NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

A400M Stumbles To The Finish Line

January 13, 2009: The new AirBus military transport, the A400M will have its first flight this year, and will begin deliveries within two years. Or so goes the latest plan. After 25 years of development, AirBus has had one problem after another getting the A400M into service. European Union (EU) members have over 150 of the new transports on order, but dozens of sales have been lost because of the delay.

Many NATO members already possess similar C-130s. While the C-130 can haul 20 tons, the A400M can haul 37 tons. The A400M was supposed to begin service this year, and many potential customers are getting tired of waiting. The latest delays included coordination problems between the French and Spanish factories that are crucial to the construction of the first A400Ms. Then there were more engine problems.

The A400M has a top speed of 779 kilometers per hour, a range of 7,500 kilometers, and normally carries about 27 tons. The nearest competitor is the American C-130. The most common version is the C-130H. It has a range of 8,368 kilometers, a top speed of 601 kilometers per hour, and can carry up to 18 tons of cargo, 92 troops, or 64 paratroopers. The latest version, the C-130J, has a top speed of 644 kilometers, 40 percent more range than the C130H, and can carry 20 tons of cargo. The C-130 has been in service for over half a century, and is used by more than 50 countries. The largest, and most recent, model, the C-130J-30, is comparable to the A400M in terms of personnel carried (128 passengers or 92 paratroopers, versus 120 passengers for the A400M).

AirBus hopes to replace the C-130 in many parts of the world. If the U.S. shuts down production of the larger C-17, the A400M will benefit from that as well. The only direct competitor of the C-17 is the Russian Il-76, which is now back in production. But for many customers, the A400M is a better choice than the Il-76, whose main advantage is longer range.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SURFACE FORCES : Automated Korean Frigates


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
aki009    Airbus design...   1/13/2009 10:59:55 AM
... generated:
 
1. a A380 wing without any margin in its max load,
2. composite rudders that snap if the pilot hits the pedals too hard,
3. automation that likes to reboot when it's needed the most,
4. automation requiring occasional reboots to work correctly, and
5. serviceability that is a paid-by-the-hour techs dream.
 
I'm sure they will eventually fix and work around the major issues, but I'm sure glad I don't need to get into one.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       1/13/2009 1:11:16 PM

This is the point at which the Japanese should be amending their constitution, to allow export of non-combat aircraft - the Kawasaki C-X could capture a good few orders from the A-400M. The C-X is probably the closest match to the A-400M, in payload terms especially; it is likely to be ready before the A-400M, and potentially cost less. It would be very much in their interests, and not step too far from the status quo regarding exports. Since the Japanese are also in the market for a new fighter, to replace their old Phantoms, they could make a deal, buying Eurofighter Typhoons, and selling Kawasaki C-Xs. Heck, given the UK's problems with the Nimrod, there could even be potential for selling the P-X!

 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36    20th century design   1/13/2009 4:19:13 PM
Tactical take off distance is said to be about 3,000ft - not sure on landing.  My guess is that super STOLs will be more important given the locations cargo will need to be delivered.

21st century:
(A Boeing design, one of several,  that will replace the old C-130 frame the A400M compares itself to)
The Advanced Theater Transport concept:
 The Advanced Theater Transport conceptA powerful aircraft that could tilt its wings to give it what's called "super short take off and landing." By being able to operate on short, unprepared runways of between 650 to 1,000 feet, it could serve as an alternative to rotor-wing heavy lifters in certain battlefield situations. Powered by four eight-bladed turboprop engines, the aircraft would feature a tailless fuselage with a forward-swept tiltwing arrangement. This configuration would provide the aircraft with the enhanced performance capability for super-STOL. It would have a fuselage cross-section similar to that of the C-17, and the tailless design would provide greater access, allowing operators to vary the size and configuration of cargo. It also could carry up to 80,000 pounds, accommodating two 20-ton Future Combat Systems vehicles—a payload roughly half as many as a C-17 but twice as many as a C-130.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       1/13/2009 5:46:48 PM

... generated:

 

1. a A380 wing without any margin in its max load,


2. composite rudders that snap if the pilot hits the pedals too hard,


3. automation that likes to reboot when it's needed the most,

4. automation requiring occasional reboots to work correctly, and


5. serviceability that is a paid-by-the-hour techs dream.


 

I'm sure they will eventually fix and work around the major issues, but I'm sure glad I don't need to get into one.


Care to provide some documentary proof of those allegations? And don't post from Airbus competitors websites.
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/13/2009 6:14:16 PM

... generated:

1. a A380 wing without any margin in its max load,
2. composite rudders that snap if the pilot hits the pedals too hard,
3. automation that likes to reboot when it's needed the most,
4. automation requiring occasional reboots to work correctly, and
 
5. serviceability that is a paid-by-the-hour techs dream.
 
