A400m
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by vage rot:
the fact that they don't keep European aerospace technology up with the crowd. Once you get behind, you never recover.
What's wrong with a fleet of Hercs and C17s????
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Just out of interest what is the back end going to be like. I was at a meeting last year and was told it would be able to air-drop all the platforms as the C-130K. So does this mean we are keeping the old Skydell system we had on the belfast-C130K?
As a current ALM I don’t really care if there is a crew station for the ALM but it would be nice if the back end was designed with current technology and not the stuff designed in the 1950’s.
Combine all the good things from the C17 and other well designed cargo bays and look at what the future holds and give us a really multi role cargo bay. It’s all well and good having spanking new avionics and faster higher longer but if it can’t carry what the army has and will buy in the future there is not much point. Also it’s not always about amount of weight you can lift it is usually about the amount of weight you can physically fit in. For example the VC-10 can carry the weight of a 4 toner in the rear hold but it cannot physically fit one in. I really hope that the A400 has the cargo bay that we need and not a cost saving exercise which the C-130J has been lumped with.
All spelling mistakes are because I cant spell.
Just out of interest what is the back end going to be like. I was at a meeting last year and was told it would be able to air-drop all the platforms as the C-130K. So does this mean we are keeping the old Skydell system we had on the belfast-C130K?
As a current ALM I don’t really care if there is a crew station for the ALM but it would be nice if the back end was designed with current technology and not the stuff designed in the 1950’s.
Combine all the good things from the C17 and other well designed cargo bays and look at what the future holds and give us a really multi role cargo bay. It’s all well and good having spanking new avionics and faster higher longer but if it can’t carry what the army has and will buy in the future there is not much point. Also it’s not always about amount of weight you can lift it is usually about the amount of weight you can physically fit in. For example the VC-10 can carry the weight of a 4 toner in the rear hold but it cannot physically fit one in. I really hope that the A400 has the cargo bay that we need and not a cost saving exercise which the C-130J has been lumped with.
All spelling mistakes are because I cant spell.
Well, TAC Q....
The cargo floor has retractable side rails and rollers, plus tie -down points. The cargo compartment is wide enough to carry 9 108 x 88 military pallets (7 flat, 2 on the ramp). The rolller and restraint system for these pallets is fully integrated with the cargo floor and can be stowed easily and quickly wihtout needing any power systems to do so. The miltary standard roller system is prepared to facilitate airdrops using parachute extraction, low-level drops using LAPES or ULLA, or simple gravity/manual dispatch.
There is a heavy duty winch system controlled by the ALM and the system is designed for pallets and containers to be loaded/unloaded by a single ALM without any assistance needed from the movers.
The ramp has hydraulically powered toes which are removable when not required as are 3 roller trays to assist palletised loading. Stabiliser struts are incorporated into the basic a/c design.
Options include a 5 tonne rail crane capable of loading/unloading fully-loaded 96" high military pallets. It would be controlled by the ALM using remote control. Roller/restraint kit for civil 125" wide pallets can also be installed using the tie down oints as the supporting structure.
Cargo bay dimensions are min height 3.85m, floor width 4.00m, flat floor length 17.71m, ramp length 5.40m. Gross cargo hold volume is 356 cu m and the max payload is 37 tonne (2.25 g limit) or 31.5 tonne (2.5 g limit).
One of the most impressive features of the C-17 is the consideration given to the back-end users' requirements. I'm sure that lesson won't have been ignored by Airbus Military.........
The cargo floor has retractable side rails and rollers, plus tie -down points. The cargo compartment is wide enough to carry 9 108 x 88 military pallets (7 flat, 2 on the ramp). The rolller and restraint system for these pallets is fully integrated with the cargo floor and can be stowed easily and quickly wihtout needing any power systems to do so. The miltary standard roller system is prepared to facilitate airdrops using parachute extraction, low-level drops using LAPES or ULLA, or simple gravity/manual dispatch.
There is a heavy duty winch system controlled by the ALM and the system is designed for pallets and containers to be loaded/unloaded by a single ALM without any assistance needed from the movers.
The ramp has hydraulically powered toes which are removable when not required as are 3 roller trays to assist palletised loading. Stabiliser struts are incorporated into the basic a/c design.
Options include a 5 tonne rail crane capable of loading/unloading fully-loaded 96" high military pallets. It would be controlled by the ALM using remote control. Roller/restraint kit for civil 125" wide pallets can also be installed using the tie down oints as the supporting structure.
Cargo bay dimensions are min height 3.85m, floor width 4.00m, flat floor length 17.71m, ramp length 5.40m. Gross cargo hold volume is 356 cu m and the max payload is 37 tonne (2.25 g limit) or 31.5 tonne (2.5 g limit).
One of the most impressive features of the C-17 is the consideration given to the back-end users' requirements. I'm sure that lesson won't have been ignored by Airbus Military.........
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the fact that they don't keep European aerospace technology up with the crowd. Once you get behind, you never recover.
just that our bankrupt country hasn't got a national aerospace industry and I don't want my tax paying for development of cr4p to feather the pockets of some chairman or shareholders when an off the shelf solution is available and cheaper and right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vage rot - there is technology transfer between mil and civ aerospace and vice versa. There is more to it than "it's OK - we participate in building A320s".
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mog,
I know there is some transfer of technology. I spent 6 years working with industry and 3 with MoD PE. However, these days the transfer is more civil to military (COTS is the most used term in any military aircraft spec these days)
I'm not saying don't develop it or buy it but just that one has to justify it on better grounds than 'if we don't buy then we won't have an industry left'
Also, the increased cost of operating a diverse fleet must be taken into account. like it or not, if you have a civil derivative then spares are easily found anywhere in the world. Have a specific military type and you are on your own!!
I know there is some transfer of technology. I spent 6 years working with industry and 3 with MoD PE. However, these days the transfer is more civil to military (COTS is the most used term in any military aircraft spec these days)
I'm not saying don't develop it or buy it but just that one has to justify it on better grounds than 'if we don't buy then we won't have an industry left'
Also, the increased cost of operating a diverse fleet must be taken into account. like it or not, if you have a civil derivative then spares are easily found anywhere in the world. Have a specific military type and you are on your own!!
Just as long as your military customer is allowed to use such spares and hasn't been thumb-tied by some engineering idiot from the Bull$hit pavilions....
Ever heard of the TriStar which had a u/s nose tyre in the USA? It could have used one available locally, but instead some numpty insisted on dispatching a Herc all the way from the UK with an RAF-owned tyre......
"Access to the global Airbus support network is available to all A400M customers, through which they may receive operational, technical and engineering support from Airbus Military, its partners and suppliers for the life of the aircraft"
Assuming, of course, that some Wyton w*nk*r doesn't stick his oar in....
Ever heard of the TriStar which had a u/s nose tyre in the USA? It could have used one available locally, but instead some numpty insisted on dispatching a Herc all the way from the UK with an RAF-owned tyre......
"Access to the global Airbus support network is available to all A400M customers, through which they may receive operational, technical and engineering support from Airbus Military, its partners and suppliers for the life of the aircraft"
Assuming, of course, that some Wyton w*nk*r doesn't stick his oar in....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info Beags
Sounds good but will we ask for all the kit to be taken out to save money as we did the J.
You don’t have to be incompetent to work in procurement but it helps.
Sounds good but will we ask for all the kit to be taken out to save money as we did the J.
You don’t have to be incompetent to work in procurement but it helps.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M ALM Input
I would just like to comment on a couple of posts on this forum. Apart from the very capable and experienced mover associated with the C-17 there has been diddly squat input from ALMs current on that aircraft. (I hasten to add, this is because they haven't been asked, not because they don't want to) In my view this is a massive oversight and one which unless corrected could be to the detriment of the A400 programme. The Herc lads involved are good genuine chaps - but they do not have access to, or detailed experience of large, well thought out, ergonomically designed end-user friendly platforms - such as the C-17 of course, (and I don't think anyone out there will put the J in such a bracket) To my knowledge no-one has been approached to fill in this missing knowledge base although one chap has attended a meeting or two. Shame the project team hasn't looked further than the wiltshire airbase and comments such as there is no C-17 tac experience therefore no suitable candidates from there is hogwash. My fear is that some of the mistakes made during the J developmental process will be repeated on the A400M - albeit to a lesser degree, hopefully.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belfast II would be a nice name for the A400m Just to remind Politicians/ Senior officers how useful heavy lift transports are.
retire and aircraft you owned then rent it from a civilian company were any of the RAF Chaps who decided this major share holders in Heavy lift Cargo?
retire and aircraft you owned then rent it from a civilian company were any of the RAF Chaps who decided this major share holders in Heavy lift Cargo?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me a pessimist, but show me a current day success that the UK military has procured from scratch/design stage! Why will this be any different????? OFF THE SHELF!!!!! Tried and tested.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
And how many Loadmasters are on the Project Team then? ZERO! The C17 is such an excellent machine because the Project Team, non-engineers, consisted 95% of Loadmasters. Makes sense really...
The C-17A is indeed an excellent aeroplane - because beyond the basic aeroplane specification requirements, the practical needs of the end-user were taken into account during the design process.
If the RAF's A400M IPT aren't taking experienced ALM 'back end' views into consideration at an early stage in the programme, that would be very regrettable indeed. The lesson was learned when the C-17 was being developed; it remains equally valid for the A400M.
If the RAF's A400M IPT aren't taking experienced ALM 'back end' views into consideration at an early stage in the programme, that would be very regrettable indeed. The lesson was learned when the C-17 was being developed; it remains equally valid for the A400M.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
the A400M IPT are in fact taking ALM views into consideration and have been ever since this aeroplane was first talked about. The ignorance of certain posters on this thread is staggering (you listening Globfan). In fact the back end is being designed by ALMs from all the nations involved and in the RAFs case ALMs, AD, PJIs and movers all have an input. Furthermore, this body of people (known as the Cargo and Aerial Delivery Working Group) work side by side with Airbus in order to get the best possible cargo hold so that it can compete with the C-17 and C-130J. It won't have anywhere near the load carrying capacity of the C-17 or the sheer power and awesome avionics of the J because that would make it too expensive and therefore it will never compete. In fact one could argue that with a combination of Js and 17s why do you need A400m, but that has already been done to death elsewhere on this forum.
In fact, the RAF ALMs take the lead role in many areas during the working groups with airbus because of their expertise with 3 man ops during tactical missions. No other nation has this experience and certainly no ALM on 99Sqn has this experience (unless 99 have been flying outside of the lease conditions). Of course when I mention tactical operations I obviously mean aerial delivery/NVG type missions not your bog standard A-B strat mission that has a punchy load down the back so is therefore classed as a TacAT mission.
I think that the C17 is the RAFs finest asset and look forward to the day when we own one (unless Qinetiq get their hands on it). It does have its weaknessess in areas where the J shines and this powerful combination of airlift capability is going to be impossible to match, even though ALMs from all the nations involved are committed to making the A400M a worthy competitor.
...and another thing, the aim of the working group is to design the cargo hold that is very similar to 2 best cargo holds in the world. Anyone know what they are? Ok, I\'ll give you the C17 but the other is the ECHS (enhanced cargo handling system) of the J model. This system is the daddy of cargo handling systems and is a more modern version of the C17s. I have personnaly used it in the airdrop role and it is truely awesome. I believe the RAF/IPT paid to have this feature removed from the Brit Js, in fact I know it. It was probably the same clown that decided not to buy external tanks for the J. Anyway, the point is, the A400M is going the same way, unfortunately the A400M IPT are already committed to not buying into certain features that you would think are essential for a freighter. ALMs from all the nations are aiming high, believe me, but the w**kers with the money are aiming low and dragging this procurement project to the depths that the J project sank to.
GM
the A400M IPT are in fact taking ALM views into consideration and have been ever since this aeroplane was first talked about. The ignorance of certain posters on this thread is staggering (you listening Globfan). In fact the back end is being designed by ALMs from all the nations involved and in the RAFs case ALMs, AD, PJIs and movers all have an input. Furthermore, this body of people (known as the Cargo and Aerial Delivery Working Group) work side by side with Airbus in order to get the best possible cargo hold so that it can compete with the C-17 and C-130J. It won't have anywhere near the load carrying capacity of the C-17 or the sheer power and awesome avionics of the J because that would make it too expensive and therefore it will never compete. In fact one could argue that with a combination of Js and 17s why do you need A400m, but that has already been done to death elsewhere on this forum.
In fact, the RAF ALMs take the lead role in many areas during the working groups with airbus because of their expertise with 3 man ops during tactical missions. No other nation has this experience and certainly no ALM on 99Sqn has this experience (unless 99 have been flying outside of the lease conditions). Of course when I mention tactical operations I obviously mean aerial delivery/NVG type missions not your bog standard A-B strat mission that has a punchy load down the back so is therefore classed as a TacAT mission.
