A400m
A400m
Maximum payload is 37 tonnes, cargo area has a floor width of 4.00m, minimum height of 3.85m, flat floor length of 17.7m. So whatever green machine the army wants to fit in there should go in OK.
But an MBT? Not as far as I know. But I don't think that it was ever required to as part of the user requirement.
But an MBT? Not as far as I know. But I don't think that it was ever required to as part of the user requirement.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In my Basher
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice if it was a minimum of 4.08m heigh so we could fit Apache in, without stripping the thing completely to bits.
But oh well..........we are the light blue Army not the Green Army(BEagle).
It fits so well in a C17 though (charliesbar)
But oh well..........we are the light blue Army not the Green Army(BEagle).
It fits so well in a C17 though (charliesbar)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of whether or not an airframe can transport an MBT or not is surely missing the point unless you invest in an awful lot of aircraft.
Tanks are used in Sqns of 12 and require a lot of logistical support in the way of ammunition, fuel and support to the crew. It is also considered unwise tactically to employ armour without infantry support, not to mention arty, RE and recovery assets. The reason the Army's heavy equipment goes in by STUFT is due to the sheer volume and tonnage of the supporting infrastructure and the time it takes to develop it.
It is worth remembering that the deployment to the Gulf in 1990/1 began 6 months before the land campaign kicked off. Similarly, when IFOR deployed post Dayton during the winter of 1995/6, it still took the best part of a month to get them into position. When you bear it in mind that we already had thousands of troops in theatre with a functioning APOD and SPOD it does highlight the realities of a modern, joint deployment.
By the way, to all those that think Apache is the answer irrespective of question, their logistical tail requires a similar tonnage of support to tanks.
If we had a government that was prepared to invest in a fleet of 30 to 40 C -17s, or equivalent size airframe, it might be a goer but at our current level of expenditure it all seems largely academic.
Tanks are used in Sqns of 12 and require a lot of logistical support in the way of ammunition, fuel and support to the crew. It is also considered unwise tactically to employ armour without infantry support, not to mention arty, RE and recovery assets. The reason the Army's heavy equipment goes in by STUFT is due to the sheer volume and tonnage of the supporting infrastructure and the time it takes to develop it.
It is worth remembering that the deployment to the Gulf in 1990/1 began 6 months before the land campaign kicked off. Similarly, when IFOR deployed post Dayton during the winter of 1995/6, it still took the best part of a month to get them into position. When you bear it in mind that we already had thousands of troops in theatre with a functioning APOD and SPOD it does highlight the realities of a modern, joint deployment.
By the way, to all those that think Apache is the answer irrespective of question, their logistical tail requires a similar tonnage of support to tanks.
If we had a government that was prepared to invest in a fleet of 30 to 40 C -17s, or equivalent size airframe, it might be a goer but at our current level of expenditure it all seems largely academic.
Flexability is the name of the game, therefore we need an aircraft which can carry different types of load. Tanks and Apaches are sent by STUFT, but we need an aircaft capable of carry people or cargo.
Ammunition supply is an issue nowadays, so that might me a load that needs to be considered. If this is so, then issue will be mass, not size.
Ammunition supply is an issue nowadays, so that might me a load that needs to be considered. If this is so, then issue will be mass, not size.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Since you seem to be the Airbus/MAC mouthpiece of the moment....
You say max payload 37 T, but how much of a payload is envisaged over strat distances of say 2000, 1500 and 1000nm - as rough figures. Cos for sure, HMG/MOD will want it as a 'cheap' stratlifter not a Taclifter. I wonder how that compares to C17, herc (J or K)? Oh, and I assume a 3 person flt-deck comes as standard with armour, DAS and NVGs or are we going to have the same shambles as the J model/C17 endured during intro to service?
Since you seem to be the Airbus/MAC mouthpiece of the moment....
You say max payload 37 T, but how much of a payload is envisaged over strat distances of say 2000, 1500 and 1000nm - as rough figures. Cos for sure, HMG/MOD will want it as a 'cheap' stratlifter not a Taclifter. I wonder how that compares to C17, herc (J or K)? Oh, and I assume a 3 person flt-deck comes as standard with armour, DAS and NVGs or are we going to have the same shambles as the J model/C17 endured during intro to service?
OK Mike - some figures for you:
20 tonnes - 3550 nautical miles
30 tonnes - 2450 nautical miles
Ferry range - 4900 nautical miles.
These figures include fuel reserves for a missed approach, 200nm diversion, 30 minutes hold and 5% contingency.
The planned cockpit will be far more advanced than that of the C130. It will have 2 sidesticks to allow a full view of the 7 full colour large screen interchangeable head-down displays which are designed for wide angle viewing. There will also be provision for an 8th display for an optional 3rd crewmember. Both pilots will have HUDs and all cockpit lighting and instrumenis will be fully NVG compatible. Armour plating can be fitted to the flight crew seats, the ALM's station and surrounding areas; in addition the flight deck can be fitted with armoured glass giving protection to 12.7mm AP rounds. There will be a flexible, modular DASS which will be readily upgradeable; threat warnings may be superimposed on the Navigation and Tactical Display.
Plus it will be able to hum along at M0.68 at 37000ft - or at M0.72 if fuel isn't at a premium.
Suit you, Sir?
20 tonnes - 3550 nautical miles
30 tonnes - 2450 nautical miles
Ferry range - 4900 nautical miles.
These figures include fuel reserves for a missed approach, 200nm diversion, 30 minutes hold and 5% contingency.
The planned cockpit will be far more advanced than that of the C130. It will have 2 sidesticks to allow a full view of the 7 full colour large screen interchangeable head-down displays which are designed for wide angle viewing. There will also be provision for an 8th display for an optional 3rd crewmember. Both pilots will have HUDs and all cockpit lighting and instrumenis will be fully NVG compatible. Armour plating can be fitted to the flight crew seats, the ALM's station and surrounding areas; in addition the flight deck can be fitted with armoured glass giving protection to 12.7mm AP rounds. There will be a flexible, modular DASS which will be readily upgradeable; threat warnings may be superimposed on the Navigation and Tactical Display.
Plus it will be able to hum along at M0.68 at 37000ft - or at M0.72 if fuel isn't at a premium.
Suit you, Sir?
Understand the contractual meanings of 'shall', 'will' and 'should'! It's hardly rocket science to develop such an ac given Airboos' background in CAD/CAM and aerodynamics - what is critically important is end-user input at a formative programme stage. Because once the spec has been firmed up, no amount of 'but what we wanted was...' whinges will cut the mustard with the bean counters!
I remember how it took many years and cost much money to install 2 never-needed lights and switches on the VC10K (and eventually to all VC10s) - because no-one asked the aircrew first! (HF Auto/Man tuning switches if you really want to know. They were installed 'Auto' - but everyone wanted 'Manual'. Hence 'they' spent lots of dosh on 2 little green lights and 2 switches to select HF1 and/or HF2 tuning to 'Auto' or 'Manual'. Can't remember when anyone last selected 'Auto'!)
I remember how it took many years and cost much money to install 2 never-needed lights and switches on the VC10K (and eventually to all VC10s) - because no-one asked the aircrew first! (HF Auto/Man tuning switches if you really want to know. They were installed 'Auto' - but everyone wanted 'Manual'. Hence 'they' spent lots of dosh on 2 little green lights and 2 switches to select HF1 and/or HF2 tuning to 'Auto' or 'Manual'. Can't remember when anyone last selected 'Auto'!)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummm....sounds Gucci! However, I suspect that the customer - ie crews and JO or junior SOs with experience and 'nous' have been asking for 3rd crew member and other 'essentials' for modern warfare ever since the A400 was called FLA............but the SOs and VSOs with no f...ing idea about tactical/modern ac have said "nah, we didn't need those 'toys'when we were on Comets/Britannias/ Hastings, so we don't need it now and look how much it will save" ...............Flocking @rses!
How much do you want to bet?
How much do you want to bet?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and by the way - has anyone thought to put armour around all that nice electric 'heart of the machine' as well as the crew. Their nice pink bodies will be no use if 'the machine that goes ping' now goes 'phut'!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Don't be nosey!
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Brown Bottle
Who's Naive? Dropped a gorgeous new Morgan off in Lanzarote today in me 767. Did I ever tell you we carry nine beautifull hosties as well! Polish your shoes and grow your hair again you slacker - you never know they may promote you one day (Christ!).
Who's Naive? Dropped a gorgeous new Morgan off in Lanzarote today in me 767. Did I ever tell you we carry nine beautifull hosties as well! Polish your shoes and grow your hair again you slacker - you never know they may promote you one day (Christ!).
The flight control system of the A400M is designed to be damage tolerant, using both hydraulic and independant electrical systems for redundancy. Routing of electrical cabling and the use of multiple locations for avionic racks are both designed to reduce vulnerability.
It will also be able to carry several Morgans; regrettably I doubt whether there'll be a user-specified requirement for beautiful young ladies with pert....... Cold shower, please Nurse!
It will also be able to carry several Morgans; regrettably I doubt whether there'll be a user-specified requirement for beautiful young ladies with pert....... Cold shower, please Nurse!
