A400 question

[tubby linton]

What wake category is an A400? I heard a Luftwaffe one recently that was using a heavy suffix.

[Spaghetti_Monster]

MTOW 141T. Makes it a “Heavy”. Just.

[tubby linton]

Thanks. I heard it on the radio and thought it might be an A340 , so was surprised to see it sitting on the ramp in KEF.

[Heathrow Harry]

Not just the weight I'd guess - those turboprops must generate quite some turbulence in their own right

[dragartist]

Not just the weight I'd guess - those turboprops must generate quite some turbulence in their own right

Yes, HH so much turbulence it is making parachute and Airdrop difficult! What a waste of money all the computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)effort that was put in to this.

[Octane]

Someone on the "Gaining a Pilots Brevet..." thread told me that on the Hastings (1960's) that when dropping supplies, the 2 inner engines were throttled back to make airdrop easier/ more accurate for the crew down the back...

[ancientaviator62]

The inboards on the Hastings were 'throttled back' when dropping paras and then increased again on the 'troops gone' call. This posed problems for the despatchers manually trying to retrieve the bags ! But at least the paras did not cross behind the a/c.
On the Hercules crossover and collisions was always a problem on side door exits which despite some less than clever schemes was never solved. It was accepted by the army as an occupational hazard. Over the ramp jumping and other airdrops were not a problem.
It sounds as if the A400 has more severe problems. Perhaps someone could enlighten us.

[theloudone]

A400M is proving a very expensive platform, and seems unfit for purpose, the issue with the deployment of para`s is just a long list of issues blighting this aircraft.

[dragartist]

The inboards on the Hastings were 'throttled back' when dropping paras and then increased again on the 'troops gone' call. This posed problems for the despatchers manually trying to retrieve the bags ! But at least the paras did not cross behind the a/c.
On the Hercules crossover and collisions was always a problem on side door exits which despite some less than clever schemes was never solved. It was accepted by the army as an occupational hazard. Over the ramp jumping and other airdrops were not a problem.
It sounds as if the A400 has more severe problems. Perhaps someone could enlighten us.

I am no longer involved in these things but as I understand the first deployments of dummies from the side doors to test a hung up parachutist damaged the fuselage. Same happened on the C130J. Short one was worse for crossover, put down to lack of tanks. Not sure if this has been assessed since tanks had been added.

Over the ramp static line parachutists and boxes were “sucked” forward. Fix was to lower the undercarriage.

Never saw a problem with Freefall but they made a great play when the head of Airbus made the first jump. Just showed that Sir Issac had been right all along.

I always anticipated that the latches for platforms would never be 1x 10^-6 for anything like an MSP or small TypeV platform.

Rumour has it that they have been working towards dropping small vehicles. Probably nothing more than was dropped from Halifax around D day!

I remember being in town when it was announced the C17 was inbound but could not be used tactically. The SF Colonel said. “Paint them white and park them up at Brize Norton” nearly 20 years later money is being spent developing tactical clearances for C17

[Heathrow Harry]

"A400M is proving a very expensive platform, and seems unfit for purpose, the issue with the deployment of para`s is just a long list of issues blighting this aircraft."

regretfully there has hardly been a modern aircraft that hasn't had serious issues - everyone is pushing the envelope harder and harder........

TBF I don't think dropping paratroops is really very relevant in this day and age - it's pretty much restricted to Special Forces

[KenV]

regretfully there has hardly been a modern aircraft that hasn't had serious issues - everyone is pushing the envelope harder and harder........Wait, WHAT? "Pushing the envelope?" REALLY??! This is not rocket science. This is a military transport airplane. Airbus was contracted to design and build a military transport aircraft that would do things other transport aircraft have been doing for more than half a century. C-17 has been doing them for about a quarter century. Sadly, the C-17s that the RAF already own can do all the tactical things the A400 is supposed to do (and more), but the RAF is prohibited from doing them. How does that even remotely make sense?

TBF I don't think dropping paratroops is really very relevant in this day and ageThe big selling point of the A400 was it's TACTICAL capabilities. So yes, very relevant. And the problem is not just with dropping troops. It seems to be struggling to drop equipment/supplies. Airdrop of personnel and equipment is supposed to be the bread and butter of a military airlifter. Clearly Airbus did not think things through when they offered this airplane to the various governments. They appear to have actually thought they could design a basic cargo/passenger transport and then scab on the various tactical capabilities later on. Sadly, a lot of those capabilities need to be designed in from the start, not added on. And now this "add on" strategy is biting them. Hard. Which is kinda sad. The basic airplane is a remarkable bit of engineering.