I'm sure they will eventually fix and work around the major issues, but I'm sure glad I don't need to get into one.


I doubt even the French could afford the bribes to get it certified for general use if items 1 through 4 still exist. 
 
Item 5 can be considered as given for any new large aircraft, French or otherwise.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/13/2009 6:19:25 PM
I imagine that the margin comment is reference to a test where the wing failed at an ultimate load factor of 1.47 rather than the intended 1.5. The wing was subsequently redesigned for a reserve factor of 1.5 (which I think in US engineering terminology translates to a safety factor of 0.5) That's an industry standard for primary aerospace components, and you'd be a fool to add additional margin on top, as that translates as parasitic weight and loss of capability.

Composite rudder I hadn't heard, but it can't be very much worse than rudders that reverse control inputs unpredictably or cargo doors that fail to shut and then blow out, taking the controls with it.

Automation I hadn't heard about, nor servicability.

Airlines still buy them though.
 
Quote    Reply

Good Captain    More Info   1/13/2009 7:04:45 PM
I have heard this complaint before by AirBus detractors (most recently against the A330 Tanker by proponents of Boeing's tanker entry) on the serviceability issues.  Is this really "sour grapes" or is there a clear track record from which this comment has been borne out? 
 
Quote    Reply

aki009    Airbus items...   1/14/2009 3:30:14 AM




... generated:

1. a A380 wing without any margin in its max load,
2. composite rudders that snap if the pilot hits the pedals too hard,
3. automation that likes to reboot when it's needed the most,
4. automation requiring occasional reboots to work correctly, and
5. serviceability that is a paid-by-the-hour techs dream.

I'm sure they will eventually fix and work around the major issues, but I'm sure glad I don't need to get into one.

Care to provide some documentary proof of those allegations? And don't post from Airbus competitors websites.
1.The famous A380 wing ultimately load test failure; the significance is not that the failure took place, but that the engineers designing the aircraft had considered hitting exactly the 1.5 ultimate load factor as sufficient, and Airbus made reference to this many times after the event. Aviation history is full of situations in which airframes were asked to go beyond that 1.5 ultimate load. China Airlines 006 comes to mind for a case in which the airframe didn't fail (747-SP). American Eagle 4184 is an example where it did (ATR72). I am frankly scared of airplanes designed without a healthy margin of error.
 
2. Composite rudder incidents/accidents on A300's and A310's: Air Transat 961 (no injuries) and American 587 (no survivors).
 
3.  Avionics reboots (or just plain failures): United 731 (Newark), BA (Heathrow, 10/22/05), Air 2000 (Ben Gurion, 4/18/98), and these are those that I recalled off the top of my head (admittedly I did need to look up the dates)
 
4.  On-ground reboots: these seem second nature to A320 drivers. Can't cite any specific sources, except the occasional comments from the crew, and having witnessed the reboot myself a few times.
 
5.  Serviceability: can't cite any specific sources, except occasional moaning from mechanics working on both Airbus and Boeing aircraft for a major US-based airline.
 
A good source for information is the NTSB Aviation Accident Database that also includes incidents.
 
Note that Boeing is also represented in many different ways in the same databases. My point is that Airbus seems to have a history of making choices that other seasoned aircraft designers wouldn't.
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    A bit late   1/15/2009 3:21:31 AM
The issue is not the A400m which I'm sure will be a fine aircraft.  Air transports are simply trucks.  Either one has enough trucks with enough range to do what needs to be done or one does not.  As a replacement for the C-130 or C-160 the A400m will probably do a great job.  The real issue is that it's simply not a strategic air transport and that the EU nations certainly need them, hence leasing An-124's and buying a few C-17's.
 
Frankly the A400m is a problem.  It's too much aircraft for a lot of missions so one still requires a smaller air transport within the theater (the C-130 is too big for many missions and smaller 2 engine transports are often either far more cost effective or able to land where the C-130 can not) but it's not a strategic air transport so one also requires those aircraft too.  As a replacement for the C-130 time will tell whether it's cost effective.  Personally I'd bet against for a variety of reasons.
 
That aside the only thing that really matters is whether Europe has enough air transports to do what is required.  They do not at present and this aircraft may be a great C-130 replacement but the main NATO mission at present is out of area in Afghanistan.  The A400m is what is being purchased because the perceived world wide market for a C-130 replacement is seen as potentially lucrative; however, this program will interfere with, as it has for a decade, with what is actually required.
 
