New European Heavy Lift Helicopter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
New European Heavy Lift Helicopter
The European Heavy Lift Helicopter Program?
As the 2007 Paris Air Show drew to a close, France and Germany confirmed the rumors and signed a joint declaration of intent to set up a heavy-lift helicopter program. The French DGA procurement agency's announcement lists an intended in-service date of around 2020. The new machines would be designed to carry personnel, light armored vehicles, and/or cargo, with good performance under a wide range of conditions including hot weather and high altitudes (both of which reduce helicopter performance due to thinner air).
In terms of future force structure, these helicopters would replace Germany's aging CH-53G Mittlerer Transporthubschrauber, and offer France a heavy-lift helicopter option for its future force that would sit above its planned NH90s and/or AS 532 Cougars. Both countries would rely on the forthcoming Airbus A400M tactical cargo plane and its 35-tonne capacity for larger loads or longer distances.......
It is....likely that the new helicopter's planned capacity is 30,000 pounds. This would be about the capacity planned for the US Marines' new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter under ideal conditions, and rather more than Boeing's new CH-47F Chinook.........
Rumors pick Eurocopter as lead contractor for the eventual program, as a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS corporation. Sikorsky's recent release re: its European strategy, however, says that it is still in discussions with both countries, offering a helicopter that is either based on or uses many technologies from the USA's CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program..........
France and Germany also intend to open this potential project to other European partner nations under the framework of the European Defence Agency (EDA), and to consider other non-EDA partner offers. As one might imagine, the EDA is very enthused about the project.
As the 2007 Paris Air Show drew to a close, France and Germany confirmed the rumors and signed a joint declaration of intent to set up a heavy-lift helicopter program. The French DGA procurement agency's announcement lists an intended in-service date of around 2020. The new machines would be designed to carry personnel, light armored vehicles, and/or cargo, with good performance under a wide range of conditions including hot weather and high altitudes (both of which reduce helicopter performance due to thinner air).
In terms of future force structure, these helicopters would replace Germany's aging CH-53G Mittlerer Transporthubschrauber, and offer France a heavy-lift helicopter option for its future force that would sit above its planned NH90s and/or AS 532 Cougars. Both countries would rely on the forthcoming Airbus A400M tactical cargo plane and its 35-tonne capacity for larger loads or longer distances.......
It is....likely that the new helicopter's planned capacity is 30,000 pounds. This would be about the capacity planned for the US Marines' new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter under ideal conditions, and rather more than Boeing's new CH-47F Chinook.........
Rumors pick Eurocopter as lead contractor for the eventual program, as a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS corporation. Sikorsky's recent release re: its European strategy, however, says that it is still in discussions with both countries, offering a helicopter that is either based on or uses many technologies from the USA's CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program..........
France and Germany also intend to open this potential project to other European partner nations under the framework of the European Defence Agency (EDA), and to consider other non-EDA partner offers. As one might imagine, the EDA is very enthused about the project.
So that'll be 13 years to bring into service a helicopter with about 68% of the lifting capacity of the well-proven Mi 26 'Halo' then.....
The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?
Why??
The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?
Why??
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But even you would aggree that it has/is taking years to get A400M into service, Wiki tells me the project first started in 1982 and it has way less than 68% of the lifting capacity of the C17, which were the comparisons I was alluding to.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
But why compare the A400M to the C-17, when it's intended as primarily a C-130 replacement, with the C-130 incapable of carrying FRES etc?
One's too small, the other's too big and expensive for most people to buy. The US army/AF is going the route of buying the even smaller C-27 at one end, and probably more C-17s at the other for political/pork barrel reasons. The C-130J line is hurting and has no real chance of survival because of it's load constraints. Someone had to build something in the middle.
As I understand it, based on previous threads, the need for the European heavy lift is based on different operating concepts between the US and the Germans. The Germans want a large box fuselage to carry vehicles, the USMC with the 53K want the extra couple of tons it will weigh as available underslung payload. They end up using the same, or similar powertrain parts between the two though.
Concept as defined last year:
Eurocopter’s hopes of producing a new heavy transport helicopter (HTH) with a maximum take-off weight of 36t have been boosted by the release of a joint request for information from the French and German defence minstries. Flight International has meanwhile obtained new information on the proposed three-engine design, which Eurocopter says will be capable of carrying up to 66 combat-equipped troops or a payload of up to 13t – 3,000kg (6,610lb) higher than previously stated.
First details of the HTH concept emerged at the Berlin air show almost two years ago, when Eurocopter also voiced an aspiration to develop the helicopter in collaboration with a US company (Flight International, 18-24 May 2004). The aircraft is intended as a replacement for Germany’s Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion transports.