And why did Airbus go with a turboprop design? The required powerplant needed tremendous development money. Had they gone with CFM-56s in a C-17 style nacelle the money spent to develop the engine, gearbox, props, etc could have gone to designing in the tactical capabilities from the start. And it would have had equal or likely better tactical capabilities than what the turboprops could provide. This seems like a poorly managed program from the get-go.

[pr00ne]

KenV

C-17 had numerous issues in its early days...

[Trumpet_trousers]

Where to start.....
Sadly, the C-17s that the RAF already own can do all the tactical things the A400 is supposed to do (and more.... wrong.
Had they gone with CFM-56s in a C-17 style nacelle the money spent to develop the engine, gearbox, props, etc could have gone to designing in the tactical capabilities from the start. And it would have had equal or likely better tactical capabilities than what the turboprops could provide. This seems like a poorly managed program for the get-go.
....The customer specified/demanded the choice of powerplant.

[KenV]

KenV C-17 had numerous issues in its early days...Indeed. I was there. The program was massively mismanaged by the SPO. DoD told Douglas "40 and no more." But C-17 never had these kind of basic performance issues. And after delivering the first dozen or so, the program stabilized and Douglas got more orders, including even a multi-year contract for 80 aircraft. Unheard of at the time. First flight to the first operational squadron took less than 4 years.

In contrast, Airbus has produced 65 A400s over a span of 8+ years. Yet not only is the program not stabilized, but the aircraft delivered do not have the promised tactical capabilities and apparently will never get some of them.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Yet not only is the program not stabilized, but the aircraft delivered do not have the promised tactical capabilities and apparently will never get some of them.
Wrong..... again...

[KenV]

Where to start.....
.... wrong.

....The customer specified/demanded the choice of powerplant.
Other than a reported CBR 6 capability for the A400, what tactical capabilities does the A400 have that the C-17 does not?

The A400 started out as FIMA (Future International Military Airlifter) and the FIMA group included Lockheed. It was a slightly enlarged C-130/C-160 and intended as a C-130/C-160 replacement. That program went nowhere. Lockheed pulled out and developed the C-130J on their own. The European consortium did not want to compete with the J, so they proposed a bigger airplane that became known as FLA (Future Large Aircraft.) There were multiple versions of FLA and the first iterations had turbofans. But they did not want to appear to be competing with C-17, so the consortium went with a turboprop and proposed that to the various governments. The government "specification/demand" for a turboprop was the FLA consortium's own doing, as the governments specified what the consortium offered. The point being that the turboprop "requirement" locked out C-17. Eventually Airbus took over the FLA consortium and by that time, the turboprops were well established and Airbus, for whatever reason, did not want to switch to turbofans. Speculation was that SNECMA had the political clout to keep the program sold to the governments since they were developing an engine based on the M88 core. But that core was too heavy and not efficient enough, so they had to go with a clean sheet design, which cost even more to develop. But turboprops over turbofans added nothing to performance (indeed in some areas they degrade performance) but they were perceived as effective in locking out C-17.

The thing about the TP400 is that it's the most powerful single-rotation propulsion system ever developed. There are more powerful turboprops, but they all have two contra-rotating prop discs. A400 is in uncharted territory which is proving to be rather problematic and in hindsight may be a bad choice. But that's what happens when politics drive engineering decisions.

[KenV]

Wrong..... again...The A400 production system IS stabilized? And the A400 has all its promised tactical capabilities? What are you smoking?

[Trumpet_trousers]

Remind me again how they solved the crossover problem for side door parachuting on the C-17?

[KenV]

Remind me again how they solved the crossover problem for side door parachuting on the C-17?It took several things working together.

1. Floor angle. To get the required floor angle required a specific airspeed and AOA, which required experimenting with different flap deployment angles till they found the right one.

2. Air deflector angle and deflector hole size and pattern. There was lots of experimentation with different air deflector angles and hole sizes and patterns

3. Longer static line. Initially a 10 foot static line extension was added for C-17 only. This added to logistics complications (the Army owned the parachutes, but USAF owned the C-17 unique extensions), so all parachutes were equipped with a 10-foot longer static line regardless of the aircraft being jumped from.

But C-17 has turbofans so the airflow around the fuselage is very different than A400. C-17 never had the ramp jump problems the A400 is (reportedly) having, and C-17 never had the bundle, CDS, and LVAD airdrop problems the A400 is (reportedly) having. C-17 also has dual-row airdrop, which is unique to C-17 and A400 does not have. Don't know if all the A400 problems are due to the giant props on the A400, but that's the single biggest difference between the two aircraft.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Any changes at the non-aircraft level, other than your point #3?

[dragartist]

TT I have been out of the loop now for a good number of years. You sound in the know.
If it is not a secret could you tell us what the current Airdrop capabilities are? How many CDS containers, what weight of platforms from what height. Splits or Sequential. How many static line parachutists in a split or sequential stick.
I know what the aspirations were but have no idea where we are upto.

Same on the C130J. The baseline requirement was to replicate what we could do on the K. We were no where near when I left. Most we could do was one ton CDS.

Ken, I hear what you say about C17. Problem perhaps is the UK not wishing to invest in US Airdrop kit. Great reluctance over TypeV when we bought a few for C130J. I must admit most of this was politics rather than technical. We had been spoilt with Reefed Mains Extraction techniques. This would never have been safe with the B@P CHS or the Airbus version on A400.
Our attempts to employ our own UK chutes deployed by Static Line, as we had successfully done with PURIBAD rather than use the extractor to pull the mains using the EFTC to trigger. All down to petty internal politics. In my opinion and experience.

[KenV]

Any changes at the non-aircraft level, other than your point #3?No. There were proposals for timing the exit of the troops using some kind of device so troops never jumped from both doors simultaneously, but that was discarded very early in the process. The final solution works very well and C-17s have been used routinely for large mass troop drops both in training and in actual combat.

[Heathrow Harry]

Ken

I'm struggling to think of a major modern programme, military or civil, inteh west that has NOT had major issues in the last 25 years.

Even Mr B can't convert a 767 into a tanker, which most people would think would have been straight vanilla, without massive problems (some of which are still unresolved)

A real problem for all western industries appears to be the engine manufacturers these days - - they all seem to have problems right now

[ancientaviator62]

There were schemes to stagger the exits of the paras from the two para doors of the RAF C130K. The major problem with this I found was the paras desire to get out of the a/c ASAP, to get out of the 'honk box' and get the weight of the kit off their legs. The 'runaway train' that was an operational para drop was always a shock to any observer.
Even if 'staggering' had worked it would have necessitated much longer DZs and if you were dropping wedge and door bundles then the DZ would have needed to have been very long indeed. Couple this with the spread of the paras on the ground and real problems with a swift form up and equipment recovery occur.

[Heathrow Harry]

these days when every kid in the Middle East and Africa has immediate access to his/her own AK-47 mass para drops are likely to be a very bloody operation if carried out in day light

[KenV]

these days when every kid in the Middle East and Africa has immediate access to his/her own AK-47 mass para drops are likely to be a very bloody operation if carried out in day lightActual combat experience proves you wrong. Operation Northern Delay during the Iraq War in 2003 involved the airdrop of about 1000 paratroops into Bashur Airfield. Granted, the DZ had been somewhat secured by Special Forces troops and Kurdish fighters. The airdropped troops secured the airfield which enabled M1 Abrams tanks to be airlifted there. Those forces on the Iraqi northern flank forced Iraq to commit six divisions to protect their flank. Six divisions that could not be used to engage the forces invading from the south. This type of operation is called a Strategic Brigade Airdrop and one of the missions the C-17 was specifically designed to perform. So yeah, mass paratroop drops are still very much relevant.

[Heathrow Harry]

U.S. Army paratroopers seize airfield in northern Iraq | McClatchy Washington Bureau (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24435169.html)

"The drop zone, within an autonomous Kurdish enclave, was considered "permissive," meaning the soldiers didn't expect to be shot at as they descended to earth with enough gear, food and water to survive for several days."

The main reason seems to have been to get a lot of men on the ground in short order without risking a C-17 - certainly not an oppose drop such as Arnhem, Sicily or Normandy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24435169.html#storylink=cpy"

[KenV]

Ken I'm struggling to think of a major modern programme, military or civil, inteh west that has NOT had major issues in the last 25 years.Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.

I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.

