RAF seeks improved airdrop system
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DBL,
"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"
I rest my case
Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused
"The Movers I've talked to hate it!"
I rest my case
Perhaps whilst we are on the subject DBL you could give us an account of your experiences working with the -4a as after almost 7 years of working on the J you have me a bit confused
I'll wind my neck in now and remember to not spout forth when I know very little of what I'm talking about...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DBL,
You are quite correct in that the C17 is a very simple system but the -4a is also very simple to use, 4 competent and willing folk can take it from flat floor to full roller in about 10 minutes. The big problem for the J is not the floor but the fact that it invariably has some sort of center seat fit in and removing that for palletised loads is what consumes the time.
You are quite correct in that the C17 is a very simple system but the -4a is also very simple to use, 4 competent and willing folk can take it from flat floor to full roller in about 10 minutes. The big problem for the J is not the floor but the fact that it invariably has some sort of center seat fit in and removing that for palletised loads is what consumes the time.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In a house(with wheels)
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original posts, the MSP maybe old but it works(most of the time). With type V you'd need many more aircraft to deliver the same amount equipment. eg. A MK1 with two MSP's could deliver up qto four TUL Land rovers (Piggy back 90's) or even two 105mm Guns and Two prime movers as well as enough ammunition to start the war.
With type V you get one Vehicle and no side stores.
I say, make an MSP 108" wide and be done with it.
I know QinetQ tried this and gave up in favour of type V.
With type V you get one Vehicle and no side stores.
I say, make an MSP 108" wide and be done with it.
I know QinetQ tried this and gave up in favour of type V.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
current status
Does anyone know if this 2007 project ever got off the ground? did it make the 2009 ISD?
I note a couple of the original posters are still around.
I suspect it became a victim of the cuts and with the demise of the K a capability holiday will have been declared. It would be interesting to see what we get when the A400M comes along.
I note a couple of the original posters are still around.
I suspect it became a victim of the cuts and with the demise of the K a capability holiday will have been declared. It would be interesting to see what we get when the A400M comes along.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to a bloke by the big back door just chucking the stuff out?
Okay some bits might be a bit on the large side (AE's butty box for example) but the driver could put a bit of nose up on to help?
Okay some bits might be a bit on the large side (AE's butty box for example) but the driver could put a bit of nose up on to help?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allow me to add a bit more to the RFI @ #27. It was really prompted by the A400M flight test thread. Airbus appear to be pushing the AD capability of their machine. They talk of some really big loads, far bigger than anything we ever put on an MSP or HSP.
Ancient Aviator spoke of the requirement for a HSP in 82 that never came off. Bythebackdoor spoke of two piggy back TUMs on MSP. We certainly don't have these capabilities on the J. I am not sure the last time an MSP was dropped from a K.
My insider knowledge suggests that Tucs assessment of the DCB is sound.
The 108" MSP from the J was not safe. yes we did drop one from the K. The US Also dropped a Type V with our RME (From a US Civ 130). It was not Q2 who put a stop to it. nor did they favour the Type V. We [Q2 and JATE] did drop a few type Vs from the J but not using the US parachute methods or RME.
Is it classified information as to what systems are to be employed on the A400M?
Ancient Aviator spoke of the requirement for a HSP in 82 that never came off. Bythebackdoor spoke of two piggy back TUMs on MSP. We certainly don't have these capabilities on the J. I am not sure the last time an MSP was dropped from a K.
My insider knowledge suggests that Tucs assessment of the DCB is sound.
The 108" MSP from the J was not safe. yes we did drop one from the K. The US Also dropped a Type V with our RME (From a US Civ 130). It was not Q2 who put a stop to it. nor did they favour the Type V. We [Q2 and JATE] did drop a few type Vs from the J but not using the US parachute methods or RME.
Is it classified information as to what systems are to be employed on the A400M?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: lyneham, wilts, Uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
The simple fact of the matter is the MOD has buried its head in the sand over Ariel Delivery over the last 15 years once the "eye catching" CDS and Para were inservice, the K 1960's tech, with an even older floor solved all the problems with our AD capability. Now with the loss of the K someone's woken up realised were much less capable, and is now going to spend a fortune sorting it out, AD is a very expensive business as all of you who are or were involved would know. What ever system they choose... It won't be cheap. Shame they didn't make the J as capable as the K in AD terms whilst they had 15 years to sort it.... Surprised. ahhh no. And the major difference between the J and the C17 is they started with a concept... The Abrahams tank, built the back end with experienced loadmasters then built a plane around it. If the J had been built in the same way...minus big tank then it to would be as good... Alas it wasn't .
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are absolutely correct Ukcds. AD was never properly funded when the DLO was formed and morphed into DEC holding the purse strings only interested in big ticket items.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't think Skydel 3 on the J would have solved much either. we may have been able to continue with MSP for a few more years. You could never have made a new one cost effectively. I don't believe many in the community understood the true COO/WLC across all LoDs of the MSP either.
A400M is only able to drop the same number of CDS as the long J anyway. Using Type V on the A400M (which I think they are going to do) would provide a FARP capability but that is about it. No wheeled vehicles other than a Quads which can be done on double CDS anyway.
Its good to know we had some of our [UK] top Loadmasters on the A400M cargo handling working group. I am really looking forward to finding out if it does what it says in the brochure.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I don't think Skydel 3 on the J would have solved much either. we may have been able to continue with MSP for a few more years. You could never have made a new one cost effectively. I don't believe many in the community understood the true COO/WLC across all LoDs of the MSP either.
