A400M Flight Testing Progress [Archive] - Page 2

VX275

19th Jul 2013, 11:48

Not the best demo of the ac's capabilities as neither of those vehicles will be used by the British Army in the next few years

Its more idicative of just how long this project has been going. The contract had to list representative loads and at the time of writing Scorpion and Land Rover and trailer were it.
However looking at the photo the line in the Aircraft Spec that these loads should not need shoaring has either been deleted / ignored by Airbus and the PT. Mind you it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't yet another example of JATE applying SOP to a system which still hasn't had any procedures written for it let alone had them made standard.

keesje

19th Jul 2013, 17:14

The picture is indicative of nothing :) I think the A400M bay is dimensioned for 2 Apaches, or NH90 / Chinook. And serious vehicles. E.g Warthdog and this one

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/artillery/images/5.jpg

dragartist

19th Jul 2013, 21:55

VX275 is spot on.
the envelope based on two Landrovers side by side was cast in 1995. At the time the spare wheels were being strapped on the side of the landrover not on the bonnet. necessitating widening the fuselage by around 6" (150mm in metric) from that proposed by Airbus.

The spec for the loads was referred to as Exhibit A. I never saw it updated in 10 years. the copy I held was an A5 spiral bound booklet about 1 1/2" thick.

I know Airbus struggled to keep the weight within that predicted. Growth ate into payload.

I lost touch with the detail two years ago but I know the team at ABW worked hard to get the best deal for UK. I don't remember ever seeing some of the bomb proof vehicles being used in Afg ever getting into the Exhibit A. Particularly the SUPACAT HMT variants. (Jackal) I know the French and Germans had a big six wheeler similar to the Saracen which was driving the design.

I am sure the highly professional guys at JATE would not exceed the agreed floor loadings. I understand they have been working closely with Airbus in Bremen. I think they would have the rear cabin mock up at Brize by now to be developing all the load plans.

Folks do realise that the flat floor is only 1/2 a yard longer than that of a stretched Herc. but you can get a SWB landrover on the ramp. It's great to have the width to walk around stuff though.

ancientaviator62

20th Jul 2013, 09:50

The wood in the picture may be 'floor protection' rather than loadspreading per se.

ksimboy

20th Jul 2013, 10:32

Floor protection indeed, too thin and too wide for standard load spreaders .

Xercules

20th Jul 2013, 16:26

Exhibit A was as you describe, made up of all the loads that the partner Nations wished to carry in A400M at that time.

Thus, it was that:

The Warrior Recovery Variant - weight 31.5 tonnes - drove the payload.
A German ground to air missile system - drove the cargo bay height
Vehicles side by side drove the width and so on.

Having then set the dimensions there comes a moment when the design parameters have to be frozen to allow design work to begin. These then drive the design through things like aircraft component loads and very quickly it gets to a stage where nothing basic can be changed. Adding 50cms to the width of the fuselage has huge ramifications for weight, drag and then power required and speed as well as changing the interfaces with the wings especially. Likewise increasing the weight has huge ramifications for the loads on the wing and the design has to change to reflect these which in turn means further weight increases.

There always is a danger that the world will move on and the only way to compensate is to design to over-egged requirements but this then has a knock on effect on cost. The bigger the aircraft the higher the cost. I saw all this during my years with Airbus and even now the customers are still asking for apparently small changes without consideration for what they in fact mean when translated into reality.

I remember years ago seeing the then Army Multi-Role vehicle platform (I cannot now remember the name) - it was specified to be air-transportable in A400M but was outgrowing even before any metal had been cut and that was before the mega amounts of armoured protection for Afghanistan.

Heathrow Harry

21st Jul 2013, 08:16

it isn't always a disaster when the content to be carried changes

remember the DC-3 was sized for the number of US overnight passenger beds it should hold................

ORAC

2nd Aug 2013, 06:41

First A400M Airlifter Delivered to France (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130801/DEFREG01/308010018/First-A400M-Airlifter-Delivered-France)

LONDON — The French Air Force has taken delivery of the first A400M airlifter from Airbus Military following type certification and initial operating clearance of the aircraft in the last few days.

The DGA, the French military procurement agency, authorized the delivery today after issuing the military type certificate on July 24. The aircraft is scheduled to fly Aug. 2 to the French Air Force base at Orleans-Bricy from where it will operate.

The delivery marks the culmination of a 10-year effort by Airbus Military to develop a European airlifter. The program has overcome serious technical problems, delivery delays and budget overruns that almost saw Airbus and the partners nations scrap the airlifter.

Handover of the first aircraft follows the July 31 receipt of Type Acceptance at the Initial Operating Clearance standard from OCCAR, the European Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, which has been managing the project on behalf of the seven-nation effort................

Trumpet_trousers

2nd Aug 2013, 14:16

Phew!...
First one delivered, next one out of the 'sausage machine' to fly soon, sans paint!... :ok:

Rosevidney1

2nd Aug 2013, 19:47

Sans paint. I wonder how much lighter it will be? There is rather a lot of surface area to cover. :eek:

GreenKnight121

2nd Aug 2013, 22:30

However, there are still "reduced performance" limits placed on this "delivered aircraft", with those restrictions to be lifted at some future date.

JFZ90

3rd Aug 2013, 07:48

second one flew, painted, nearly 2 months ago.

http://airbus.hosting.augure.com/Augure_Airbus/r/ContenuEnLigne/Download/54004F82-3049-4147-9085-AA84AB1B4A59/MSN8FirstFlight%20hi_res.jpg

greenk - i suspect your comment is based on your experience with us airlifters, rather than any knowledge of a400m

Trumpet_trousers

6th Aug 2013, 11:45

second one flew, painted, nearly 2 months ago
yes, you are correct, but I wasn't referring to the second one...:ok:

Trumpet_trousers

9th Aug 2013, 22:13

And lo, it came to pass that the 3rd production A400M flew on its maiden flight today - sans paint, as advertised. Goes into the paint shop next week, and will emerge in TuAF colours :ok:

flugholm

29th Aug 2013, 06:36

MSN009 now got its paint job.
EADS Global Website - Airbus A400M flies in Turkish Air Force colours (http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/press.20130828_airbus_military_a400m_turkey.html)
"Merde gris" again... :(

Stitchbitch

29th Aug 2013, 11:52

Are Turkey doing their own flight testing then? Or are we being risk averse again...:E

dragartist

29th Aug 2013, 18:53

Are Turkey doing their own flight testing then.

Well the last I knew Turkey were taking the lead on all of the parachuting trials. (helped by Q2 and other UK formations)

No doubt some of these will be repeated specifically for UK by the same crew. A great deal of read across was being forecast to keep our [UK] costs down.

IMHO a very sensible approach was being taken.

ArthurR

16th Oct 2013, 07:04

One spotted flying over Ingolstadt yesterday, must be in Manching (EADS)

moggiee

16th Oct 2013, 08:37

There was one out here in the UAE a week or two back - and before that they had one based here for a couple of weeks (presumably doing hot weather trials). It's an impressive looking aircraft and going by some of the post-takeoff climb angles it demonstrated it must be a decent performer.

Chris Scott

16th Oct 2013, 17:20

FWIW, there were at least two approaches by A400M(s) at Blagnac on Monday afternoon (14Oct).

Davef68

17th Oct 2013, 09:57

One was tootling about Scotland last week - spotted at Glasgow and Inverness amongst others

Saint Jack

17th Oct 2013, 12:23

Looking at the photographs of the on A400M the thread it appears that customers can have the aircraft in any colour they like as long as it's grey - just add your own national insignia.

Lyneham Lad

11th Nov 2013, 16:30

From Flight Global:- (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/france-accepts-second-a400m-atlas-392836/)

France has accepted its second A400M Atlas tactical transport from Airbus Military, with the aircraft due to touch down at the French air force’s Orléans base later this week.

One of 50 A400Ms on order for France, and first flown on 7 June, aircraft MSN8 was formally accepted on 6 November, the nation’s DGA defence procurement agency says. Its arrival with the air force’s 1/61 “Touraine” squadron will follow that of its first example, MSN7, which was handed over in August and formally introduced on 20 September.

Airbus Military is also poised to deliver its first of 10 A400Ms to the Turkish air force, which will become the second of its current eight customer nations to receive the type. Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Spain and the UK are its other buyers, with a total programme orderbook of 174 examples.

With its next export delivery slots available during 2016, Airbus Military will later this month be taking one of its A400M “Grizzly” development aircraft to the Dubai air show for the first time. The Europrop International TP400-D6-powered airlifter, which has a maximum payload capacity of 37t, is due to participate in 17-21 November event’s daily flying display.

As the list of customers is in alphabetical order, I trust this means the RAF is not really last in line for deliveries!

PS - presumably it is down to that damn great photo that the quoted text (above) is formatted so wiiiiide...

nimbev

11th Nov 2013, 17:06

The delivery marks the culmination of a 10-year effort by Airbus Military to develop a European airlifter.They must be joking! I remember British Aerospace (as it then was) trying to push this in its various guises as Future Large Aircraft and A400(M) down our throats in DOR(Air) in the mid 80s. In comparison Nimrod MRA4 was a much quicker programme! That's not saying much I know!

Lyneham Lad

9th Dec 2013, 17:06

As reported on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a400m-refuelled-in-flight-for-first-time-393837/):-

An Airbus Military A400M has received fuel in-flight for the first time, with one of the programme's three development aircraft having achieved the milestone behind a French air force Dassault-Breguet C160 Transall.

"There were no problems for the aircraft," says A400M project pilot Tony Flynn, who describes the first wet contacts as having gone "perfectly" during a trials activity performed from Seville, Spain in late November. The work successfully validated a new set of air-to-air refuelling (AAR) flight control laws referred to as "D6R-P", he adds.

"This is the first time we have had a satisfactory control law for the whole [receiver] task," Flynn says. This follows an extensive rewriting process, which was initiated following early trials performed behind a Vickers VC10 tanker in 2010. "To begin with, things didn't go well," he says. Cockpit video footage of the second dry contact made behind the now-retired Royal Air Force type shows the A400M pitching up and down, before climbing violently towards the tanker's T-tail as the crew abandoned the connection. (my italics & bold)

"To begin with, things didn't go well," - :eek:

Click on the link for the rest of the report.

PS - I see that the humongous size of that photo has not been corrected, hence the continuing ruination of formatting! :ugh:

VinRouge

9th Dec 2013, 17:25

do the flight control laws still have the direct lateral and vertical control laws for aar? ie pitch up = translate up with no pitch and roll translates left and right with no roll?

VinRouge

12th Jan 2014, 08:05

Some more decent pics of all things A400m, with a few 'tasteful' shots thrown in! :E

Photos of the A400M Atlas in high-res : theBRIGADE (http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2013/12/15/a400m-atlas-in-high-res-48-hq-photos/)

dragartist

12th Jan 2014, 08:46

Do all the loadmasters on A400M look like the ones on slide 12?

next time can I sit in the comfy chair shown in slide 46?

ancientaviator62

12th Jan 2014, 09:28

Looks like a lot of legroom between the para seats. Three point harnesses as well . Hope the side seats are more crash resistant than the C130 and the sound/insulation material is more fire and fume resistant to that on the C130.

dragartist

12th Jan 2014, 11:31

AA62, The extra width came about by a requirement to have two Landrovers side by side. back in 1995 the Air Portability section at JATE were working on the spec. at the same time the new landrover showed up with the spare wheel mounted on the side rather than on the bonnet.

I bet the team at Solihull did not appreciate what influence they had over the design of this aircraft 20 years on.

I think the chairs with the side curtains and much improved harnesses are good for 9g. I know a lot of effort went into this aspect. I am pleased those arguing for grandfather rights did not get their way.

I think this aircraft will be brilliant when it gets in service.

I titled the post appropriately I hope - some folks will expect the cargo bay to be much longer than a long 130. the flat floor is only about 18" longer so without pallets on the ramp as in airdrop it can only do the same. (apart from the increased weight of course).

You will be interested in the Dufelyte bicycle helmets on the BBC news today. What's that got to do with straps? Well I think consideration was given to straps from an Israeli or US company called Simula which incorporated airbags to meet the crashworthy requirement on the A400M. I think they may be in use on some choppers.

Georgeablelovehowindia

15th Jan 2014, 14:21

I had a fairly close look at an A400M yesterday afternoon. It flew low level along the Ouvèze valley, did a quick fly-by of Orange Caritat, before proceeding on its way.

Not quite as low as the person who regularly does a "Bonjour Maman" in the Transall ... yet!

:)

Al R

27th Apr 2014, 07:25

Interesting promo vid.

An Inside View of the RAF ATLAS | Military.com (http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/an-inside-view-of-raf-atlas/3508222761001/)

Landroger

29th Apr 2014, 14:43

VX275

29th Apr 2014, 15:41

And there was me thinking the Argosy's lack of carrying capacity was the reason behind the Airportable Land Rover.

moggiee

29th Apr 2014, 15:48

I had a fairly close look at an A400M yesterday afternoon. It flew low level along the Ouvèze valley, did a quick fly-by of Orange Caritat, before proceeding on its way.
There's one out here at a not-so-secret airport in the UAE at the moment. It's not an especially elegant aeroplane but certainly seems to be an impressive performer

dragartist

29th Apr 2014, 19:24

Ah Landroger, I was not being contentious. just stating fact. These loading schemes were rolled up into what became Exhibit A. I am not sure if this became contractual document but worked to establish a baseline for trade offs. A stick to beat up Airbus with. One of the concerns was safety during emergency egress and load lozenging into those who may have been sat in the sideways facing seats. Some of VX275s mates from the day were arguing over reduced levels of cargo restraint during military ops. As we know this aircraft is being certified to the more rigorous civilian regulations.

It was nice to hear several years later that the seats and restraint would be more crashworthy than the C130 benchmark.

By the way VX is quite an expert on transport aircraft history going back to the Dakota. He would know about these things for sure.

When ESF was eating up all our cash on the Hercules Project Team my Dad kept giving me an earful of how the Argosy had been equipped with a superior system back in it's day. I do hope the A400M is so equipped.

Al R, Thanks for posting the link to the RAF promo video. I only ever saw the computer mock ups of the Loadmasters workstation etc. I retired before the real thing came into being. I hope I get a chance to see one soon.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

30th Apr 2014, 06:52

It was essentially a Series IIa 88", with shortened axles and some of the weight removed. They are still lumpy old things though.

In its final incarnation, it was the Srs 3. That narrower frame and shorter axles certainly makes replacement parts that bit dearer.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/Dscf0017ed.jpg

Beverley and Argosy: I'd always been given to understand that it was to fit inside the Andover C1.

topgas

30th Apr 2014, 08:17

Nice lightweight FFR. Presumably the front tilt is rolled back to allow the driver to get in, as the door top appears to be attached to the tilt frame with "black and nasty" tape.:O

barnstormer1968

30th Apr 2014, 08:36

The lightweight landy is a very British thing IMHO. Land rover took an existing design, and modified it, and the result was was known as lightweight.
Odd that, when you consider how much it weighed compared to the original :)

RigPig

30th Apr 2014, 12:49

I thought the "lightweight" part of the lightweight Landrover was the fact that the door tops and rear panel sides could be removed easily thus saving weight for transportation under the helicopters at the time.

CoffmanStarter

30th Apr 2014, 17:44

So what happened to he Mil Rugged Robin development programme :E

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/08/article-2156474-1381C90E000005DC-298_634x402.jpg

Image Credit : SWNS.com

dragartist

30th Apr 2014, 19:20

good one Coff.
Probably finished up with all the Springers at Defence Disposals at Grantham. Most had the moulding flash still on the tyres!

Like the Seagul OBM on the transom!

This thread was about A400M.

I don't believe either of these things were in Exhibit A!

CoffmanStarter

30th Apr 2014, 19:24

It's GREEN like the A400M Drag old chap ...

Hat, coat and headed for the door :ok:

Davef68

30th Apr 2014, 21:23

good one Coff.
Probably finished up with all the Springers at Defence Disposals at Grantham. Most had the moulding flash still on the tyres!

On special at £10.5K this month!!

EPS, Springer ATV, #43613 - MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Used Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale (http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicle/,37,/43613/EPS.htm)

Octane

1st May 2014, 15:13

Is that a Vickers a la WWI on that contraption?! And they want to impress the MOD?!

