop the nation.
Low education of slave makes you talk nonsense,.

 

[Pad UwU]

Spreading lies and misinformation as usual.

While US does buy the most from us, it’s not because of offsets alone. There are many companies and orders where they buy from us because we are the most competitive one. For example, we are exporting parts to LM from TASL even after the offset period is over.

Regarding fulfilling offsets. Remember Boeing signing a deal with DRDO to set up a test facility and then refusing citing US laws? CAG said that the test facility was an important one and now there is no way visible to meet those offset obligations.

On the other hand, France met all its offset obligations in the Rafale deal and exceeded them in the Scorpene deal.

So when it comes to offsets, France has an amazing track record while US, like Russia, has cheated us even after having signed contracts.

Sounds more bias to me just to promote a certain team that your into 😹😹😹😹

 

[beencensured]

And you feel Embraer or Airbus will bend over backwards and are somehow immune to supply chain disruptions?

They would not harm India on purpose.

 

[beencensured]

The A400M is a sub-optimal replacement for the Il-76. Instead of that, it may be a better idea to join the US effort of developing a new airlifter, and lease / buy a few C-17s in the interim.

Still promoting aircraft with two accidents in India. Have shame.

 

[Akshat]

Sounds more bias to me just to promote a certain team that your into 😹😹😹😹

I found faults in his arguments, and I pointed out with facts what exactly is wrong or misinforming there. So instead of leveling false accusations, come out with facts and tell me which part is wrong. Talk with facts and data not your own bias because you just hate France.

 

[Akshat]

Usual French propaganda. True France has been one of the most reliable defence partner and supported Indian cause under duress too.

For Offsets and ToT, French are no better. They have been fined too and most likely they’d fined under Rafale deal too. On top of it, French commercial terms are super exploitative.

Nope. No fines for not meeting offset requirements on France. There was only one fine, that too on MBDA, which was for not meeting their annual target which can be met by the end of the deal as per MoD guidelines. And MBDA even argued against it, filing a complaint to the MoD that its relevant department didn’t provide it with the offset certificates on time and its own implementation was on time. Regardless, the amount was also only less than 0.5% of the total offset value of the deal.

 

[Aayush Pratap]

Let's get some of these birds

 

[Anant]

Another arm lobbyist liar, we have time, money, and engineers. Instead exporting talent we can develop the nation.
Low education of slave makes you talk nonsense,.

We can't manufacture a simple trainer aircraft (the HTT-40) on time. We can't get a basic advanced trainer design (the HJT-36) to work after throwing in literally two decades since the first flight. We have companies that have taken four decades to develop a decent 4.5th generation aircraft, but are absolutely pants at manufacturing them. The same company is now dreaming and making false claims about delivering that and other jets at an impossibly high rate given the supply of components.

So, yes, forgive me if I don't agree with your statement for a single second. We do not have the time, as the An-32 upgrade program is still stuck and the aircraft and coming up for retirement. We do not have the money, as we have a lot of spending commitments that are getting pushed down. We also have very limited expertise, for if we had those, you wouldn't see delays as egregious as the ones I referred to in the first part of this comment.

Please take that nonsense elsewhere, and unless you know me personally, any insults you throw are just indicative of your own nature.

 

[Anant]

C130j has had two accidents. Any person with shame would not advertise such junk.,

Hold your horses there. Let me get your facts right. The C-130J has, to date, been involved in four hull losses globally, including one in India. Three of these were fatal. Of these, the first hull loss was in 2007, and was the result of a terrorist attack. No one lost their life in this, though the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. The other three accidents (one each in 2013, 2014, and 2015) were all fatal, and were all a result of pilot error.

So, to echo my sentiment in my other reply to you, take that nonsense elsewhere. If you are going to attribute pilot error as bad design of the aircraft, then you are not even worth having a discussion to.

 

[Anant]

They would not harm India on purpose.

Ha! I don't know whether to laugh or despair about your optimism.

They will harm India just as much if they are told, and the US won't harm India either if they are told. Finally, unless you have actual evidence of either of those assertions, please do not just make claims.