To be manufactured in Germany, the composite-fuselage HTH has a seven-blade main rotor and fly-by-wire – or fly-by-light – flight controls. The current configuration is an aircraft with cargo box dimensions up to 2.75m (9ft) high, 3.1m wide and 9.1m long, enabling it to carry a variety of ground vehicles, including the German army’s 4,500kg Wiesel 2 scout car and France’s 13,000kg VAB armoured vehicle. Eurocopter expects the new design to have a service life of more than 30 years, or 15,000 flight hours, and to have a mission reliability rate of 97.5%. Company material indicates an estimated production run of up to 200 aircraft.
One's too small, the other's too big and expensive for most people to buy. The US army/AF is going the route of buying the even smaller C-27 at one end, and probably more C-17s at the other for political/pork barrel reasons. The C-130J line is hurting and has no real chance of survival because of it's load constraints. Someone had to build something in the middle.
As I understand it, based on previous threads, the need for the European heavy lift is based on different operating concepts between the US and the Germans. The Germans want a large box fuselage to carry vehicles, the USMC with the 53K want the extra couple of tons it will weigh as available underslung payload. They end up using the same, or similar powertrain parts between the two though.
Concept as defined last year:
Eurocopter’s hopes of producing a new heavy transport helicopter (HTH) with a maximum take-off weight of 36t have been boosted by the release of a joint request for information from the French and German defence minstries. Flight International has meanwhile obtained new information on the proposed three-engine design, which Eurocopter says will be capable of carrying up to 66 combat-equipped troops or a payload of up to 13t – 3,000kg (6,610lb) higher than previously stated.
First details of the HTH concept emerged at the Berlin air show almost two years ago, when Eurocopter also voiced an aspiration to develop the helicopter in collaboration with a US company (Flight International, 18-24 May 2004). The aircraft is intended as a replacement for Germany’s Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion transports.
To be manufactured in Germany, the composite-fuselage HTH has a seven-blade main rotor and fly-by-wire – or fly-by-light – flight controls. The current configuration is an aircraft with cargo box dimensions up to 2.75m (9ft) high, 3.1m wide and 9.1m long, enabling it to carry a variety of ground vehicles, including the German army’s 4,500kg Wiesel 2 scout car and France’s 13,000kg VAB armoured vehicle. Eurocopter expects the new design to have a service life of more than 30 years, or 15,000 flight hours, and to have a mission reliability rate of 97.5%. Company material indicates an estimated production run of up to 200 aircraft.
The A400M programme was primarily delayed by the sloth of certain launch customers to agree to their order numbers. Once the go ahead was finally given, the program development proceded without any show stoppers.
C-17A is an excellent aircraft, I agree. But more expensive than the A400M, which will have about 71% of the lift capacity at a more affordable price. Or at least that was the plan!
Whereas I cannot believe that the Eurochopper will cost less than the Mi 26.....
German heavy helicopter cargo box requirement compared to Mi 26:
Length: 9.1 m (12 m)
Width: 3.1 m(3.3 m)
Height: 2.75 m(2.9 - 3.2 m)
C-17A is an excellent aircraft, I agree. But more expensive than the A400M, which will have about 71% of the lift capacity at a more affordable price. Or at least that was the plan!
Whereas I cannot believe that the Eurochopper will cost less than the Mi 26.....
German heavy helicopter cargo box requirement compared to Mi 26:
Length: 9.1 m (12 m)
Width: 3.1 m(3.3 m)
Height: 2.75 m(2.9 - 3.2 m)
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Jun 2007 at 16:42.
Nope, the overall Euroflag requirement emerged in May 1991..... My maths makes that 16 years ago.
Whereas the C-17's 'C-X' programme started in 1979, or 1972 if you include the YC-15 ancestry from the AMST programme.
Whereas the C-17's 'C-X' programme started in 1979, or 1972 if you include the YC-15 ancestry from the AMST programme.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The project began as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, set up in 1982 by Aerospatiale, British Aerospace, Lockheed, and MBB to develop a replacement for the C-130 Hercules and C-160 Transall. Varying requirements and the complications of international politics caused slow progress. In 1989 Lockheed left the grouping and went on to develop a second generation Hercules, the C-130J. With the addition of Alenia and CASA the FIMA group became Euroflag."
But not quite as long as the 13 years mentioned by you for the new helicopter?
