New RAF Transport

[KenV]

Yes, I believe the HMMWVs wide track was designed to match that of the Abrams M1 battle tank and allow the Humvee to drive in it's track footprint over potentially mined/ booby trapped areas. Sensible design thinking really.

Actually, no. The HMMWV has a tire track of around 88 inches. HMMWV was designed to fit on a standard 463L pallet in the 88 inch wide direction. The Abrams has a MUCH wider track, around 109 inches if memory serves. On US roadways anything over 102 inches wide is considered "oversize" and requires special handling/clearances. The US Army's tank transporter (HETS) has a 102 inch width and the Abrams' tracks overhang it significantly. The Abrams' overall width including the track skirts is 144 inches, but the skirts can be removed for transport.

[KenV]

Yes, Mercedes Wolf and Peugeot P4.

Wow, that's interesting. The Germans have literally thousands of Unimog based vehicles and they are only marginally narrower than a HMMWV. The French also have large numbers of Unimogs. I find it odd that the A400 did not give consideration to loading two rows of those vehicles. Looks like yet another example of differing priorities between different militaries.

[KenV]

Probably a really silly question for those in the know...but how do you get the inboard and outboard engines to rotate props in different directions ie. one clockwise, one anti-clockwise? Is it simply a gearing issue?

The engines are all identical and only the props turn in opposite directions. The engines drive the propellers thru a gearbox which reduces the high engine RPMs to the low RPMs needed by the prop. Half the gearboxes include an extra gear to reverse the output RPM. Simple and effective and it enables the various air forces to only stock one engine.

[Heathrow Harry]

Yeah but the Germans don't send much of their Army overseas so they really don't need to worry about air freighting them

[KenV]

Yeah but the Germans don't send much of their Army overseas so they really don't need to worry about air freighting them

True enough. But isn't that the point of the A400, to give the French and Germans a self-deploy capability and thereby making at least SOME of their forces expeditionary? So is the A400 designed to support a sort of "heavy" Special Operations Force as opposed to supporting a true expeditionary ground force?

[BEagle]

OCCAR (The Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d'Armement) agreed the specification for the A400M; the aircraft meets that specification.

[dragartist]

Ken,
I am sorry mate but the idea of two rows of Unimogs would have made the aircraft wider than it was long. It would have looked more of a pig. As stated previously it was made at least 6" wider than the original paper.


Welcome Subeuteo player- I am sure you will not be banned (this week at least!!)


I share VX275 sentiments having worked with him on the early working groups after contract award. unfortunately I am not able to comment on the execution.


I certainly recall the Y guides with integral X locks were to pop up out of the floor on jacks (the term flip over was used) The x locks translate into the VRL all setable from the Loadmaster Workstation dependent upon mass etc.


I don't ever recall any proposal to have a pop up CDS centre guide. It was always to be the CVRS as Capewell supply to the C130 (Inc our J model). like wise the BSA was role fit equipment.


I recall discussion over the robustness of the rollers with the man from Airbus. This was at the time when MSP was still in the Exhibit A contract document. He would not accept that his flimsy lightweight rollers were up to the job. (MSP only used two tracks) Some months later they went into weight reduction mode and threw out so much of the good stuff we really needed.


Someone above also talked of a C130 replacement. I understood this was never the intention and we would have a mixed fleet C130J and A400M. No SF requirement in A400M. I don't know if this remains true.


I don't believe C17 would ever compete with A400M on soft field and turning circle. I remember Ed S showing us some overlays of Brize with unprepared strips marked when he cam to talk to us at Cambridge RAeS a few years back. Ken; C17 and A400M are different altogether. why keep trying to compare them?

[blandy214]

I was told th RAF A/C have a heavier floor to carry Terrier Engineer vehicles.

It does look the biz in those Fighter Control photos ... just one question though ....

I notice the port side 'main' door has the usual flag and RAF 'corporate' logo either side of it (I assume for those 'being in the news with someone famous getting out' moments) - fair enough.... However on the starboard side the flag & logo are on the same places, howeve the (rarely, if ever, used?) door is a meter or 2 further aft so they are in the middle of nowhere so to speak.

Is this deliberate or a result of a handing cock up with the paint schemes?

[Stitchbitch]

A400M Tanker?

From a link on the A330 thread above..

France's 50 Airbus A400M Atlas aircraft also possess a dual tanker/transport capability, being fitted with wing mounted air-to-air refuelling pods.

Do the RAF versions have the same capability?

[BEagle]

Stitchbitch, regrettably the RAF versions do not have an AAR capability. A great pity as otherwise the aircraft would be able to meet all mission requirements at MPA and there would be no need to keep a Voyager down there wasting its time.....

Something to do with the AirTanker contract, I understand.....

[KenV]

I don't believe C17 would ever compete with A400M on soft field and turning circle. I remember Ed S showing us some overlays of Brize with unprepared strips marked when he cam to talk to us at Cambridge RAeS a few years back. Ken; C17 and A400M are different altogether. why keep trying to compare them?

I am not trying to compare them. I stated from the beginning and repeated it a few times that C-17 and A400 are different airplanes designed to solve a different set of problems for different militaries. I know what drove the C-17 dimensions and am simply asking what drove the A400 dimensions. Clearly moving Unimogs was not a priiority for A400. Which is NOT "bad", just different.

The C-17 was sized internally to be able to move nearly any US Army unit and then the wing was sized to be able to move that unit from the US Atlantic coast to Central Europe. That was a basic design point for the C-17. As the C-17 went into service, moving the US Army to Central Europe kind of became a moot point with the collapse of the UUSR. So from P71 on (the 71st production aircraft) C-17 had center wing tanks added for increased range. That came in handy when the US attacked Afghanistan after the WTC attacks on 9-11.

Europe obviously has different forces with different equipment that need to be delivered to different places than the US Army. So clearly a European airlifter would have a different design point. I'm just curious. Given the A400's design specs, what British, German, and/or French units was the A400 designed to move and where to? Of course that presupposes Europe used the same general approach to setting A400 specs. It could very well be that Europe used an entirely different approach. I'm just curious what it is.

[Stitchbitch]

BEagle what a missed opportunity, this addition would have added some spare tanker capacity as well as potentially allowing some 'proper' AAR assets to concentrate on (non MPA) FJ tanking, etc in the future. Presumably our A400Ms will be able to refuel from French/German A400Ms if needed?

[KenV]

regrettably the RAF versions do not have an AAR capability. A great pity as otherwise the aircraft would be able to meet all mission requirements at MPA and there would be no need to keep a Voyager down there wasting its time.....

I hafta wonder about that. Usually, when one needs lots of air transports, one also need lots of air tankers. Having Voyagers frees up the A400 to transport combat units while the Voyagers transport fuel. And the A400 only has 111,300 lbs of fuel capacity, so it would make a mediiocre air tanker at best. MRTT carries 245,000 lbs, so more than twice as much. I think RAF made a wise choice.

[TBM-Legend]

US Marines like their KC-130J's....

[BEagle]

Stitchbitch, the RAF's Atlas will of course be able to receive fuel from the Voyager KC3. But it will not be fitted with either pods, cargo bay tanks or a palletised FRU under current proposals.

[dragartist]

Did the Andover Ferry tanks get put back into storage. they came in handy back in 82!

[Boudreaux Bob]

Europe obviously has different forces with different equipment that need to be delivered to different places than the US Army.

Places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Kosovo, and a few other places I guess. I don't suppose under a NATO agreement that RAF aircraft would ever be moving US Army Units at some time.

The Falklands does seem a unique requirement that the US Army will not stick its nose into any time in the near future.

If the UK Military shrinks anymore.....A Shorts Sky Van would be far more appropriate and cheaper.

[GreenKnight121]

Originally Posted by TBM-Legend

US Marines like their KC-130J's....

The USMC also has more refuel-able combat aircraft than the RAAF, RN, and British Army combined. Many of those are slower than is optimal for jet tankers (CH-53Es & MV-22Bs) and the KC-130R/J are perfect for those.

[ancientaviator62]

dragartist,
those Andover tanks did a great job in the 'parts bin' C130K tanker.
We ran it on for a good few years after Op Corporate both 'down south' and in the UK. No lack of FJ customers as I recall. It really does seem shortsighted not to have at least the capability for the A 400 to be easily converted.

[NutLoose]

those Andover tanks did a great job in the 'parts bin' C130K tanker.

And the Chinook, Did they ever use them in the Andover lol

KenV, thanks for putting me right, I read that info somewhere.