Consider the RAF has purchased C-130J's and C-17's.  Is it really cost effective for them to operate another aircraft type in the A400m and would they in fact be better served with more C-130's and C-17's?  In any case if they do end up operating A400m's we'll have an interesting evaluation.
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Safety factors   1/15/2009 2:09:07 PM
Load factor is designed using the elastic stress of a material. The elastic stress is the point where the component will not "spring" back to it's original form. Exceeding safety factor of 1.5 that uses the elastic stress doesn't mean the component breaks, it means that the component does not return to it's original form.
 
So if a wing is loaded above it's elastic limit, it will spring back a certain percentage and for a certain percentage that wing will stay for ever  crooked. After the plane lands, you can basically throw that wing away, because it is out of shape.
 
Then there is the breaking stress of a material that's the point where the material breaks (the wing snaps off). This takes higher loads than permanently deforming materials.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36       1/15/2009 3:13:40 PM

 Air transports are simply trucks.  Either one has enough trucks with enough range to do what needs to be done or one does not.
 
Frankly the A400m is a problem.  It's too much aircraft for a lot of missions so one still requires a smaller air transport within the theater (the C-130 is too big for many missions and smaller 2 engine transports are often either far more cost effective or able to land where the C-130 can not)
Yes.  The problem seems to be the enemy's understanding of logistics.  Cut off the trucking routes and you starve off the FOBs.  Sure, you could land C-5s and C-17s on a well guarded base, but getting freight to the destination "just in time" is a different matter (weather, terrain, attacks, etc).  Pallets and equipment need to be moved by air when ground transportation is halted or just too dangerous.  The crude "landing strips" might be able to accommodate C-130s equipped for super-STOL, but better tilt wing designs such as the V-22 Osprey (20k internal load max) are proving themselves as effective and a model for better transport A/C to come.
  link
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hurlbee36    link-delinked   1/15/2009 7:21:48 PM
From Global Security site: www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/att.htm
 
{Advanced Theater Transport:  In the long term (FY11-21) the Air Force plans to begin acquisition process for the Advanced Theater Transport to replace C-130s as they retire. The Advanced Theater Transport concept would allow delivery and extraction of medium-weight fighting systems and their support at a much wider range of airland terminals than is now available. Among the designs being considered are tilt-rotor and inclining-wing concepts that potentially could get 30-plus ton loads in and out of runways as short as 500 feet.}

 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/16/2009 10:00:11 AM
1) Safety factors are applied on maximum predicted loads, so it is the maximum predicted load, plus an additional 50%.
There are typically two factors, one applied to the elastic limit (yield criterion) and one for ultimate limit (failure criterion). On aerospace structures, 1.5 is a common factor for ultimate load. Going beyond this level of confidence adds mass to the structure and therefore wastes money on operating costs. How far is do you go beyond the stated suitable factor to make it 'safe'. What is a "Healthy margin for error"? Quantitatively, please.

4) and 5). I have it on good authority* that Boeings  are made from chocolate.

* a bloke down the pub 
 
Quote    Reply

aki009    Margin of error...   1/16/2009 11:39:06 AM
1) Safety factors are applied on maximum predicted loads, so it is the maximum predicted load, plus an additional 50%.
There are typically two factors, one applied to the elastic limit (yield criterion) and one for ultimate limit (failure criterion). On aerospace structures, 1.5 is a common factor for ultimate load. Going beyond this level of confidence adds mass to the structure and therefore wastes money on operating costs. How far is do you go beyond the stated suitable factor to make it 'safe'. What is a "Healthy margin for error"? Quantitatively, please.

4) and 5). I have it on good authority* that Boeings  are made from chocolate.

* a bloke down the pub 

1. I'm not an aerospace engineer, so I can't tell you what would be a "healthy margin". But the A380 wing (since modified) breaking when it wasn't expected to doesn't exhibit it. The China Airlines 006 flight pulled out of a vertical dive with peak load of about 5G, well beyond the ultimate limit. An Airbus shedding its rudder or vertical stabilizer does not exhibit the same.
 
4) and 5) Let me help you: Boeing has the design philosophy that the pilot knows best. This has been useful in avoiding some accidents, but there is at least one time where the automation of an A320 type aircraft would have prevented a tragedy. Specifically, the crash of American 965 would likely have been averted if the 757 had been equipped with automation to retract speed brakes if maximum power is applied. (I will not take this opportunity to discuss the number of accidents caused by the automation in the A320.)
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       1/17/2009 3:52:40 AM
1) 5g is beyond the ultimate limit is it? By how much? What is the ultimate limit?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy