A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF
Discussion
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
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.
But it ain't septic, and that is just GREAT.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
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.
There is one C130 operated on the civil register in europe, but just one AFAIK. Operated by air contractors Ltd out of East Midlands Airport. I think it's on standby for oil spill slick suppression but happy to be corrected.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.
Mojocvh said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
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.
But it ain't septic, and that is just GREAT.
The MASSIVE elephant in the room is that the out of service date for the Herc is 2022. So why spend so much money on an aircraft thats got 9 years left? Let alone an aircraft that is too small to carry tomorrows kit?
The Herc has done great service; but its about time commonsense took the front step. The C17 can do tactical lifts; but the engine rebuilds when it does so cost a hell of a lot more than when a C130/A400M does them. Hence why we use them as strategic lifts (lets not forget the fact the contract the RAF signed first off said thats all they would be allowed to do....).
Planning for tomorrows wars with yesterdays kit is a very bad idea.
ecsrobin said:
Wow, that is a serious set of Props fitted! The cord on them is HUGE!
Max_Torque said:
ecsrobin said:
Wow, that is a serious set of Props fitted! The cord on them is HUGE!DMN said:
Good points, but biased points. If we stuck with that attitude, we'd still be flying Vickers Vimy's.
The MASSIVE elephant in the room is that the out of service date for the Herc is 2022. So why spend so much money on an aircraft thats got 9 years left? Let alone an aircraft that is too small to carry tomorrows kit?
The Herc has done great service; but its about time commonsense took the front step. The C17 can do tactical lifts; but the engine rebuilds when it does so cost a hell of a lot more than when a C130/A400M does them. Hence why we use them as strategic lifts (lets not forget the fact the contract the RAF signed first off said thats all they would be allowed to do....).
Planning for tomorrows wars with yesterdays kit is a very bad idea.
And that's where you are just wrong.The MASSIVE elephant in the room is that the out of service date for the Herc is 2022. So why spend so much money on an aircraft thats got 9 years left? Let alone an aircraft that is too small to carry tomorrows kit?
The Herc has done great service; but its about time commonsense took the front step. The C17 can do tactical lifts; but the engine rebuilds when it does so cost a hell of a lot more than when a C130/A400M does them. Hence why we use them as strategic lifts (lets not forget the fact the contract the RAF signed first off said thats all they would be allowed to do....).
Planning for tomorrows wars with yesterdays kit is a very bad idea.
I am not biased. As an ex-AT Captain I want to see the best AT that we can have. Dear gods I spent several years and 2000+ hrs working in AT. I knowb how Albert works FFS!
Unfortunately a small fleet of A400 vs a Large fleet of C-130 plus C-17 just does not promise us that.
The MASSIVE Elephant in the room is NOT C130 (because you can bet your bottom dollar that despite any any 'out of service date' they will still be around (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), the Elephant is A400 because it CAN NOT do the Tac A/T Job that Albert currently does.
coanda said:
G15 - do the Hercs operate at capacity when in theatre?
In my experience, yes, very much so!coanda said:
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?!
Somewhere around 1/2 to 2/3 of what Albert will give you. We operated alongside the Italian G222s during the Bosnian war. C27 is better owing to the engines but it isn't any bigger than G222.Indeed I would have more C130Js
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Saturday 26th October 00:22
G15, thanks for the info. Indeed, it appears that C-130s should be the new C-130s! It's no surprise though. They are and were very good at what they did. I worked on A400M on various design and ass saving jobs, and was never very happy with what I saw.
Shame they left Lyneham. I still enjoy spotting a couple of red lights every now and then when I'm on my way home in the lanes now it's dark enough.
Shame they left Lyneham. I still enjoy spotting a couple of red lights every now and then when I'm on my way home in the lanes now it's dark enough.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I am not biased. As an ex-AT Captain I want to see the best AT that we can have. Dear gods I spent several years and 2000+ hrs working in AT. I knowb how Albert works FFS!
Unfortunately a small fleet of A400 vs a Large fleet of C-130 plus C-17 just does not promise us that.
Which is exactly what the people who operated the Vimeys said way back when.Unfortunately a small fleet of A400 vs a Large fleet of C-130 plus C-17 just does not promise us that.
Tomorrows wars should be fought with tomorrows kit; not yesterdays.
rhinochopig said:
Max_Torque said:
ecsrobin said:
Wow, that is a serious set of Props fitted! The cord on them is HUGE!At low Re, which means slow-moving aerofoils or in viscous fluids, increasing the chord is the only tool one has left to combat laminar separation bubbles which is one of the key drag mechanisms at this aerodynamic scale.
DMN said:
Which is exactly what the people who operated the Vimeys said way back when.
Tomorrows wars should be fought with tomorrows kit; not yesterdays.
Only if tomorrows kit is actually more suitable for tomorrows war and there is enough of them to do the job effectively. This is clearly not the case here.Tomorrows wars should be fought with tomorrows kit; not yesterdays.
Leptons said:
Why do they use propellers rather than turbofans?
Props are better in the situations they'll find themselves in - operating from dirty, rough strips. The blades are more damage tolerant, the units as a whole have better reaction times to throttle requests, you don't have to rebuild the engine after visiting a rough strip, easier to fix in the field ( but A400M has a higher parts requirement because, for example, there are two prop reduction gearboxes - one for clockwise and one for anticlockwise) and I think they have a better static thrust than turbofans but I'm not an engine man so I'll have to leave tha there 'til I can get to a proper computer.I can confirm that C130's in UK use at the moment are certainly doing real Tac lifts. A case proven most days as they take off couple of hundred meters from my desk. Now would a A400M be able to do what they are doing.....well it would look like a big hammer knocking a panel pin into a piece of balsa!
coanda said:
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.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?
eccles said:
coanda said:
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.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?
The A350 makes more use of composite structures than the A400m. Airbus use metallic foils embedded in the aircraft’s composite panels as they did in the rear composite sections of the A380
Boeing use similar metal foils and wire mesh on the 787. Wire mesh on the fuselage and foils on the wing sections as it is more effective at protecting the fuel tanks.
Boeing use similar metal foils and wire mesh on the 787. Wire mesh on the fuselage and foils on the wing sections as it is more effective at protecting the fuel tanks.
el stovey said:
The A350 makes more use of composite structures than the A400m. Airbus use metallic foils embedded in the aircraft’s composite panels as they did in the rear composite sections of the A380
Boeing use similar metal foils and wire mesh on the 787. Wire mesh on the fuselage and foils on the wing sections as it is more effective at protecting the fuel tanks.
Shh! That might be a secret! Boeing use similar metal foils and wire mesh on the 787. Wire mesh on the fuselage and foils on the wing sections as it is more effective at protecting the fuel tanks.
And whatever you do, don't google astrostrike!Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff