A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

DMN said:

The C17's are a strategic assest. The A400M's are a tactical asset. With the upscaling of military kit, more and more stuff won't fit inside a Herc.

WRONG!

C17 has a Tac capability that's why it was designed. The fact that we use it solely in a Strat role is beside the point. For what we use it for we'd have been better off buying C5s or C141s (if they were still in production).

A400 has both a Strat and Tac capability as well. Given our AT (Air Transport) history, we will end up using A400 primarily in the Strat role which will, ultimately, break the a/c just as we did with C130J (Because, just like C130J we will have too few airframes).

The idea that the [quote]upscaling of military kit

requires A400 is, again, wrong. While A400 can carry more weight than Albert, it can't carry significantly more kit. While it is wider than Albert, it is not significantly longer than a C4.

However, it is significantly (nay stupidly) more expensive.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 24th October 23:45

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

KieronGSi said:

Why lease and not buy?

Oh buy by choice.

I was under the impression that we had leased our C17s.

[Talksteer]

tuffer said:

Andy ap said:

First picture I have seen of all three side by side, did not realise the A400M was that big, was expecting it to be closer to the C130 than the C17. Awesome looking.

It is also closest to the camera.... :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

In payload range terms it is twice the size of the Hercules and half the size of the C17. Note I don't think a C17 costs twice as much to purchase, the RAF would have probably prefered more C17s and C130s.

[ninja-lewis]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Oh buy by choice.

I was under the impression that we had leased our C17s.

The lease of the original 4 was bought out. All 8 are now owned outright by HM Government.

[coanda]

Previous said:

I like them. One or two minor issues though, like they can't fly in bad weather incase of llightning strike, unless covered in speed tape... And damage can't be repaired easily on the ground.

Both issues due to composite wings.

Doesn't matter though, I can't imagine how either of the above would affect a military aircraft....

Lightning strike protection is designed in. It'll be fine.

However, having seen the repair procedure to fix a simulated 0.50cal hole and the conditions guys were expected to work under, I don't believe that it is field repairable to anything like a metallic design. Whilst the A400M can operate in-theatre in a tac role I expect it won't be for this very reason. It's going to be another strategic airlifter. Reckon we need to be looking at the C-27s that are being delivered straight to AMARC for theatre TAC lift - what's your take G15?

[davepoth]

So if we can't use the A400 for landing in shooty places (and have to keep the C130s for doing that), and the C17 is much better at flying big things a long way quickly, why are we buying A400s? Is it the old "we need a capability of building things that nobody really wants" argument?

[KieronGSi]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Oh buy by choice.

I was under the impression that we had leased our C17s.

We initially leased the first four but we ended up buying them, all subsequent C-17s were bought.

[DMN]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

DMN said:

The C17's are a strategic assest. The A400M's are a tactical asset. With the upscaling of military kit, more and more stuff won't fit inside a Herc.

WRONG!

C17 has a Tac capability that's why it was designed. The fact that we use it solely in a Strat role is beside the point. For what we use it for we'd have been better off buying C5s or C141s (if they were still in production).

A400 has both a Strat and Tac capability as well. Given our AT (Air Transport) history, we will end up using A400 primarily in the Strat role which will, ultimately, break the a/c just as we did with C130J (Because, just like C130J we will have too few airframes).

The idea that the [quote]upscaling of military kit

requires A400 is, again, wrong. While A400 can carry more weight than Albert, it can't carry significantly more kit. While it is wider than Albert, it is not significantly longer than a C4.

However, it is significantly (nay stupidly) more expensive.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 24th October 23:45

Its a much better aircraft than the Herc. Think Defence has a good series of articles about it:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a...

[steve j]

coanda said:

Lightning strike protection is designed in. It'll be fine.

However, having seen the repair procedure to fix a simulated 0.50cal hole and the conditions guys were expected to work under, I don't believe that it is field repairable to anything like a metallic design. Whilst the A400M can operate in-theatre in a tac role I expect it won't be for this very reason. It's going to be another strategic airlifter. Reckon we need to be looking at the C-27s that are being delivered straight to AMARC for theatre TAC lift - what's your take G15?

Lightning protection, normally a copper skin to help dissipate the strike, much like a copper strip on a building.

[Andy ap]

Speed wise its also pretty quick for a turbo prob. I don't know the facts but at mach .72 it cant be far behind the C-17 (not that cruising speed makes much difference on a strategic airlifter). Having watched some videos and read a little about the aircraft it also looks pretty agile. On one of its demonstration flights almost inverting (although that may be the camera) on an Immelman turn.

I do agree its probably way to expensive for its purpose and will more than likely be highly protected from getting it into any highly dangerous situations.

[tuffer]

Talksteer said:

tuffer said:

Andy ap said:

First picture I have seen of all three side by side, did not realise the A400M was that big, was expecting it to be closer to the C130 than the C17. Awesome looking.

It is also closest to the camera.... :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

In payload range terms it is twice the size of the Hercules and half the size of the C17. Note I don't think a C17 costs twice as much to purchase, the RAF would have probably prefered more C17s and C130s.

C17
Length: 53 m
Wingspan: 51.75 m
Height: 16.8 m

A400M
Length: 45.1 m
Wingspan: 42.4 m
Height: 14.7 m

C130J
Length: 29.79 m (for C-130J-30: 34.36 m)
Wingspan: 40.41 m
Height: 11.84 m

So like I said, closer to a C17 in physical size than a C130J. I did not realise they were this big, I thought they were more similar in size to a C130.

[markmullen]

Would the outgoing Hercules fleet come up for sale?

They'd make an amazing private 'plane.

[DMN]

markmullen said:

Would the outgoing Hercules fleet come up for sale?

They'd make an amazing private 'plane.

Some might, but the sensible thing to do would be to keep 15 airframes and convert 12 to Sea Herc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_C-130J_Super_Hercules#Variants) and use them as an MPA aircraft.

[tuffer]

markmullen said:

Would the outgoing Hercules fleet come up for sale?

They'd make an amazing private 'plane.

Or an amazing house.......Maybe buy a few and make a block of flats

[coanda]

steve j said:

coanda said:

Lightning strike protection is designed in. It'll be fine.

However, having seen the repair procedure to fix a simulated 0.50cal hole and the conditions guys were expected to work under, I don't believe that it is field repairable to anything like a metallic design. Whilst the A400M can operate in-theatre in a tac role I expect it won't be for this very reason. It's going to be another strategic airlifter. Reckon we need to be looking at the C-27s that are being delivered straight to AMARC for theatre TAC lift - what's your take G15?

Lightning protection, normally a copper skin to help dissipate the strike, much like a copper strip on a building.

Yep, can't really go in to it because I don't know how much has been released since the same solution would have to be used on other projects, but it's all designed in.

[coanda]

Andy ap said:

Speed wise its also pretty quick for a turbo prob. I don't know the facts but at mach .72 it cant be far behind the C-17 (not that cruising speed makes much difference on a strategic airlifter). Having watched some videos and read a little about the aircraft it also looks pretty agile. On one of its demonstration flights almost inverting (although that may be the camera) on an Immelman turn.

I do agree its probably way to expensive for its purpose and will more than likely be highly protected from getting it into any highly dangerous situations.

Would love to see it do an Immelman turn. I think you are talking about the wing-overs they tend to do.

I suspect I'll never see it, but would love to see it copy the Herc I once saw coming around a valley corner at about 80 degrees angle of bank. That was very cool, as was watching them using the local church/railway feature as a turning point on one of the low level routes.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

DMN said:

Its a much better aircraft than the Herc. Think Defence has a good series of articles about it:

That may be your opinion but as an ex-Truckie it's not mine. Furthermore that article makes a raft of assumptions about how Tac AT is used that do not stack up with the reality of how Tac AT actually is and has been used. Nor does it address the problems you inevitably encounter with a reduced fleet in terms of airframe numbers. Nor does it address the vulnerabilities of a reduced number fleet of larger a/c.

The argument about modern vehicle and plant size, for example, doesn't wash. Firstly because we don't deploy such equipment into strips (and nor would we for a whole load of Tactical and Operational reasons, and secondly because A400, despite it's greater load carrying capability doesn't have a significant bulk carrying capability anyway.

With regards to 'Sea Hercules' that is a very clever marketing ploy that would appeal to anyone who has little or no Maritime experience. In the real world, for the sort of Ops you would want a MPA for, C-130 is a far less than ideal platform. Yes we did MRR (Maritime Radar Reconnaissance) down in the Falklands but our ability to do so was strictly limited. We also supposedly had a SAR role but IMHO we would have been pretty useless as a SAR platform.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

coanda said:

Whilst the A400M can operate in-theatre in a tac role I expect it won't be for this very reason. It's going to be another strategic airlifter. Reckon we need to be looking at the C-27s that are being delivered straight to AMARC for theatre TAC lift - what's your take G15?

You've hit the nail on the head re A400.

WRT C-27, well they are really only a re-engined G222 and as such do not have even C-130 capability so a bit of a dead end AFAIAC.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

markmullen said:

Would the outgoing Hercules fleet come up for sale?

They'd make an amazing private 'plane.

Probably not without some expensive modification.

While I am not an expert on the J (having been a K operator), C-130 does not have the requisite engine fire suppression systems to meet CAA requirements.

Specifically there are only two fire bottles (and four engines)

The Civilian registered L100s get away with it because it would appear that the FAA regulations are more lax in this area.

[coanda]

I guess the retirement of the C-130s must be a bit like the F-4s - they all had to be returned or proven destroyed or kept a close eye on (I believe the gate guards and museum exhibits are still on the RAF lists for this reason) because of the US rules with regard to sales of military equipment.

G15 - do the Hercs operate at capacity when in theatre? If C-27s operated at full capacity, what would that equate to in terms of regular C-130 ops? If you don't know, don't go looking, I just wondered if they could be a viable alternative. So, I guess your viable alternative is new C-130Js?!