As regards 71% of the lift capacity of a C17 Wiki tells me A400 will have a max frt wt of 82,000lbs or 37 tons whilst C17 has a max frt wt of 170,900lbs or 77.5 tons. Now I am more than happy to be corrected on these facts but as they stand your 71% does not look quite right to me
But not quite as long as the 13 years mentioned by you for the new helicopter?
As regards 71% of the lift capacity of a C17 Wiki tells me A400 will have a max frt wt of 82,000lbs or 37 tons whilst C17 has a max frt wt of 170,900lbs or 77.5 tons. Now I am more than happy to be corrected on these facts but as they stand your 71% does not look quite right to me
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Boeing - C-17 Overview: Maximum Payload: 164,900 lbs (74,797 kgs)
Airbus - A400M: Maximum Payload: 37 t (37,000 kgs)
Airbus - A400M: Maximum Payload: 37 t (37,000 kgs)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Come on chap stay on topic, you're original rant which it would appear I had the temerity to question was
" So that'll be 13 years to bring into service a helicopter with about 68% of the lifting capacity of the well-proven Mi 26 'Halo' then.....
The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?
Why??
To which I alluded that comparisons could be drawn with the A400M prog which, if you take it back to it's FLA roots will have taken well over 25 years to come to fruition and only has, thank you for the maths GK, 49.467% of the lift capability of the C17.
Now you wish to introduce payload and range into the equation
Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds (265,352 kilograms). With a payload of 169,000 pounds (76,657 kilograms) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet (8,534 meters), , the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,400 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.76 Mach).
For the A400M
Come on chap stay on topic, you're original rant which it would appear I had the temerity to question was
" So that'll be 13 years to bring into service a helicopter with about 68% of the lifting capacity of the well-proven Mi 26 'Halo' then.....
The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?
Why??
To which I alluded that comparisons could be drawn with the A400M prog which, if you take it back to it's FLA roots will have taken well over 25 years to come to fruition and only has, thank you for the maths GK, 49.467% of the lift capability of the C17.
Now you wish to introduce payload and range into the equation
Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds (265,352 kilograms). With a payload of 169,000 pounds (76,657 kilograms) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet (8,534 meters), , the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,400 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.76 Mach).
For the A400M
- Maximum speed: 780 km/h (421 kt)
- Cruise speed: Mach 0.68 - 0.72 ()
- Max. Operating Speed: 300 kt CAS (560 km/h, 350 mph)
- Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft))
- Range: at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
Put simply, the C-17 was considered too big and too expensive to be a candidate for the FLA programme.
The RAF later leased it as the STSA, pending ultimate delivery of a larger number of A400M aircraft. Which do not have the same ultimate capability as the C-17A, but will be acquired in substantially larger numbers.
The STSA was a prudent move, given Bliar's susbequent interventionist policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The payload range characteristics of the A400M have been agreed to a European requirement which did not exist '25 years ago'. You may as well bring HS681 into the discussion, if you insist on bringing ancient history into the issue.
I well recall my first experience in looking at the potential of 'Solution 10' of the 'FLA' in 1994 (for DFS as it then was) as a tanker. The design was far from frozen then; indeed, it has only been frozen in the last few years. Since then, the programme has proceded without major issues.
Back to the Euroheavychopper, the Mi 26 would be unlikely to be more expensive. Of course, had C-17A been offered for sale at a price less than that of the A400M, it would have been rather daft to continue with the programme.
I don't see the need for Euroheavychopper; whereas the A400M is to be less expensive than the ('too big, too expensive') ultimately more capable C-17, I cannot see that being true for the Euroheavychopper.
The RAF later leased it as the STSA, pending ultimate delivery of a larger number of A400M aircraft. Which do not have the same ultimate capability as the C-17A, but will be acquired in substantially larger numbers.
The STSA was a prudent move, given Bliar's susbequent interventionist policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The payload range characteristics of the A400M have been agreed to a European requirement which did not exist '25 years ago'. You may as well bring HS681 into the discussion, if you insist on bringing ancient history into the issue.
I well recall my first experience in looking at the potential of 'Solution 10' of the 'FLA' in 1994 (for DFS as it then was) as a tanker. The design was far from frozen then; indeed, it has only been frozen in the last few years. Since then, the programme has proceded without major issues.
Back to the Euroheavychopper, the Mi 26 would be unlikely to be more expensive. Of course, had C-17A been offered for sale at a price less than that of the A400M, it would have been rather daft to continue with the programme.
I don't see the need for Euroheavychopper; whereas the A400M is to be less expensive than the ('too big, too expensive') ultimately more capable C-17, I cannot see that being true for the Euroheavychopper.