A400M is only able to drop the same number of CDS as the long J anyway. Using Type V on the A400M (which I think they are going to do) would provide a FARP capability but that is about it. No wheeled vehicles other than a Quads which can be done on double CDS anyway.
Its good to know we had some of our [UK] top Loadmasters on the A400M cargo handling working group. I am really looking forward to finding out if it does what it says in the brochure.
dragartist,
according to my logbook the last HSP I dropped was on September 26 1984 ! XV 186 was the a/c operated by JATE. I have a pic somewhere I think. This was after Op Corporate so someone must have decided that the capability was still needed in the light of lessons 'learned'.
I have a vague memory that the only reason one platform survived was that it was 'hidden' away in a corner of the JATE hangar and not scrapped.
I can not recall any being dropped after this date but stand to be corrected.
according to my logbook the last HSP I dropped was on September 26 1984 ! XV 186 was the a/c operated by JATE. I have a pic somewhere I think. This was after Op Corporate so someone must have decided that the capability was still needed in the light of lessons 'learned'.
I have a vague memory that the only reason one platform survived was that it was 'hidden' away in a corner of the JATE hangar and not scrapped.
I can not recall any being dropped after this date but stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HSP was dropped by JATE crew on Ex Purple Star , purely ( I would suggest) to demonstrate to the USAF we could drop heavier platforms than standard MSPs . That I believe was the last time an HSP was dropped.
ksimboy,
thank you for the correction. Can you recall the date ?
thank you for the correction. Can you recall the date ?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure of exact date, but Exercise ran Apr -May 96. I was primarily doing an Ops job( although did manage to fly on one Para sortie). The drop was towards the end of the Ex ,with the JATE crew returning from El Centro, I remember watching platform being rigged in the hangar and I believe the vehicle concerned was a CVRT (or similar) You may know the Nav who would have date etc in his log book.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Ksimboy, There was actually two drops around the same time. One in the US on Purple Star and one South Cerney or perhaps Keevil. both with CVRT. The UK drop may have been a rehursal!
My friends at JATE had been working on some new side frames for the HSP unfortunatly the design had not considered the wash away to handle tip off. A rather expensive modification was proposed. It was shelved as not affordable. The round poles were kicking around for ages being used as rollers to get MSP CoG.
We subsequently tried to bring it back to life around 2004/5 for an updated version of the CVRT that was heavier. Only to find the existing frames were also outside the envolope. HSP may have been on the A400M Exhibit A list. It may be that someone wanted to drop it to justify it being on the list for A400M.
You could not make it up! That was the icing on the cake and consigned one of the reamining two HSPs to the Airborne Museum at Duxford. I hope they look after it as it took the efforts of many Army folks to get it there.
My friends at JATE had been working on some new side frames for the HSP unfortunatly the design had not considered the wash away to handle tip off. A rather expensive modification was proposed. It was shelved as not affordable. The round poles were kicking around for ages being used as rollers to get MSP CoG.
We subsequently tried to bring it back to life around 2004/5 for an updated version of the CVRT that was heavier. Only to find the existing frames were also outside the envolope. HSP may have been on the A400M Exhibit A list. It may be that someone wanted to drop it to justify it being on the list for A400M.
You could not make it up! That was the icing on the cake and consigned one of the reamining two HSPs to the Airborne Museum at Duxford. I hope they look after it as it took the efforts of many Army folks to get it there.
dragartist,
I am sure we dropped the Scorpion CVRT on the MSP initially. or is my memory playing tricks ? All my pics of that have vanished. This would have been as a 'one off ' overweight drop above the normal 18000lbs AUW. As I recall the load on the last HSP I dropped was a grader/roller or similar.
We did go to Pope AFB when I was at JATE to airdrop the 105mm gun with a One Tonne L/R on top and all the operational kit. The load was followed out by six RHA paras who derigged the platform and set up the gun.
This was an attempt to sell the gun to the US. No go, 'not invented here' but the troops did like the One Tonne L/R !
I am sure we dropped the Scorpion CVRT on the MSP initially. or is my memory playing tricks ? All my pics of that have vanished. This would have been as a 'one off ' overweight drop above the normal 18000lbs AUW. As I recall the load on the last HSP I dropped was a grader/roller or similar.
We did go to Pope AFB when I was at JATE to airdrop the 105mm gun with a One Tonne L/R on top and all the operational kit. The load was followed out by six RHA paras who derigged the platform and set up the gun.
This was an attempt to sell the gun to the US. No go, 'not invented here' but the troops did like the One Tonne L/R !
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this load big enough for you? 77040lbs in a single load with plenty of lateral safety margin:
C-17 ARES Airdrop
C-17 ARES Airdrop
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 18th Oct 2013 at 21:32.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great one Uncle Ginsters! The biggest one I ever saw was 35,000 lbs. I don't think the video is on public release yet. Search for X38 for the nearest.
One thing that always troubled me was how the weights were expressed. We were worse than anyone. We had extracted mass, suspended (beneath the parachute) mass and payload. payload was most important to the guys on the battlefield.
the weights quoted above for MSP are totally misleading. probably leaving not enough of your pasties to feed a platoon let alone an army!
One thing that always troubled me was how the weights were expressed. We were worse than anyone. We had extracted mass, suspended (beneath the parachute) mass and payload. payload was most important to the guys on the battlefield.
the weights quoted above for MSP are totally misleading. probably leaving not enough of your pasties to feed a platoon let alone an army!