Haraka

1st May 2014, 16:38

..and what looks like an old British Seagull outboard motor on the back ( stern? ).
Excellent!

The Helpful Stacker

1st May 2014, 16:41

s that a Vickers a la WWI on that contraption?!

Did WW1 end in 1968 then?

Lordflasheart

25th Jun 2014, 22:29

Extract from AWST 16 June.

"... although the Standard Operating Clearance (SOC) 1, ... will now be introduced on the first two UK RAF aircraft, MSN15 and 16, which are due for delivery in September. A400Ms to date have been delivered with basic logistics capabilities such as general transport of troops and loads, medevac flights and aircraft raising and kneeling to ease loading. These capabilities have allowed the French Air Force to conduct strategic airlift flights to Mali and French Guyana. [sic]

SOC 1 enables aerial delivery of paratroopers, tactical communications management, combat offload of vehicles, unpaved runway operations and defensive aids and fuel inerting systems. It also delivers a specific UK requirement of wedge-based paradrops, using a device to the aircraft ramp, so that equipment can be paradropped without affecting the aircraft's ability to drop paratroopers from the doors in the rear fuselage.

When it arrives in 2015, SOC1.5 will give the A400M a full defensive-aids-suite capability as well as the ability to deliver loads from the air and be refueled in flight. The last SOC iteration due in 2018 will add an all weather, low-level flight capability using sensors and terrain referencing."

Exciting times ?

LFH

27mm

26th Jun 2014, 08:03

Nice pic, showing the spirit of international collaboration: Vickers MG at the front, mid-mounted .50 Cal and an Anzani outboard at the rear; all mounted on what looks like a VW Golf body!

hagubear

7th Sep 2014, 11:21

It's mainly the capability achieved for short/rough landing requirements. TP400-D series is a bit different

Lyneham Lad

28th Jan 2015, 14:53

Flight Global article on production problems. Airbus chief Enders promises action on A400M (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-chief-enders-promises-action-on-a400m-408384/)

“We have problems – I admit that,” Enders said while addressing an Airbus Group reception in London on 27 January. “We have additional delays and I very much regret that we are unable to meet the commitments made to our customers several years ago.

“We are taking corrective action as fast as we can,” he says, adding that the issue will have “management and organisational consequences”.

The last sentence presumably is corporate speak for "heads will roll".

airsound

29th Jan 2015, 12:16

Airbus Defence and Space announces management and organisational changes in Military Aircraft, A400M Business Segment

my bold
Airbus Defence and Space has named Fernando Alonso (58) as Head of its Military Aircraft business unit as per 1st of March. Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space, will act as interim Head of Military Aircraft until this date. Fernando Alonso replaces Domingo Ureña-Raso (56), who has resigned from his position.

Fernando Alonso has been working with Airbus for many years and has a profound knowledge of the A400M as well as the other military aircraft programmes. Since 2007, Fernando Alonso has served as Head of Flight Test Operations at Airbus.

Further to the top management changes, the A400M programme will be restructured.
These organisational changes are designed to allow more efficient operations inside the Airbus Defence and Space Division and to put the A400M programme as well as its industrialisation in a position to best address currently existing shortfalls:
· Responsibility for all industrial-related activities is being shifted to the Operations organisation, which is led by Pilar Albiac-Murillo.
· Programme-related activities such as development and customer deliveries will remain in the scope of the Military Aircraft business unit, under the lead of Rafael Tentor, who serves as Head of the A400M programme.

“I expect that the new team will rapidly address existing shortfalls in the most efficient way”, said Bernhard Gerwert, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space. “Every pilot who has flown the A400M to date praises the aircraft’s performance. It has even already been deployed in military operations and it will be a strategic asset to any of our customer nations’ Air Forces. But as for the integration of military capabilities and the industrial ramp-up in particular, we have not been performing at the level which had been expected from us. That is unacceptable and we will fix that. We are fully conscious of how dependent the customer nations are on this new airlifter and therefore take their concerns very seriously. We will do our utmost to overcome them so the customers receive the aircraft they need in the shortest time possible.”

The current aircraft in service are showing good performance with the aircraft exceeding its specifications in its strategic, logistical role.

The military capabilities consisting of aerial delivery, cargo handling system, Defensive Aids Subsystems (DASS) and air-to-air refuelling with pods will be integrated in the second half of 2015, following certification and qualification for each capability. Flight testing of these capabilities is continuing at a high pace. Additional military capabilities will be integrated gradually up till 2018 as contractually agreed.

We are continuing our intense and constructive discussion with OCCAR and the customer nations regarding the delivery schedule and will communicate on this once those have been concluded. With regard to any potential financial impact of the revised delivery schedule a review is currently underway as indicated in November and its results are expected to be communicated at the Group’s 2014 Annual Results Disclosure on 27 February 2015.
Head(s) appear to have rolled

airsound

JAJM

29th Jan 2015, 12:39

Fernando Alonso? I thought he was a car jockey. :E

Bannock

9th Feb 2015, 16:49

"City of Bristol"

How about we wait for the next one and celebrate a "Pair of Bristols"

Seriously, are our aircraft so few in numbers that we now have high profile naming ceromonies when a new one is delivered ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uks-first-a400m-aircraft-named-city-of-bristol

If we are to follow the naval tradition of naming platforms can we not be a bit more imaginative and add some art work also ? eg Mamphis Belle,Ratlin Rita, Heavenly Body, Maid of Moray and of course Enola Gay ( scrub the last one - we can use that on the Armed Forces float at next years London parade)

Particular favourite is "Pussy in boots"

Lets see how long this post lasts - start the clock!:ok:

Davef68

9th Feb 2015, 17:56

It's a longstanding RAF tradition - VC10, Comet and Brittania (to name 3) all had names

VX275

9th Feb 2015, 17:56

Do we have another 21 Cities worthy of being applied to these aircraft?
My favorite named British aircraft was called 'Fochinell' which its Scotish pilot insisted was his family's moto.

sandiego89

2nd Dec 2015, 16:19

Seems that Spain has "delayed" their order for full buy, and will only take 14 A400's for now- which is @half their intended order. Allows for future buy, but who knows if that will ever happen. Can't be good for the program.

Spain and Airbus Agree Temporary Reduction In A400M Acquisition (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/169377/spain-halves-a400m-order%2C-delays-balance-to-2024.html)

Rwy in Sight

2nd Dec 2015, 17:01

Didn't the same happen with the Eurofighter/Typhoon, that once workload has been distributed based on initial orders, cancellations erase some of those orders?

sandiego89

2nd Dec 2015, 18:12

It seems that Germany, the UK and now Spain have reduced their orders from original announcments, with both Germany and Spain indicating they hoped to sell off some of their orders to other buyers. Buyers market perhaps....but is anyone knocking?

Lyneham Lad

24th Aug 2016, 17:06

Interesting video of the latest tests. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-a400m-carries-out-sand-strip-landing-tests-428776/) (Flight Global)

Airbus Defence & Space has carried out flight testing of its A400M transport on a specially prepared sand runway during certification demonstrations in Woodridge, UK.

The surface is the last of three unprepared landing strips that the company is certifying the aircraft to operate from, and involved aircraft MSN2 performing three weeks of testing in August.
This will now be followed by a final week of tests during which the Atlas will carry a higher payload, the company says.

“The A400M demonstrated excellent performance in taxiing manoeuvres, such as U-turns, and during take-off and landing on the 1,600m [5,250ft] strip,” Airbus says.
Previous testing saw the transport certificated to take off and land on a gravel surface during trials in Ablitas, Spain, while certification from a grass runway took place at Écury-sur-Coole, in France, in October 2015.

To date, 31 aircraft have been delivered, Flight Fleets Analyzer shows, including nine each to the Royal Air Force and French air force.

keesje

25th Jun 2017, 18:11

This year A400M low level training in Wales has started.

https://youtu.be/09l-Wc_33fk

airsound

25th Jun 2017, 21:43

Stunning to see a big aircraft flown tactically

ORAC

13th Feb 2018, 07:12

Exclusive: Europe's A400M army plane may see some features axed (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbus-a400m-exclusive/exclusive-europes-a400m-army-plane-may-see-some-features-axed-idUSKBN1FW1TR)

SINGAPORE/BERLIN (Reuters) - Europe’s new troop transporter may never go into battle with all the promised military capabilities after buyers of the A400M agreed to let Airbus negotiate an opt-out for features deemed too difficult to build.

A document signed last week between Airbus and seven NATO nations, and seen by Reuters, allows the planemaker to negotiate deals with the individual buyers so that some of the complex add-on features can be removed from the official specifications.

The new “declaration of intent” appears to mark the first time the buyers have recognized that not all the features designed to outdo competing U.S. aircraft will be available. The agreement also recognizes that Airbus needs more time to deliver the plane than originally planned and paves the way for negotiations over a new delivery schedule.

In return for these concessions, the planemaker has pledged to provide “all necessary support and resources to the A400M program” after chronic delays and glitches with Europe’s largest defense project, which have pushed it well beyond the original budget of 20 billion euros ($24.5 billion).

The agency representing buyers Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey did not respond to a request for comment. Airbus said it could not comment on confidential negotiations.

It was unclear what complex add-on features - known as “permanent non-compliance” items - could be removed from the plane’s specifications as they were not listed in the document.

A source briefed on the agreement, who asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of the matter, said countries had reasoned that it was better in some cases to accept partial progress towards a specific capability than to press for 100-percent achievement. “This means there will be compromises. Certain capabilities will not be delivered,” the person said......

Under last week’s deal, Airbus has re-committed to bringing new deliveries up to the final operational standard, known as “SOC3,” which includes flights at low level. It must also retrofit earlier planes in two stages by April 2027. Airbus must meanwhile pay or give credit notes for all damages for delays due as of last week, when the agreement was signed: a move that underscores likely fourth-quarter charges......

The agreement calls, however, for an easing of key cash-retention clauses which had allowed buyers to freeze payments to Airbus because of equipment problems. Instead, these will be modified to introduce “suitable incentivization mechanisms”.

KenV

13th Feb 2018, 14:36

What's going on at Airbus that they can't deliver a transport airplane? These military capabilities are nothing new or unique. Indeed other aircraft have been providing these capabilities for nigh on a half century now. What is going on?

sandiego89

13th Feb 2018, 16:03

Hmm, not sure, this article for May 2017 indicated that paratrooper dropping and defensive equipment was still of concern at least in Germany- not sure that has been worked out. Also the French seem to have given up as using them to refuel helos, and ordered more C-130's. Worrisome that it looks like some capabilities will be dropped entirely. Not good. If only the C-17 line could have held out a few more years....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-airbus-a400m-exclusive/exclusive-german-report-raises-concerns-over-a400m-military-readiness-idUSKBN1841NY

ZeBedie

13th Feb 2018, 20:57

Stunning to see a big aircraft flown tactically

From the perspective of an ill-informed civvy, it looks like all it would be achieving is making an easy target of itself - not low enough to properly hide in the hills?

unmanned_droid

13th Feb 2018, 23:34

Quite sprightly for a big girl...and well below the hill tops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQk5a0z_rW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLJymw7Jivo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPij8nIepvM

ORAC

5th Nov 2018, 19:04

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11/05/south-korea-and-spain-seek-deal-to-swap-trainer-jets-for-airlifters/

South Korea and Spain seek deal to swap trainer jets for airlifters

SEOUL — South Korean and Spanish defense officials are to discuss a possible trade of trainer and transport aircraft, according to arms procurement officials and industry sources in the Asian nation. The deal may involve about 50 basic and advanced trainer jets built by Korea Aerospace Industries, or KAI, and four to six Airbus A400M airlifters, they said.

“South Korea and Spain plan to hold a joint defense industry committee in Madrid this month to discuss bilateral issues,” said an official with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The swap deal is not an official agenda item on the table, but the sides are open to discussing it.”

The proposal was made by Spain during the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. last July, as the Spanish Air Force seeks to replace its older trainer fleet of Chilean ENAER T-35C Pillan jets, according to an industry source privy to the potential swap deal.

“Spain ordered 27 A400M transport aircraft from Airbus but has decided not to use 13 of them, so the Spanish defense authorities have got approval from Airbus to sell the surplus products to other countries,” the source said. “Spain wants to sell four to six A400Ms to South Korea, and it buys 34 KT-1 basic trainer aircraft and 20 more T-50 supersonic trainer jets for advanced pilot training if possible.” If the deal is reached, Spain is willing to sell the A400M plane at 15 percent of the per-unit price of some $27 million, he said, adding the total value of the swap deal could be approximately $890 million.

The envisaged deal could be a breakthrough for KAI to sell more of its trainer aircraft after its recent defeat in a U.S. Air Force trainer competition (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/27/reuters-air-force-awards-9b-contract-to-boeing-for-next-training-jet/).

“Any swap deal is delegated to the DAPA and its Spanish counterpart, and we’re waiting on the results,” a KAI spokesman said. Airbus would not discuss the prospect of such a deal.

Industry sources believe the proposed deal could meet the South Korean Air Force’s need of acquiring larger airlifters for longer-range missions. During an Oct. 19 parliamentary inspection of the Air Force, the service revealed a plan to procure four more large transport aircraft in addition to its existing fleet of CN-235 and C-130 planes. “We have a plan to deploy larger transport aircraft to increase our capacity of rapid force deployment, emergency relief, peacekeeping and other operations over long distances,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Lee Wang-keun said in a report to lawmakers.

Preliminary research on the requirements of the larger airlifter acquisition will be conducted between 2019 and 2020 before a request for proposal is issued for full operational capability by 2022, according to Air Force officials.

The A400M Atlas is regarded as a strong candidate for the airlift procurement program, as the C-17 Globemaster III production line run by Boeing is shut down. The A400M can carry 116 fully equipped troops and up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel.

TEEEJ

21st Nov 2018, 12:29

A Royal Air Force (RAF) Atlas delivered a cargo load weighing 23 tonnes by parachute over Salisbury Plain in a record-breaking test of the transport aircraft’s next-generation capabilities. The drops, representing the heaviest overall load ever air-dropped by a UK aircraft, took place as part of trials overseen by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) in partnership with the RAF, the Joint Air Delivery Test and Evaluation Unit and Air Warfare Centre, QinetiQ and Airbus.

XTY_x38Qxuo

From

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKc8rCBhCkF6lWMNnCmMsag

KenV

21st Nov 2018, 17:23

This airdrop appears to show pallets being gravity extracted and their recovery parachutes being released by static line. On C-17 this would be the "Dual Row Airdrop System" which has a capacity of 10,000 lb per pallet and up to 18 pallets or a little over 80 tonnes. For some reason the RAF chose not to train their C-17 crews for this capability which is already paid for and included in their C-17s. The question now is will the RAF fund training for its Atlas crews to do this mission after spending big bucks to develop the capability and (presumably) installing it on their A400s.

Separately, what is the cost of adding this system to A400? Will the RAF fund all their A400s to receive this system? And since a very similar system is already installed and paid for on the RAF's C-17s, will the RAF start training its C-17 crews for this mission?

Trumpet trousers

21st Nov 2018, 18:04

KenV

22nd Nov 2018, 03:21

...where to start Ken....
1. It’s CDS, not DRAS
2. The system is fitted as standard for all A400M ac
3. The UK don’t have a requirement for DRAS, therefore they won’t be dropping it anytime soon, if ever.
.... that’s all for now....
Yeah I kinda thought so. The pallets were square rather than rectangular and smallish and even looked like they may have been made of wood. But they seemed to fill the cargo bay so I thought they were bigger than a CDS bundle. I guess the A400 cargo bay is just smaller than my eye expected. But I understand that RAF C-17 crews aren't trained for CDS either. Will that change?

Stitchbitch

22nd Nov 2018, 06:10

Spanish Eurofighters recently A2A refuelled from an A400M. Nice capability to have...

ancientaviator62

22nd Nov 2018, 07:13

TT,
did they ever resolve the sim para crossing problem ?

BEagle

22nd Nov 2018, 08:10

Stitchbitch wrote: Spanish Eurofighters recently A2A refuelled from an A400M. Nice capability to have...

Years ago I did a capability assessment; 1.5 hours on an AARA 1.0 hr flight time from the tanker base, landing with fuel equivalent to an hour's average flight time indicated that the A400M without CBTs would have an offload capability of only 35% of that of an A330MRTT on the same task. With 2 x CBT it would increase to about 49%.

So not the world's most capable tanker if bought solely for that role. Accept the limitations and use it in a true multi-role manner then it does indeed become a very useful aircraft - assuming that your air force isn't shackled by some monopolistic PFI contractual nonsense...

dragartist

23rd Nov 2018, 16:50

Re #324. The guys from the test 206 Sqn gave a lecture last night at the RAeS. They discussed the ASRA trial and the CDS trial in some detail. Big issues with the CARP and feeding data into the FMS.
At the end of the lecture the head of the RAeS flight test group made some quip at the need for carpenters. I had a chuckle to my self.
I have been following the Bzn twitter feed on this. Some of the comments really are funny.
AA62. No static line pers para, or anything bigger than 1 tons on 48” boards appears to be on the horizon any time soon. The guys appear to be working very hard to deliver a basic capability. Nothing like Airbus were promising before the aircraft was delivered.
Ed Strongman came to Cambridge a good few years back before the aircraft had been handed over. He was so optomistic about what was going to be delivered.

ancientaviator62

24th Nov 2018, 07:19

dragartist,
thanks for the reply. In my time we on the C130K never solved the paras 'kissing' behind the a/c on sim jumps. Did lots of trials on various 'wunder schemes' devised mainly by people who had never seen an op drop. I attended several meetings where the problem seemed to concern the RAF more than the army who generally regarded it as just another hazard associated with the job.
Nice video of the A22 drop.

Trumpet trousers

24th Nov 2018, 13:12

Did lots of trials on various 'wunder schemes' devised mainly by people who had never seen an op drop.
AA62: and therein lies Airbus’ problem - not prepared to listen to SMEs, they would rather try and implement a theoretical/engineering fix and wonder why their customer(s) get a tad angry with them.
Hope you are well, btw.

ancientaviator62

25th Nov 2018, 07:07

TT,
yes I am well thanks.So nothing changes but the date (and a/c type). Sometimes they have to admit that some of these historic problems can never be completely solved and that you need to learn to live with it if you want the complete package. But of course only after all the sensible options have been explored.
Best wishes
Bill

dragartist

25th Nov 2018, 19:25

TT, your #333 is a little disengenuous. Airbus took on a couple of our senior MACR Loadmasters when it was still a paper aeroplane and they were building the mock up at Bremen. Some of these guys had been mentored by AA62. Lots of UK SMEs had an input including the AD and AFE RMs, QinetiQ trials Officers, JADTEU and the HOEU. These folks sat on a number of Working Groups. It certainly appears that the fruits of their labours and all those early morning starts to get to Bremen weeks on end have been wasted.
I do agree with you over the point that Airbus tried to implement many engineering fixes that even defied basic physics.

BEagle

25th Nov 2018, 22:08

dragartist wrote: Airbus took on a couple of our senior MACR Loadmasters when it was still a paper aeroplane and they were building the mock up at Bremen.

You don't say, eh TT....;)

Hope you're keeping well these days?

ancientaviator62

26th Nov 2018, 07:10

dragartist,
I think you will find that TT was one of those ex RAF ALMs. And yes one or two were my ex students.

ksimboy

26th Nov 2018, 08:44

AA62, there are a lot of your ex students around still! hope you are well.

ancientaviator62

26th Nov 2018, 10:20

ksimboy,
greetings. Yes I am well even my hearing is holding up ! Glad to hear that many of my ex students are still with us. I could not have been too hard on them !

ORAC

22nd Jun 2019, 05:45

https://www.janes.com/article/89388/paris-air-show-2019-saudi-arabia-considering-a400m-as-an-132d-fades

Paris Air Show 2019: Saudi Arabia considering A400M as An-132D fades

The Royal Saudi Air Force is currently considering the Airbus Military A400M Atlas medium lift transport aircraft.

Chief Executive Officer of Saudi Arabia Military Industries, Dr Andreas Schwer, told Jane's of the country's interest in the platform to fulfil a need for the transportation of armoured vehicles by the country's military.

“The focus of the Saudi Air Force and other local customers has changed from a 10-tonne payload platform to higher capacity platforms. There's a shift in focus on our side to bigger aviation platforms…but we might shift priority to a bigger model [aircraft]," Schwer said.

Saudi Arabia currently operates the Lockheed Martin C-130H Hercules for transport, with approval for the acquisition of 25 C-130J aircraft given in 2012 by the US Congress. Progress on the acquisition of the C-130J platform has, however, been slow to materialise.

"The C-130 payload is 20 tonnes, and the An-132D is a 10-tonne payload, so you need to acquire a bigger platform. The Air Force is looking to go into the 40-tonne size, and that is why we are in intense discussions with Airbus over the A400M.".......

atakacs

22nd Jun 2019, 06:11

Well the An132, Hercules and A400M are different planes with fairly different capabilities (and price tag). Surprised they are not considering the KC90

ORAC

22nd Jun 2019, 06:49

Same class as the C-130. If they want the larger capacity the, with the C-17 line shut, the only real options are the A-400M, or the Chinese Y-20.

rjtjrt

23rd Jun 2019, 00:04

Same class as the C-130. If they want the larger capacity the, with the C-17 line shut, the only real options are the A-400M, or the Chinese Y-20.
Or Kawasaki C-2.

rattman

23rd Jun 2019, 06:45

boeing/embraer KC-390 is in the same class as the herc, C-2 is same class as the a A-400

exrivofrigido

23rd Jun 2019, 07:36

May I ask a question from a position of complete ignorance? I’m an infantryman of the non-parachuting kind, though have spent plenty of time as cargo in C-130s and C-17s. I’ve always wondered why static line parachutists need to be deployed from parachute doors rather than simply trotting off the ramp. I assume it’s something frightfully involved concerning airflow, but is anyone able to educate me? And why is it more of a problem with the A400 than other types? I haven’t found myself in one yet, but have been slightly baffled as to why we didn’t just continue with the C-130 / C-17 mix, given the availability and proven characteristics of both (then - I know that new C-17s aren’t an option now). Ta!

Asturias56

23rd Jun 2019, 07:45

Asturias56

23rd Jun 2019, 07:47

Or Kawasaki C-2.
and both completely unproven with no world wide support network.............

exrivofrigido

23rd Jun 2019, 08:10

Partly because the UK were supporting AIrbus as an industry - there wasn't much UK content on either a C-130 or C-17

Partly on cost grounds - the C-17's sold to India were over $ 350 million each whereas the "target " price for an A400 is $85 million but are more like $ 120 million each

Interesting. I know C-17s weren’t cheap, but that seems steep. This source (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britain-to-buy-4-leased-c17s-add-a-5th-02506/) suggests ours were in a range up to about $265 per unit. Perhaps the Indian price includes support? Either way slightly eye-watering, but seems as if A400 is now getting into that range, which is somewhat painful given that C-130s are a lot cheaper and we already have C-17s for the big stuff. But then I’m wildly excited by my shiny new A3 rifle (actually made in 1986), so really big shiny things are beyond me! Anyway, about paratroopers and ramps...

Transall

23rd Jun 2019, 09:45

Anyway, about paratroopers and ramps...

Hi,

There are guys with a lot more knowledge than myself here, but I'll start with this.
The goal of static line mass jumps is to put a lot of paratroopers into the boundaries of the DZ. A lot of paratroopers are getting out as fast as possible. That means there is a risk of collisions and being a bit too close the others. If another guy with a deployed 'chute slips below you, you need to walk off his chute ASAP, because his parachute will take all the air and yours will collapse.
It's not uncommon for the guy on top to walk off, drop quite a bit while his 'chute fills wih air again and ends up exactly below the other guy who then loses the air. You really want to end that type of cascade before you get close to the ground.
So, the bit of extra separation from getting out the side doors is welcome.
A friend of mine did a static line jump from the ramp. He said that they provided him with a special extended static line. He was the only one to jump off the ramp on that occasion.
I've seen footage of Special Forces doing static line jumps off the ramp, but these were smaller numbers of jumpers on a single row.

Best regards, T.

rattman

23rd Jun 2019, 09:45

! Anyway, about paratroopers and ramps...

Asked a jump master the same thing a few years ago. You can more out of a doors faster than a ramp was his answer, a mass jump from a ramp could lead to problems/dangers, but a small amount of jumpers from a ramp was easier to configure

dragartist

23rd Jun 2019, 09:49

Exrivo,
some earlier discussion on this back at post 330.
can get more out of the side doors in a shorter time hence greater concentration on DZ.
static line out of the ramp on c130 when following loads (particularly boats)
issue is Vortices. A400M particularly tricky. With bodies drawn back towards the aircraft rather than away from it, in spite of gravity. Hung up static line parachutist would be seriously hurt looking at the dents on the side of the trials aircraft. That’s why they used dummies!
Great publicity in early days of A400M freefall parachuting from the ramp.
Good to see my ex colleagues recently Commented for developing Air Drop capability from A400M. Airbus always assumed it would be easy and the aircraft delivered with basic clearances for parachuting and airdrop. Clearly it is quite challenging nd a long way to go.

exrivofrigido

23rd Jun 2019, 12:20

All very interesting - thank you. As a wise man once told me ‘only a fool would jump out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, but we all know that if it’s painted grey there’s no such thing as a perfectly serviceable aeroplane...’.

Clearly not simple to design or do, and the principle of massing force as quickly as possible on the DZ makes sense. I’ve had frequent discussions with airborne mates over the years about the real utility of massed drops in C21st, especially in the context of any sort of serious opposition, and I remain unconvinced that it’s a serious act of war these days (though of course contexts in which it would certainly be of use) vice, for instance, massing with SH. Either way the vulnerability of the platforms to air defences and the difficulties of ensuring mass on target at the right time - even when we had a lot more platforms - are a significant planning challenge for someone. Not me thankfully! I do wonder, given the evident difficulties with making the A400 suitable for dropping, if Airbus didn’t take it as seriously as other aspects of the design. And given the rather small fleet we’ve purchased and the fact that we seem to be accepting it without too much squealing about the failure to meet Spec, perhaps they had a point - arguably we aren’t really serious about military parachuting beyond very specialised applications.

Interesting debate, and no doubt it will continue. In the meantime, hopefully we won’t be in too much of a hurry to retire the C-130. Still got the Dakota I suppose!

dragartist

23rd Jun 2019, 15:44

I do wonder, given the evident difficulties with making the A400 suitable for dropping, if Airbus didn’t take it as seriously as other aspects of the design. And given the rather small fleet we’ve purchased and the fact that we seem to be accepting it without too much squealing about the failure to meet Spec, perhaps they had a point - arguably we aren’t really serious about military parachuting beyond very specialised applications.
Interesting debate, and no doubt it will continue.
Airbus did take it all quite seriously in the beginning. Every nation had competing needs. There was quite a lot of customer engagement. They even employed a good few knowledgeable staff from those customers. Regular working groups were held in Bremen to discuss things such as the air deflectors, parachute step, the seating, the Loadmasters workstation and the cargo handling system. (Latches and Roller floor) and the parachutists oxygen system. One group had engagement over the use of CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) to try to predict the airflow around the back with those big whirling bananas. The Airbus party line was always it will alright on the night. They were fighting against aircraft weight growth and had to make compromises. Our UK experience developing parachute and airdrop systems for the C130J should have given sufficient warning that this was a more complex issue on the A400M.

exrivofrigido

23rd Jun 2019, 17:48

Airbus did take it all quite seriously in the beginning. Every nation had competing needs. There was quite a lot of customer engagement. They even employed a good few knowledgeable staff from those customers. Regular working groups were held in Bremen to discuss things such as the air deflectors, parachute step, the seating, the Loadmasters workstation and the cargo handling system. (Latches and Roller floor) and the parachutists oxygen system. One group had engagement over the use of CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) to try to predict the airflow around the back with those big whirling bananas. The Airbus party line was always it will alright on the night. They were fighting against aircraft weight growth and had to make compromises. Our UK experience developing parachute and airdrop systems for the C130J should have given sufficient warning that this was a more complex issue on the A400M.

Sounds rather like design by committee, pace ‘The Pentagon Wars’ etc. An old story, especially in aviation, but certainly not restricted to that field of military procurement - just look at the mess of the Army’s Ajax programme. Ah well - lack of paradrop capability in one aircraft type is probably not the greatest challenge facing the country at the moment, but (with feet firmly planted on the sod), I shall continue to follow with interest. Thanks for all patient explanations.

Cornish Jack

23rd Jun 2019, 21:52

Asturias56

24th Jun 2019, 01:26

Dropping people out of aeroplanes is a very niche requirement - it hasn't been a very effective way of inserting infantry since WW2 -

Dropping cargo and supplies is a different matter

matkat

24th Jun 2019, 02:16

Airbus did take it all quite seriously in the beginning. Every nation had competing needs. There was quite a lot of customer engagement. They even employed a good few knowledgeable staff from those customers. Regular working groups were held in Bremen to discuss things such as the air deflectors, parachute step, the seating, the Loadmasters workstation and the cargo handling system. (Latches and Roller floor) and the parachutists oxygen system. One group had engagement over the use of CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) to try to predict the airflow around the back with those big whirling bananas. The Airbus party line was always it will alright on the night. They were fighting against aircraft weight growth and had to make compromises. Our UK experience developing parachute and airdrop systems for the C130J should have given sufficient warning that this was a more complex issue on the A400M.
I worked in Bremen in the reliability and maintainability department I was personally responsible for the mechanical drainage and cargo ramp hydraulic latching and locking systems.

VinRouge

24th Jun 2019, 07:40

I worked in Bremen in the reliability and maintainability department I was personally responsible for the mechanical drainage and cargo ramp hydraulic latching and locking systems.
Good job you weren't involved in cargo compartment temperature control, gearboxes or cruise deck angle.... not sure you would be too popular on here!

melmothtw

24th Jun 2019, 14:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/440739-a400m-flight-testing-progress-18.html#post10500166)
Same class as the C-130. If they want the larger capacity the, with the C-17 line shut, the only real options are the A-400M, or the Chinese Y-20.

Or Kawasaki C-2.

Or Antonov An-70 / 188

ORAC

24th Jun 2019, 20:10

Not, as far as I am aware, in production.

Transall

25th Jun 2019, 22:58

The problem was identified with the trials of dropping from the boom hatch on the Beverley with the freight bay open for freight drops. The dummies were dropped out of the hatch and disappeared!! They were then discovered in the freight bay!! The solution, eventually, was the design and installation of the "elephant's ears" - spoiler plates attached either side of the freight bay to modify the slipstream. Talking to our 'customers' on various exercises, the majority opinion seemed to be that a Beverly boom exit was much the preferred option giving a comfortable ride.

Hello, Cornish Jack.

Like most people, I don't know that much about the Beverley. I gather she was a fascinating creature.
Was that boom hatch that you mentioned something like the hole in the bottom of a Stirling that SOE agents dropped out of?
I did not know such a hatch was present in the Beverley's boom.
I remember one of our guys drew a cartoon about the training jumps out of the bottom of Whitleys. They were not their happiest memories with a real risk of hitting their heads on the trailing edge of the hatch. Maybe the hatch was bigger on the Beverley, or maybe she could fly at slower speeds for the drop.

Best regards, Transall.

ORAC

26th Jun 2019, 07:14

https://www.paradata.org.uk/article/blackburn-beverley-aircraft

”.....In the parachuting role it carried 70 fully equipped parachutists, 30 jumping from an aperture in the Boom and 40 from the double doors either side of the Lower Deck. Aperture and door jumping could not however be done simultaneously......”

Video below, about 20 seconds in, seems to show film shot from the open clamshell doors of the paras dropping from the hatch above....

https://youtu.be/4Es3tXgbhsU

Asturias56

26th Jun 2019, 08:01

Or Antonov An-70 / 188

I believe the UK MoD actually DID look at the AN-70 way back - maybe not totally seriously but they did trawl the pond before settling on getting C-17's from Hertz...............

Transall

26th Jun 2019, 08:55

Video below, about 20 seconds in, seems to show film shot from the open clamshell doors of the paras dropping from the hatch above....

https://youtu.be/4Es3tXgbhsU

Thanks, ORAC.

That certainly looks like it. What a marvelous location to observe parachute jumps from!
The Beverley seems to have been a bit like a flying multi-storey building.:)

Best regards, Transall.

ORAC

26th Jun 2019, 09:08

I’m reminded of the apocryphal story of the Beverly joining the circuit in the USA and being asked “check three greens” and replying “down and welded”.

2 TWU

26th Jun 2019, 09:30

Beverly crossing the Channel, on hand over to French ATC:-

You seem to be followed by 2 objects.
That's Ok, it's our fins

Blossy

26th Jun 2019, 18:46

"Speed matter more than numbers" said the well spoken commentator reassuringly...
I bet todays bean counters would agree!

BEagle

27th Jun 2019, 07:19

Asturias56 wrote: I believe the UK MoD actually DID look at the AN-70 way back - maybe not totally seriously but they did trawl the pond before settling on getting C-17's from Hertz...............

Actually, it was the An124.

As I once wrote: The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were then bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that is still the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role (except for the RAF), but not as a strategic tanker as that is the job of the FSTA, the A330 MRTT – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it is.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was when a Multi Role Tanker Transport rather than a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft was being considered.

So:

C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA became an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA became the 'official' FTA.
A330 MRTT became the FSTA under PFI but not a FTA .
:\

TBM-Legend

27th Jun 2019, 07:31

Or as a wag once told me in Singapore " the Beverley is a great aircraft with an impressive payload/range! 'a load of ping pong balls around the world or a tank to runway holding point'"

treadigraph

27th Jun 2019, 08:47

Wasn't a Beverly, battling a headwind on its way across France, once overtaken by a train?

BEagle

27th Jun 2019, 09:06

treadigraph wrote: Wasn't a Beverley, battling a headwind on its way across France, once overtaken by a train?

Indeed it was - I recall reading about it in a contemporary edition of Air Clues. Did it really only cruise at about 150KIAS at 8000ft?

The late Puddy Catt once told me how he'd been travelling back in the boom of a Bev from somewhere out East. During the cruise, the AQM came up to him and asked "Captain's compliments, sir, but would you like to take tea with him?". Rather curious at this, Puddy accepted and climbed down into the freight area - to find a table and chairs with linen, crockery and all the trimmings. Tea was served in bone china cups and little sandwiches without crusts were offered whilst the Captain and a few other crew members conversed politely. Puddy never discovered whether it was a wind-up to impress a sweaty Hunter pilot, or whether that was their normal standard of travelling.

Cornish Jack

27th Jun 2019, 17:39

Transall - the Bev boom hatch was a pair of 'flaps' in the floor at the rear of the boom they were lifted and folded to each side for dropping. The exit size was sufficient to allow full length body exit rather than the type of 'hole' used in the Stirling, Whitley/Halifax. While the boom door provided a much-liked para exit, it also caused the death of our co-pilot in Aden. The boom Elsans were directly aft of the hatch and we happened to have the only Bev not modded with 'pins' which prevented the toilet doors being opened when the hatch was open. Co's pre-flight needed a check of the tailend boosters.and while he was there, the hatch was opened and... Sad and unnecessary.
Much of the disparagement of the Bev was unfair. The RAF, not unusually, asked for a design spec and then used it operationally in a totally different and inappropriate role. When it was used in its design environment it was unbeatable. We spent 6 weeks on exercise at El Adem. operating at max weights into a sand strip that had to be changed every couple of landings and kept on going. Flogging it long-haul on the transport routes was a bit of a nonsense - particularly pumping transfer oil in the 'dog-kennel' every couple of hours.
Beagle's reported dining event sort of happened but was the result of a load of trestle tables and chairs being returned to the UK. Our AQMs (loady predecessors) had been sent on 'the Butty Course (at Lyneham) and were then allowed to order dry rations instead of lunch boxes. Bev 'catering' consisted of the Q's box of bread knives etc. and a small hot water boiler which could be used for heating soup and tea/coffee making. There were some quite inventive kitchen artists after a while! One, somewhat less so, was the presentation with cold salad of hot Heinz vegetable mayonnaise.
One fact which is rarely mentioned is that it was the first RAF Perf A aircraft.! Sleeve-valve magic, courtesy of quad Centauri!!:ok::ok::ok::ok:
A further trifle from the memory nudge - our oldest and longest serving Q was 'Manny' Mercer. He got married in or about his 60s and was allowed to hold his wedding reception in the freightbay of a parked Bev at Abingdon. A great success, apparently, and appropriate use was made of the para-drop bomb-aimers platform in the nose - a small musical group played for the guests ... the platform was known, colloquially, as 'the bandstand' !

NRU74

27th Jun 2019, 19:04

Wasn't a Beverly, battling a headwind on its way across France, once overtaken by a train?

Once overtook a Noratlas as we flew North over France........but he’d got an engine stopped !
Also, regarding its freight carrying capacity, we took some communications truck to Zambia which weighed c25,000 pounds and Idris to Kano is a fairly long leg.

Transall

28th Jun 2019, 10:22

Thanks, Cornish Jack.

What a sad story about your co-pilot. My sincere condolences.

Best regards, Transall.

ORAC

17th Jul 2019, 14:35

AW&ST:

Germany has become the first Airbus A400M operator to deploy the airlifter overseas in an aerial refuelling role, sending an aircraft to Jordan to support coalition aircraft operating over Iraq and Syria.

ozleckie

18th Jul 2019, 06:24

I flew in Beverley many times on V Bomber dispersal exercises.It was interesting to count the number of passengers who tried to jump over the boom floor hatch on their way to and from the toilets.We had to pass the time somehow!

oldmansquipper

18th Jul 2019, 08:13

Ah yes, the lovely Bev.

as a keen young naive (18) airman straight out of Boy Entrant training I was delighted to to be sent overseas from Waddo on an Ex Sunspot to Luqa supporting the mighty Vulcan in its attempts to reduce the camel population of Libya. As pax I was seated in the boom of a flying block of flats for the trip.

Taking off from Waddo to the west I was surprised at the (lack of) rate of climb as we cleared the far boundary. In fact, we seemed to descend as we slowly passed the Lincoln edge below. Turning North I saw most of the airfield spread out at the same level as me, slowly, but very slowly dropping away. The gentle turn continued and we re-crossed the edge and just north of the Weatsheaf. The turn continued onto a roughly NE heading and with the wings level again and very close in to the WRAF block, I noticed (as you do) that two fire engines and the blood wagon had left their little houses by ATC and were headed across the grass towards the runway. I could just see them over the hangars. Very exciting, someone must be in trouble I guessed!

Our flight continued NE for a little bit, then turned gently again over the four white triangles on 'Q' This was followed very shortly by a view of some grass up close and in danger of becoming personal and an arrival on the runway about half way down. At this point I realised the blood wagon and fire combi was for us.

I later discovered it was due to due to something about an engine going into autofeather just after lift off. We were quite heavy (even for a Bev) and the drop off over the Lincoln Edge helped with our efforts to regain the airfield. With 20/20 hindsight and a bit more knowledge of aviating, I have often wondered why wIth Swinderby just off the nose why we didn't simply land ahead? Perhaps you guys have the answer.

It was fun at the time though!

ORAC

25th Sep 2019, 06:21

Press Release.
The Airbus A400M new generation airlifter has successfully achieved its first helicopter air-to-air refueling contacts with an H225M. Over the course of 4 flights, operated in day conditions over the south of France, the A400M performed 51 dry contacts marking a decisive milestone towards its full capability as a tanker. These tests were performed under the coordination of the French “DGA Essais en vol” flight test centre.

The tests, involving no fuel and performed between 1,000 ft and 10,000 ft at flight speeds as low as 105 knots, confirmed the positive results of previous proximity flights conducted at the beginning of 2019. The next step in the flight test program will involve wet contact operations scheduled to take place before the end of 2019 ahead of final certification in 2021.

The flight test campaign also included the first proximity trials between the A400M and an H160 helicopter requested by the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) in the frame of the feasibility study for the Guépard (future military multirole helicopter for the French armed forces). Tests were performed successfully.

https://youtu.be/FEb_nvR7F38

chevvron

25th Sep 2019, 08:23

Hello, Cornish Jack.

Like most people, I don't know that much about the Beverley. I gather she was a fascinating creature.
Was that boom hatch that you mentioned something like the hole in the bottom of a Stirling that SOE agents dropped out of?
I did not know such a hatch was present in the Beverley's boom.
I remember one of our guys drew a cartoon about the training jumps out of the bottom of Whitleys. They were not their happiest memories with a real risk of hitting their heads on the trailing edge of the hatch. Maybe the hatch was bigger on the Beverley, or maybe she could fly at slower speeds for the drop.

Best regards, Transall.
When I was still an ATC cadet, we were given a ride in a Beverley sitting in the main hold, but some of us decided to climb up into the tail boom. A cadet (not me) noticed an interesting looking handle and operated it; the doors in the floor of the tailboom started to open so he and several other cadets jumped on it to force it closed again!

chevvron

25th Sep 2019, 08:26

Davef68

25th Sep 2019, 13:01

https://youtu.be/FEb_nvR7F38

No co-incdence that appears the same week as:

France receives its first KC-130J tanker

The French air force received its first of two Lockheed Martin KC-130J tankers at Orleans-Bricy air base on 19 September. The remaining example is planned for delivery in 2020, the airframer says.Paris has ordered four new-generation Hercules, including two C-130J-30 transports received in 2017 and 2018. The -30 features a 4.6m (15ft) fuselage stretch, enabling it to carry two more pallets of equipment.France also operates a fleet of five legacy C-130H transports, with an average age of almost 37 years, Cirium fleets data shows.

The KC-130Js will allow the French air force to for the first time refuel its Airbus Helicopters H225M in-flight, extending the range of the twin-engined transport and combat search and rescue rotorcraft.

France and Germany are, meanwhile, working to establish a joint C-130J squadron. For its part, Berlin plans to acquire three C-130J-30s and three KC-130Js, with the first transport aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the Luftwaffe in mid-2021.

Deliveries are scheduled for completion by 2024, with the assets to be operated from Evreux-Fauville air base in France, which is located between Paris and Normandy.The acquisition of KC-130Js by France and Germany is partly the result of difficulties with clearing the Airbus Defence & Space A400M to refuel helicopters; the certification process for which is ongoing.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-france-receives-its-first-kc-130j-tanker-461031

VX275

25th Sep 2019, 17:44

including two C-130J-30 transports received in 2017 and 2018. The -30 features a 4.6m (15ft) fuselage stretch,
No C-130J has been stretched, they were all built as long and short versions.
Indeed, we joked with Lockheed at the time that as the first aircraft off the line were the long versions (Mk 4) the Mk 5 was actually a 'shortened' version.

ORAC

19th Oct 2019, 19:31

https://twitter.com/AirbusDefence/status/1185129393401880577?s=20

TBM-Legend

19th Oct 2019, 22:33

So each paratrooper carries a jerry can of AvTur to refuel helos when they land. That's the A400M helicopter refuelling plan...

ORAC

14th Nov 2019, 05:33

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military-airbus/german-military-refuses-to-take-delivery-of-two-airbus-a400m-planes-idUSKBN1XN157German military refuses to take delivery of two Airbus A400M planes

ORAC

25th Jan 2020, 21:22

https://twitter.com/agueramartin/status/1221019460708028416?s=21

3 bladed beast

26th Jan 2020, 20:09

It's all well and good, but the U.K. A400 is struggling just going A to B and then back. It's MDS is a joke, the retention of engineers is none existent, the experience is decreasing. The project is over spent, is not achieving what it set out for, is not meeting targets, is not at task line levels and is years late on where it should be.

Ken Scott

26th Jan 2020, 20:25

As I understand it even departing A is quite a challenge!

etudiant

26th Jan 2020, 21:12

https://twitter.com/agueramartin/status/1221019460708028416?s=21

The 80 troopers are dispensed over 40 seconds, from an aircraft moving at perhaps 200 mph, about 3 miles/minute, so they will be stretched along a two mile long drop zone. Is that tactically useful any more?

Tea White Zero

26th Jan 2020, 21:34

The 80 troopers are dispensed over 40 seconds, from an aircraft moving at perhaps 200 mph, about 3 miles/minute, so they will be stretched along a two mile long drop zone. Is that tactically useful any more?

The question is still valid and will we ever to a mass para drop in anger anymore (rather than just for justifying para pay on salisbury plain)?

- this vid shows hi alt(ish) freefall with fully steerable 'chutes, so DZ size is not overly valid. Also if you look at the amount of flap its got down, I imaging the IAS is quite low (TAS higher depending upon alt of course).

Good for glossy demo and airshow but agreed not much op use?!?

ancientaviator62

27th Jan 2020, 07:15

I know nothing about the A400M but would be astonished if the a/c was doing 200Kts whilst dropping paras or anything else. I wonder how they have solved the para crossover and collision. problems

Just This Once...

27th Jan 2020, 10:06

AA - 200kts was not mentioned and the video was not sim stick para either - just MFF from the ramp so no idea of the actual TAS or GS.

ancientaviator62

27th Jan 2020, 10:15

etudiant

27th Jan 2020, 11:25

JTO,
Yes, I stand corrected as etudiant mentioned 200 MPH not knots. I assumed he had knowledge ! We dropped at much lower IAS from the C130K when dropping static line para.
We tried everything to stop the troops meeting behind the a/c when sim dropping from the para doors. To little avail. Hence my interest.
IIRC when we dropped HAHO from 35000 ft the 'chutes then in use did not like the relatively high TAS . All a long time ago and memory fades !

The 2 mile spread used assumes a 180 mph aircraft speed, so 90 mph would give a 1 mile drop zone, all very rough numbers to highlight the practical consequences on the ground.
The question is the utility of this exercise.

ancientaviator62

28th Jan 2020, 07:46

Sticking to the scene on the video. Two thing spring to mind. It is not a static line drop and the troops appear to be in 'clean fatigue' ie without the usual kit that an op drop usually burdens the paras with. I agree the larger the sicks the longer the DZ needed. Doing full para, door bundles and wedge from a C Mk 3 took and considerable time.
Still interested if they have cleared the A400M for para door static line drops.

212man

28th Jan 2020, 08:59

ancientaviator62

28th Jan 2020, 09:11

212man,
many thanks for the link. I still wonder how they solved the collision problem !

ExAscoteer2

28th Jan 2020, 16:01

I know nothing about the A400M but would be astonished if the a/c was doing 200Kts whilst dropping paras or anything else.

On Albert ISTR that airdrop occurred with 50% flap selected (limit 180kts). Furthermore the ramp and door limiting speed was 150kts as it was for the para doors and deflectors.

Davef68

28th Jan 2020, 23:42

The question is still valid and will we ever to a mass para drop in anger anymore (rather than just for justifying para pay on salisbury plain)?

Both the French and the Americans have carried out large scale operational drops in the last 20 years. Although they were slightly different from the mass sport drop shown above

ORAC

26th Feb 2022, 06:40

AWST: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/week-defense-feb-24-march-2-2022

Airbus has demonstrated the ability to launch an uncrewed aerial system from an A400M airlifter, a capability that could become a critical component of the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

Flight trials undertaken late last year but announced by the OEM on Feb. 21 saw an Airbus-built Do-DT25 target drone deployed from the cargo bay of the A400M over northern Germany.

The launch system was developed by German companies Geradts and SFL, in conjunction with the German aerospace center DLR, under the German-funded Innovations for FCAS initiative, which is designed to involve nontraditional defense companies in development of the Franco-German-Spanish next-generation fighter……

The air-launched demonstration involved a modified company A400M crewed by German Air Force and Airbus flight-test personnel.

As well as the launch demonstration, Airbus tested Modular Airborne Combat Cloud Services that allowed the drone to transmit data back to the A400M as it descended under a parachute for recovery. Such a data transfer, Airbus says, demonstrates how remote carriers can also be connected to a proposed FCAS combat cloud and provide battlefield information during their missions.

Airbus says it will now continue its validation of the A400M as an airborne launch platform for remote carriers, stating that as many as 40 could be launched from the airlifter’s cargo hold.

Future testing is expected to be integrated into the German Air Force’s Timber Express data link exercises. The company says the approach will bring “remote carriers closer to the fight, providing the numbers for a Future Combat System to overwhelm an opponent in a well-protected environment.”

https://second.wiki/wiki/eads_do-dt_25