I think that the C17 is the RAFs finest asset and look forward to the day when we own one (unless Qinetiq get their hands on it). It does have its weaknessess in areas where the J shines and this powerful combination of airlift capability is going to be impossible to match, even though ALMs from all the nations involved are committed to making the A400M a worthy competitor.
...and another thing, the aim of the working group is to design the cargo hold that is very similar to 2 best cargo holds in the world. Anyone know what they are? Ok, I\'ll give you the C17 but the other is the ECHS (enhanced cargo handling system) of the J model. This system is the daddy of cargo handling systems and is a more modern version of the C17s. I have personnaly used it in the airdrop role and it is truely awesome. I believe the RAF/IPT paid to have this feature removed from the Brit Js, in fact I know it. It was probably the same clown that decided not to buy external tanks for the J. Anyway, the point is, the A400M is going the same way, unfortunately the A400M IPT are already committed to not buying into certain features that you would think are essential for a freighter. ALMs from all the nations are aiming high, believe me, but the w**kers with the money are aiming low and dragging this procurement project to the depths that the J project sank to.
GM
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey Good Mickey,
let me get this right,the C130J has the best cargo hold known to Loadmaster except........we dont have it! (fancy cargo handling not J).
And the J has "sheer power" and the C-17 is the finest airlifter known to man.
Now all this may be true but the C-17 came within a whisker of been cancelled for the unheard of "mismanagement and cost overuns and ongoing technical problems" (20 April 2001 Proj on Govt Oversight)
The C130J is a fine aeroplane due in no small part to the work done by the people involved since its procurement(before anyone starts!)
But the C-17 was around $230million a copy(2001) and Lockheed Martin are a bunch of sharks that almost went to the wall. To retrospetively fit a winch/enhanced cargo handling/flir/rwr/sense of humour is so fearsomely expensive it is not politically viable.
Now the A400 should be a fantastic aeroplane but we will not have it until the end of the decade,in the meantime we will have a fudge and less people will be asked to do more, until were doing everything with nothing
Apologies for the rubbish typing ,its been a long day.
let me get this right,the C130J has the best cargo hold known to Loadmaster except........we dont have it! (fancy cargo handling not J).
And the J has "sheer power" and the C-17 is the finest airlifter known to man.
Now all this may be true but the C-17 came within a whisker of been cancelled for the unheard of "mismanagement and cost overuns and ongoing technical problems" (20 April 2001 Proj on Govt Oversight)
The C130J is a fine aeroplane due in no small part to the work done by the people involved since its procurement(before anyone starts!)
But the C-17 was around $230million a copy(2001) and Lockheed Martin are a bunch of sharks that almost went to the wall. To retrospetively fit a winch/enhanced cargo handling/flir/rwr/sense of humour is so fearsomely expensive it is not politically viable.
Now the A400 should be a fantastic aeroplane but we will not have it until the end of the decade,in the meantime we will have a fudge and less people will be asked to do more, until were doing everything with nothing
Apologies for the rubbish typing ,its been a long day.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course when I mention tactical operations I obviously mean aerial delivery/NVG type missions
It was probably the same clown that decided not to buy external tanks for the J
It does have its weaknessess in areas where the J shines
(Edited for correct J pallet numbers...d'oh!)
Last edited by Trumpet_trousers; 30th Nov 2004 at 00:20.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW,
TT has got a point y'know!! Where the f*ck is the K mentioned in the 'debate.' Or has everyone subconsciously assigned it to the scapheap?
TT,
J can carry as many as 8 pallets, sweet f*ck all I know, but its about getting your facts right!
GM
TT has got a point y'know!! Where the f*ck is the K mentioned in the 'debate.' Or has everyone subconsciously assigned it to the scapheap?
TT,
J can carry as many as 8 pallets, sweet f*ck all I know, but its about getting your facts right!
GM
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaten to it,
where on earth did the K get mentioned? My point was contractual/political wrangling about "add ons" after initial contract. If someone would be so kind as to clarify the further/faster/higher argument with no external tanks I would be grateful. It would be funny were it not so true.
This is a debate about A400 which hopefully will not be late and over budget and not the C130J or C-17 which both were.
where on earth did the K get mentioned? My point was contractual/political wrangling about "add ons" after initial contract. If someone would be so kind as to clarify the further/faster/higher argument with no external tanks I would be grateful. It would be funny were it not so true.
This is a debate about A400 which hopefully will not be late and over budget and not the C130J or C-17 which both were.