[KenV]

The main reason seems to have been to get a lot of men on the ground in short order.That is indeed the whole point of a mass troop drop. So your own statement seems to debunk your earlier claim. As for the failures of mass troop drops in WW2, that's rather the point of "lessons learned." We learned that dropping large numbers of troops into a defended urban/suburban area results in heavy losses. So we don't drop them into such areas any more. But we most certainly do drop them. Paratroops, and mass drops of those troops, remain very much relevant in today's world.

[dragartist]

So C17 can do it.
What about the A400M? The topic of this Fred.
Last time UK deployed was Suez. A plan during Balkan campaign was cancelled after a good bit of planning.

I remember during one planning round when they were seeking huge cuts, oddly enough during the same period the requirements for A400M were being finalised in order to get the contract signed off. Several parties were in favour of cutting Brigade level dropping. The only argument that could be put up by 16AA was over recruitment and retention of soldiers and how important it was to morale for them to have red berets and wings to set them aside from other units. Also to feed the SF.

Several high ranking army types had written to the papers slamming the RAF. The MP for Bridgend was very vocal. (All the chutes were made in his constituency). The “Entitlement to Parachte” paper which drove the requirement was more than halved. It was at a time when a high proportion of our LLPs and reserves were coming up for life ex. In reality the savings in £ were minuscule.

[Heathrow Harry]

Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.

I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.

:):):):):):):)


Ken,ken - most of those are towards the end of the alphabet - you'd seriously hope by the time they got to the "K" version they'd know what they were doing................... I mean - the F-16V......... :p

[sandiego89]

Yes, HH so much turbulence it is making parachute and Airdrop difficult! What a waste of money all the computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)effort that was put in to this.


I believe we need to add the air to air refueling of helicopters. That seems to be one of the original A-400 requirements that may get dropped?


I imagine the prop wash/flow was the main issue for the trailing hoses as well?

[KenV]

Ken,ken - most of those are towards the end of the alphabet - you'd seriously hope by the time they got to the "K" version they'd know what they were doing"Most of those?" Interesting. I listed 30 different aircraft and you focused on the 5 that had a "K" suffix or higher.

And four of those are for F-15s which do NOT follow the usual alphabetical sequence, but denote the country that bought them. So yeah, the Saudi F-15s have an S suffix, but that does not mean they were the 19th derivative version.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by KenV View Post
Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.

I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.

At the risk of intruding in on what appears to be a private handbagging between yourself and HH, Ken, I'd have to take issue with a few of those types that you have listed as not having had major issues.

The F-15SA - What has happened to the Boeing F-15SA? | Combat Aircraft (http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/08/what-has-happened-to-the-boeing-f-15sa/)

KC-767- https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-italy-accepts-first-delayed-kc-767a-tanker-352625/

A330 MRTT - Boom or bust! ? RAAF KC-30 loses boom | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/01/boom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/) (lost a couple of booms, IIRC).

Probably doesn't have much of an impact on your overall point, but, you know, facts.

[KenV]

Probably doesn't have much of an impact on your overall point, but, you know, facts.
Facts? Some more facts:

What happened to F-15SA? They began deliveries in late 2016. The program was formally launched in late 2010. So six years from launch to first delivery. The flight test of the all-new digital fly by wire system took 4 months longer than expected, but I would not call that a "major issue." As is often the case, you don't know what you don't know until testing begins and as so often happens, it took extra testing to thoroughly understand the new system. That's done and deliveries are continuing on schedule.

KC-767? Yeah, it encountered unforeseen wing flutter problems with the wing aerial refueling pods installed. Was that a "major issue"? It depends on how you define it and what it took to resolve it. And yes, wing flutter is a major issue, but no, it didn't take anything extraordinary to resolve it, nor anything extraordinary to test the solution.

A330 MRTT? Yeah, the boom broke off. Was that a "major issue?" I don't know, but apparently not. We don't know the cause of this failure nor if it was a design issue or an operator error. I say "apparently not" a major issue because RAAF accepted all five aircraft they ordered and even operated them in a combat zone supporting combat operations.

[KenV]

I imagine the prop wash/flow was the main issue for the trailing hoses as well?
My understanding is no. The airflow behind the wing is just too energetic for helicopters because of the shear size and weight of the aircraft. C-17 had the same issue and no props. Airbus's proposed solution is to lengthen the hose to put the helos farther behind the wing. I have my doubts this will work as it did not work on the C-17. And a longer hose will almost certainly create entirely new unforeseen problems. But we won't know until they try it and test the results.