A400 and Herc

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

jlb RE:A400 and Herc 6/28/2002 1:57:18 AM

In light of all the trouble the US Army has putting together a C-130-deployable medium brigade because of its payload limits, wouldn't it make sense for the MAC to have a turboprop transport plane with a bit more payload than the Herc?

Quote Reply

DKay RE:A400 and Herc 4/9/2004 12:25:58 PM

Surprised no one has followed this thread. Personally, I agree with jlb. The A400M would provide the USAF with an enormous increase in airlift capability at a fleet life cycle cost no greater than if they replaced all their C-130Es (in the fullness of time) with C-130Js or stretched Js. It's unfortunate that the A400M won't be 'on the shelf' until 2010 and even then, deliveries to the seven European nations will presumably have priority. But why doesn't Boeing or Locheed Martin negotiate a deal to assemble the aircraft under license in the States, and perhaps get a slice of the manufacturing as well? The A400M will have double the maximum payload (81,400 lb), and double the low density bulked out payload (around 55,000 pounds) compared with the C-0130H/J or stretched J. The A400M will also have well over 1,000 nm more range than the C-130J at 17.5 tonnes, the maximum payload of the C-130J. Its cruise speed too will be 60 knots faster than the C-130J (Mach 0.68 to 0.72). The semi-prepared airstrip and short field performance of the A400M will also be far better than the C-130, being able to deliver ten times as much cargo into a CBR4 airstrip compared with the C-130E/H/J. Its landing gear has to match that of the C-160 Transall but with much bigger payloads. As far as I'm aware, the C-17 can't operate off CBR4 or even CBR6 airstrips let alone with any significant payload. So an A400M could transport, say, 37 tonnes of ammunition over 1,800 nm and deliver it to close to front line forces via a CBR4/6 airstrip without any unloading and transference of loads. Since the cargo box and aperture are 159 inches and the headroom under the wing box is the same as the C-17 it will carry virtually any vehicle short of a main battle tank (or supprt vehicles on MBT chassis)and also most helicopters. According to Airbus Military, the A400M's life-cycle cost effectiveness (life costs per payload carried) will be lower than any competitor airlifter. The A400M will revolutionize tactical airlift.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:A400 and Herc 4/9/2004 2:26:33 PM

>>>In light of all the trouble the US Army has putting together a C-130-deployable medium brigade because of its payload limits, wouldn't it make sense for the MAC to have a turboprop transport plane with a bit more payload than the Herc <<< We should not use the lift limitations of the Herc to justify buying or building A400Ms. The Medium Bde fast deployment concept was a co*k-eyed scheme to begin with. It appears to have been something Shinseki dreamed up to trump the Marine MEB force. There is not enough airhead capacity in the world to support landing a full bde even if we had the plane capacity. The Army and the Corps need fast 40+ knot heavy lift catamarine ships to move mechanized forces to threat regions. The Herc J and stretched J meet the requirements of todays inter theather service requirements. The C17 has proven to be a worthy replacement for the C-141. It proved its tactical worth by landing Abrams tanks on a dirt strip to support the 173rd Airborne during GW II. We just need more of them.

Quote Reply

Hugin A400 payload 4/9/2004 2:26:44 PM

DKay: I'm sorry but all the internet sites I've seen give the maximum payload of A400 as 24000 kg to 25000 kg, which means it will NEVER take off with 2 Strykers. If you have information indicating otherwise please post links.

Quote Reply

DKay RE:A400 payload 4/9/2004 3:12:53 PM

My pleasure. The most authoritative and most up to date is obiously: link Look under "Weights". Some other sites show 32 tonnes as the maximum payload but they're at least eighteen months out-of-date. For example: link However, these sites together provide some of the most authoritative information on the A400M. Incidentally, on the Airbus Military site in the section entitled "Performance" (just below "Weights" the headings and data have become somewhat misaligned but I think you'll be able to make them out.

Quote Reply

DKay RE:A400 and Herc 4/9/2004 4:26:41 PM

Re: macawman 4/9/2004 2:26:33 PM. While I can see that the present Army deployment concepts are obviously important, there will always be many reasons for deciding whether to replace individual, ageing military transport fleets by aircraft Type A or aircraft Type B. Airlift requirements and priorities change every few years just as politico military situations change, as commanders change, and as military concepts and other equipment inventories (i.e, the bits of kit to be airlifted) and their capabilities change. You only have to look back ten years, twenty years, or thirty years (30 years or so being the normal life of a transport aircraft) to appreciate the constantly changing requirements and the failed attempts to 'sell' solutions meet them quickly (e.g. YC14 & YC15, the wide-bodied Herc idea, the HTTB experiments, various tilt wing concept aircraft floated by Boeing, MDD, Lockheed and BAC, etc.). Hence, I feel it can be dangerous to focus too exclusively on any one military 'operation' at any one moment in time as the sole (or even the main) design driver for a replacement military transport aircraft. Better, I feel - and I may be wrong - to seek a solution that offers maximum operational flexibility for the future in a cost-effective, affordable (and not necessarily the most technically or conceptually advanced) solution that the technology of the time can provide. It seems to me that the A400M is such an aircraft. Fifty years of advances in technology can now offer a solution that provides a sufficiently large improvement in capability to justify moving forward into a completely new design of aircraft. One only has to compare the C-130J with the C-130H to realise how small is the difference in airlift capability between the two Marks. On the other hand, the A400M offers significantly greater tactical capabilities compared with the C-130 (E/H or J), and greater long range airlift (and tanker) capabilities as well, compared with the C-130J. And this will come at a price that, in fleet life-cycle cost terms, is claimed to be lower than any alternative - certainly any that I can seen on the horizon. Why continue for ever with a fleet consisting of one older type of aircraft when a fleet consisting of a newer type of aircraft (and perhaps slightly fewer of them) would give you about twice the airlift capability at the same price? Please don't misunderstand me - I regard the C-130 as a damned good aircraft that has served many nations very well, and is still doing so. But it was designed at the time of the Korean war to airlift needs of the day, and is fundamentally a 1950s design of aircraft. The Herc was a major improvement over anything that went before it (and many that have come since). It is not surprising, therefore, that at long last, the 50-year advance in aerospace technology can now produce an aircraft with a significantly better operational performance and capability, improved reliability, availability and maintainability, at an affordable price. A not unreasonable comparison in the civil field might be that between a DC6 and a Boeing 777.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:A400 and Herc 4/10/2004 2:15:14 AM

Reasons to replace a cargo aircraft or any vehicle for that matter. 1. It costs too much to operate it. 2. It does not fullfill current mission requirements. 3. Structurally it is becoming unsafe to fly. Why buy another aircraft instead of upgrading the present model. 1. to get a lift performance enhancement and a cheaper operating cost of at least 20% over current model. 2. to get a performance capability (like STOL) that is a mission requirement that the current aircraft does not have. It comes down to the assumption that the A400M is not that much of an improvement over the 90's version C-130-J30 for the much greater cost of the A400M. Compare the specs and the cost factor of these two aircraft and I think you will see my point. Note: I would not count greater speed or altitude capability as a major factor in a intratheather medium lift aircraft. Turboprop aircraft have a foreign object intake advantage over jets when it comes to tactical dirt airstrips.

Quote Reply

DKay RE:A400 and Herc 4/11/2004 2:35:05 AM

Quote: ?RE:A400 and Herc 4/10/2004 2:15:14 AM Reasons to replace a cargo aircraft or any vehicle for that matter. 1. It costs too much to operate it. 2. It does not fullfill current mission requirements. 3. Structurally it is becoming unsafe to fly.? I like your approach and have the following comments: On 1) above, due to their age the C-130E airframes (how many Hs does the USAF have?) must be approaching that stage. In www.fas.org/man/dod_101/sys/ac/c-130.htm it states that ?early model C-130s require more than 20 MMH/FH? whereas Lockheed claim that the C-130J-30 will require less than 10 MMH/FH. This is a bit improvement. I can?t quote a web accessable source for the A400M but I know from information provided at an airlift conference by Airbus that the A400M is designed to achieve 7.5 MMH/FH with a mission reliability of 98.7% and a minimum scheduled maintenance interval of 400FH. Potentially, this is a significant improvement in MMF/FH and scheduled maintenance interval compared with the C-130J, requiring fewer maintenance personnel, less scheduled maintenance down time and improved mission availability. Further on 1). How much is ?too much? ? a very subjective question! I think another important question would be, ?Is there an aircraft that equals or exceeds the operational capability of the existing C-130E/H fleet that would cost less to operate and have improved daily availability?? I would hold that the A400M will meet those criteria but the C-130J doesn?t appear to (see also the last 3 paragraphs of 2) below) 2) above. If what has been said elsewhere is correct (i.e. the need for super STOL) then neither the C-130J nor the A400M meet this requirement. However, I would seriously question the justification for such a requirement as the basis for a replacement aircraft and would want to know far more about it if I was holding the purse strings. Also, the maximum payload mass capability of the C-130J-30 is less than that of the C-130H-30 (or C-130K-30, RAF stretched Herc), and the payload volume is the same. And since there are no underwing tanks on any of the C-130Js as far as I?m aware (certainly not the UK ones), the maximum range of the C-130J for a given payload is unlikely to greater than the C-130E/H with underwing tanks fitted. 3) above. Of course, this doesn?t apply. In due course I?ll comment on your next sub paras 1 & 2 and subsequent remarks. Finally, may I say how much I appreciate the opportunity to hold a constructive discussion on such an important matter as the future of military tactical and strategic airlift, to hear your views, and those of others, and the reasoning underlying them.

Quote Reply

DKay RE:A400 and Herc 4/12/2004 5:27:28 AM

RE:A400 and Herc 4/10/2004 2:15:14 AM Quote: " It comes down to the assumption that the A400M is not that much of an improvement over the 90's version C-130-J30 for the much greater cost of the A400M. Compare the specs and the cost factor of these two aircraft and I think you will see my point. Note: I would not count greater speed or altitude capability as a major factor in a intratheather medium lift aircraft". I'd like to ask some specific questions if I may. 1) What do you regard as the range bracket for intratheater medium airlift in the context of our present discussions (i.e. between 'x' and 'y' nautical miles), and 2) can you give me some idea of a typical total tonnage (or s/tonnage)that you think might have to be airlifted over these distances in support of an operation? And 3) over what period of time might this airlift have to continue (4 days, 14 days, etc?); and 4)what sort of loads do you assume might make up the total tonnage (e.g. ammo? troops? palletised general stores & POL? vehicles? helicopters?, 'x' tons per day of resupply?). I will then try to run some comparative examples through a 'model'. I'd just like to add that the C-130 isn't used just as an intratheater airlifter.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:A400 and Herc 4/13/2004 1:34:06 AM

>>>On 1) above, due to their age the C-130E airframes (how many Hs does the USAF have?) must be approaching that stage.<<< The USAF have purchased around 550 E/H aircraft. Sources: link link link A400M info: link

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT