New RAF Transport
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dragartist,
Did I read correctly that the MSP is not compatible with the A400 and therefore if we want to remain in the platform business, we are going to have to go shopping for the Type V, or is that complete nonsense and completely out of date, the MoD finding some cash down the back of the sofa and the Type V's already purchased and in service
Actually, I ask because am about half way through a series on the glamorous world of pallets, boxes and containers and wanted to end with a look at air despatch. A fascinating subject, reading about dropping millstones in Al Amara in 1916 at the minute, where it all started apparently.
The one on aircraft pallets and containers is here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/1...ts-containers/
Be gentle!
Did I read correctly that the MSP is not compatible with the A400 and therefore if we want to remain in the platform business, we are going to have to go shopping for the Type V, or is that complete nonsense and completely out of date, the MoD finding some cash down the back of the sofa and the Type V's already purchased and in service
Actually, I ask because am about half way through a series on the glamorous world of pallets, boxes and containers and wanted to end with a look at air despatch. A fascinating subject, reading about dropping millstones in Al Amara in 1916 at the minute, where it all started apparently.
The one on aircraft pallets and containers is here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/1...ts-containers/
Be gentle!
Last edited by Think Defence; 5th Dec 2014 at 08:08.
Hi TT - what are you up to these days?
Good to see the results of your work humming around British West Oxfordshire over the last few days!
Good to see the results of your work humming around British West Oxfordshire over the last few days!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, You are absolutely correct about MSP not being compatible with 108" which includes the J.
That said there was a design that goes back to around 2001 to fit extensions. Never got into service. However it did get off the ground as was dropped from a K one time only.
As for Type V - I am not sure what the latest is in the UK these days. We did mess with the Indero Siren GRP over Wood frame filed with foam with extrusions down the sides a bit like Type V. These were 108 x 70 and could be linked. I think this is what is being used on A400M for time being. TT will know for sure.
That said there was a design that goes back to around 2001 to fit extensions. Never got into service. However it did get off the ground as was dropped from a K one time only.
As for Type V - I am not sure what the latest is in the UK these days. We did mess with the Indero Siren GRP over Wood frame filed with foam with extrusions down the sides a bit like Type V. These were 108 x 70 and could be linked. I think this is what is being used on A400M for time being. TT will know for sure.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks dragartist
Had a stab at writing about air despatch with a bit of history
Military Pallets, Boxes and Containers ? Part 7 Air Despatch - Think Defence
There is not a great deal of information about online, I suppose its not as interesting to most as fast jets and shooty stuff
Had a stab at writing about air despatch with a bit of history
Military Pallets, Boxes and Containers ? Part 7 Air Despatch - Think Defence
There is not a great deal of information about online, I suppose its not as interesting to most as fast jets and shooty stuff
Think Defence,
as someone who was involved in airdrop at the coal face for many years I found your article very interesting. Have you looked at the airdrop pics and tales on the 'Global Aviation 60 years of the Lockhed Hercules thread' ?
If not you may find it chimes with your article very well.
as someone who was involved in airdrop at the coal face for many years I found your article very interesting. Have you looked at the airdrop pics and tales on the 'Global Aviation 60 years of the Lockhed Hercules thread' ?
If not you may find it chimes with your article very well.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done TD, Good article. I think this makes you the resident AD expert on PRuNe now! I had a hand in some of the more modern stuff described in your article.
I hope that the A400M becomes capable of doing some of these things quite quickly. As I understand the French have the lead on things stores dropping an the Turks personnel. In the early days MSP was on the list we called Exhibit A. I am not sure how/when it fell off. It was probably about the time they were going through a weight saving exercise and could not / would not beef up the rollers and floor to take the loads over two tracks of roller. Due to the airbags four track roller as used by Type V was not appropriate. The initial rollers proposed would have melted at the weights and extraction speeds associated with what we called reefed mains extraction. the Electronic X locks would never have been certified to the required safety target( again with Reefed mains extraction). UK was the only partner with this requirement.
I hope that the A400M becomes capable of doing some of these things quite quickly. As I understand the French have the lead on things stores dropping an the Turks personnel. In the early days MSP was on the list we called Exhibit A. I am not sure how/when it fell off. It was probably about the time they were going through a weight saving exercise and could not / would not beef up the rollers and floor to take the loads over two tracks of roller. Due to the airbags four track roller as used by Type V was not appropriate. The initial rollers proposed would have melted at the weights and extraction speeds associated with what we called reefed mains extraction. the Electronic X locks would never have been certified to the required safety target( again with Reefed mains extraction). UK was the only partner with this requirement.
Dragartist. The MSP and HSP were quietly dropped from the A400M exhibit A as 108 inch side guidance was always the way to go and the UK platfirms could always be made to fit or new designs built. In the meantime the Type V (Its American so it must be good 
) took hold, after all who wants to drop at low level 500-600ft anymore when you drop from 1200 ft just like the Americans. I think I'm right but the big exam question raised by the MSP verses Type V has never been fully answered. Can you get the same load on a Type V as an MSP ie 105mm plus prime mover and spare ammo? It OK having to use twice as many aircarft to get the same amount of kit on the ground if you're the American armed forces but with the limited number of aircraft available to the UK you need to maximise your loads.
Think Defence.
Interesting article but I think you need to check your CLE container identification and if you are going to show video of SOE drops you might like to mention that the SOE used containers which weren't CLE types even though they look similar.
The Airborne Pannier and harness pack weren't improvised, they were developments of the pre-war supply drop system of which the cruciform harness, as still used today, has changed very little; the material the webbing is made of has changed but that's about it.
) took hold, after all who wants to drop at low level 500-600ft anymore when you drop from 1200 ft just like the Americans. I think I'm right but the big exam question raised by the MSP verses Type V has never been fully answered. Can you get the same load on a Type V as an MSP ie 105mm plus prime mover and spare ammo? It OK having to use twice as many aircarft to get the same amount of kit on the ground if you're the American armed forces but with the limited number of aircraft available to the UK you need to maximise your loads.Think Defence.
Interesting article but I think you need to check your CLE container identification and if you are going to show video of SOE drops you might like to mention that the SOE used containers which weren't CLE types even though they look similar.
The Airborne Pannier and harness pack weren't improvised, they were developments of the pre-war supply drop system of which the cruciform harness, as still used today, has changed very little; the material the webbing is made of has changed but that's about it.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, thanks all for your kind comments. All I have done is hoover up material that is out there to try an produce an interesting article on a subject that very rarely gets a nod yet has a rich British military and industrial history so your freely given input is invaluable, thank you again.
Have updated the post with your feedback, am still a little unclear on a few things; are the images of CVR(T) on a platform the heavy or medium, what SBADS actually looks like and how it is related to MCADS (PRIBAD and PURIBAD)
The one thing I did think was pretty amazing was that Paratechnicon, great name as well!
Ancientaviator, will have a look at that thread, am sure there is some fantastic stuff on there
Have updated the post with your feedback, am still a little unclear on a few things; are the images of CVR(T) on a platform the heavy or medium, what SBADS actually looks like and how it is related to MCADS (PRIBAD and PURIBAD)
The one thing I did think was pretty amazing was that Paratechnicon, great name as well!
Ancientaviator, will have a look at that thread, am sure there is some fantastic stuff on there
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, You are absolutely correct about MSP not being compatible with 108" which includes the J.
That said there was a design that goes back to around 2001 to fit extensions. Never got into service. However it did get off the ground as was dropped from a K one time only.
As for Type V - I am not sure what the latest is in the UK these days. We did mess with the Indero Siren GRP over Wood frame filed with foam with extrusions down the sides a bit like Type V. These were 108 x 70 and could be linked. I think this is what is being used on A400M for time being. TT will know for sure.
That said there was a design that goes back to around 2001 to fit extensions. Never got into service. However it did get off the ground as was dropped from a K one time only.
As for Type V - I am not sure what the latest is in the UK these days. We did mess with the Indero Siren GRP over Wood frame filed with foam with extrusions down the sides a bit like Type V. These were 108 x 70 and could be linked. I think this is what is being used on A400M for time being. TT will know for sure.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the big exam question raised by the MSP verses Type V has never been fully answered. Can you get the same load on a Type V as an MSP ie 105mm plus prime mover and spare ammo?
As for high altitude vs low altitude, the Type V is rated for LAPES. You can't get any lower altitude than that. After that, it all depends on how your extraction vs recovery parachutes are rigged, and not on the platform.
Last edited by KenV; 9th Dec 2014 at 15:11.
Think Defence,
I dropped the Scorpion with the Jaguar petrol engine (very fast and huge fun until the army wanted it back) and I am sure we used the MSP with an overload clearance. When the diesel heavier engine version came into service I think the HSP was used but after my time at JATE. I have lost many of my pics of the era but perhaps dragartist could shed some light on this matter.
Just a sample of what is on the 'Hercules thread I mentioned.'
I dropped the Scorpion with the Jaguar petrol engine (very fast and huge fun until the army wanted it back) and I am sure we used the MSP with an overload clearance. When the diesel heavier engine version came into service I think the HSP was used but after my time at JATE. I have lost many of my pics of the era but perhaps dragartist could shed some light on this matter.
Just a sample of what is on the 'Hercules thread I mentioned.'
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a stupid (or emotionally charged) question, but could the A400 perform the mission below?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...r-mali-mission
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...r-mali-mission
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken V,
What VX alludes too was we could drop a 105 Gun + a truck to tow it around the rough ground and a shed load of ammo all on one MSP. we could get two in a C130K put them down a small hundred yards apart in one pass.
All from around 800 ft AGL using Reefed mains extraction.
Not sure of the payload as I don't have access these days to my books.
I don't believe you could do that with two 24ft type Vs from a J or A400M.
We did a demo of Reefed Mains on a type V from one of your dash 4a equipped kites out of Bragg in 99.
Because we had airbags that were 4ft tall that dropped out form under the MSP after extraction we could stack trucks on top of guns and ammo and still clear the hogs trough and door frame. Type V used stacks of cardboard several feet high to attenuate the same energy on landing. Not having to carry the main chutes on the platform also gave volume for warlike stores. Ammo was tied to the sides and base without need for honeycomb.
In general we could drive vehicles straight off the platform without having to chop away the honeycome or use winches and chains wrapped around wheels. (I said in general not always!)
I would have a stab and say yes you could get it all on a 32 ft type V but you could only get one in a short C130 or A400M.
Re your last. I thought we had agreed that C17 and A400M had different capabilities. Did the French not deploy their A400M to Africa?
Drag
What VX alludes too was we could drop a 105 Gun + a truck to tow it around the rough ground and a shed load of ammo all on one MSP. we could get two in a C130K put them down a small hundred yards apart in one pass.
All from around 800 ft AGL using Reefed mains extraction.
Not sure of the payload as I don't have access these days to my books.
I don't believe you could do that with two 24ft type Vs from a J or A400M.
We did a demo of Reefed Mains on a type V from one of your dash 4a equipped kites out of Bragg in 99.
Because we had airbags that were 4ft tall that dropped out form under the MSP after extraction we could stack trucks on top of guns and ammo and still clear the hogs trough and door frame. Type V used stacks of cardboard several feet high to attenuate the same energy on landing. Not having to carry the main chutes on the platform also gave volume for warlike stores. Ammo was tied to the sides and base without need for honeycomb.
In general we could drive vehicles straight off the platform without having to chop away the honeycome or use winches and chains wrapped around wheels. (I said in general not always!)
I would have a stab and say yes you could get it all on a 32 ft type V but you could only get one in a short C130 or A400M.
Re your last. I thought we had agreed that C17 and A400M had different capabilities. Did the French not deploy their A400M to Africa?
Drag
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the background info on the MSP. I'm totally clueless on that system. Sounds interesting, especially the airbags. Are the airbags inflated before or after extraction? I'm guessing after. I know reefed mains have been used by USAF to extract and recover Type V platforms at low altitude, but that is not MAC's preferred method. I'm not sure why, but I believe it's because of too many bad experiences with the reefed mains combination.
As for the A400 to Africa, A400 has not yet reached operational status so it would seem extremely unlikely to be deployed. And yes, C-17 and A400 are very different with each designed to do different missions. I'm very familiar with the C-17 mission set, but not so with the A400. That's why I'm asking. Would a Mali type mission be in the A400's mission set? Or would that be more of a "strategic" mission with the A400 more optimized for a "tactical" mission? Perhaps another way of saying that is maybe the A400 is intended to be more of a Herc on steroids, rather than a scaled down Globemaster. .
As for the A400 to Africa, A400 has not yet reached operational status so it would seem extremely unlikely to be deployed. And yes, C-17 and A400 are very different with each designed to do different missions. I'm very familiar with the C-17 mission set, but not so with the A400. That's why I'm asking. Would a Mali type mission be in the A400's mission set? Or would that be more of a "strategic" mission with the A400 more optimized for a "tactical" mission? Perhaps another way of saying that is maybe the A400 is intended to be more of a Herc on steroids, rather than a scaled down Globemaster. .
The French first used the A400M in OP SERVAL almost a year ago now.....
French Mali mission gives A400M operational debut - 1/6/2014 - Flight Global
French Mali mission gives A400M operational debut - 1/6/2014 - Flight Global
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, that is truly remarkable. They accept their first A400 in August and then that December they send one to Africa. And with the Fench equivalent of SECDEF aboard! Very impressive.
But this does seem to answer my original question. If the French have operational A400s and it could do the job, why would they bother borrowing UK C-17s and crews to do the Mali mission shown in the link? The simple answer would be that the A400 could not do what the UK C-17s did. The full answer may be more complex and may be as much related to an aircraft and flight and maintenance crews that are not quite ready for prime time yet. But I don't know.
But this does seem to answer my original question. If the French have operational A400s and it could do the job, why would they bother borrowing UK C-17s and crews to do the Mali mission shown in the link? The simple answer would be that the A400 could not do what the UK C-17s did. The full answer may be more complex and may be as much related to an aircraft and flight and maintenance crews that are not quite ready for prime time yet. But I don't know.