A400M Flight Testing Progress

[ORAC]

https://www.janes.com/article/89388/...-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]

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

[ORAC]

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]

Originally Posted by ORAC

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]

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

[exrivofrigido]

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]

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

[Asturias56]

Originally Posted by rjtjrt

Or Kawasaki C-2.

and both completely unproven with no world wide support network.............

[exrivofrigido]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

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...d-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]

Originally Posted by exrivofrigido

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]

Originally Posted by exrivofrigido

! 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by exrivofrigido

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]

Originally Posted by dragartist

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]

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.

[Asturias56]

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]

Originally Posted by dragartist

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]

Originally Posted by matkat

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]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC
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