A fresh A400M woe....or is it a French AF woe?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that the A400 has a cross under problem for parachutists exiting the side doors. But I would think that could be easily resolved based on the fact that the C-17 had the same problem. The C-17 solved it with the right combination of airspeed, deck angle, flap setting, and air deflector angle. On the other hand, the A400's props may create a very different airflow around the A400 compared to the C-17's turbofans which may require more extreme measures to resolve. What have you heard concerning the A400's paratroop problem?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...
Cross over can be controlled by correct adherance to exit cadance, one of the jobs of the PJI despatchers. However, it is easy for this cadance control to breakdown, especially with long sticks. Two solutions are to reduce the drop speed (for some reason this is unpopular) or to stagger the paradoors, one exit at the rear, one at the forward end (you just need to avoid the inboard engine as you exit).
The A400 isn't unique in suffering these problems I remember a similar discussion when the J model Herc arrived that solved the cadance problem with two interlinked turnstiles in the paradoors (it had the added benefit of releasing the seats used by the PJI to additonal paratroops. Still think it would have worked.
The A400 isn't unique in suffering these problems I remember a similar discussion when the J model Herc arrived that solved the cadance problem with two interlinked turnstiles in the paradoors (it had the added benefit of releasing the seats used by the PJI to additonal paratroops. Still think it would have worked.
Funny, there's a hot rumour doing the rounds that the 400s are being returned to Airbus with a 'thanks, but no thanks' as they simply cannot fulfil their expected roles, particularly the para role...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controlling cadence was not an option on the C-17. USAF demanded that troop exit be safe independent of cadence. Another solution successfully used on the C-17 was a 10 ft static line extension. At first this resulted in a pissing contest between USAF and US Army. The Army owned the parachutes and wanted them to all be identical independent of the aircraft they were jumping out of, so they wanted USAF to own (and pay for) the extensions which were only required for the C-17. USAF refused. The solution was for everyone's parachute static lines to be permanently 10 ft longer, with USAF paying for the mod. I would think this solution would work for A400 also. But if that is the chosen solution, Airbus might be on the hook to pay for the extensions. These things get complicated and nasty pretty fast.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently even les grenouilles are less than happy/impressed with the Belfast replacement as well....
As for the safety and effectiveness of troops relying on cadence, that's fine in carefully orchestrated peacetime manoeuvres, but less so in actual combat I suggest..
As for the safety and effectiveness of troops relying on cadence, that's fine in carefully orchestrated peacetime manoeuvres, but less so in actual combat I suggest..
In combat any casualties due to collisions will be just that casualties. Likewise any combat hang-ups wouldn't be treated to HUPRA or a recovery winch, just bolt crop the anchor cable to clear the hang-up, shut the door and make for home.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In combat any casualties due to collisions will be just that casualties.
1. Is accepting preventable casualties during combat really acceptable? Past history would suggest not.
2. If one exercises like one fights, then these casualties will be present during exercises. Is that acceptable? Past history would suggest not.
VX275,
I am intrigued by your comment about turnstiles on the para doors on the 'J'. Can you add a little more information ?. I did 30 years on the 'K' and para crossover was a problem that was never solved. In theory staggering the exits would seem to be the correct solution but in the real world of the organised mayhem that is an operational para drop it des not work. Once the 'train ' starts it is very difficult to control as the paras only ambition is to get out of the 'honk box' and to get the weight off his legs. Any form of staggering slows up the rate of exit from the a/c so you need bigger DZs especially with door bundles and Wedge At the conferences I attended I always got the impression that it concerned the RAF far more than the army who regarded it as a reasonable risk taken as an overall part of para ops.
I am intrigued by your comment about turnstiles on the para doors on the 'J'. Can you add a little more information ?. I did 30 years on the 'K' and para crossover was a problem that was never solved. In theory staggering the exits would seem to be the correct solution but in the real world of the organised mayhem that is an operational para drop it des not work. Once the 'train ' starts it is very difficult to control as the paras only ambition is to get out of the 'honk box' and to get the weight off his legs. Any form of staggering slows up the rate of exit from the a/c so you need bigger DZs especially with door bundles and Wedge At the conferences I attended I always got the impression that it concerned the RAF far more than the army who regarded it as a reasonable risk taken as an overall part of para ops.
The turnstile idea was nothing more than a tea bar discussion in the Aerial Delivery Section at A&AEE. Although every time crossover came up we would look at each other and say "We should have built the turnstile".
Staggering the paradoors doesn't need to be as severe as one at the front, one at the back such as the Horsa, the C-46 and the Hastings had exits staggered by only a few frames and crossover was less of a problem, mind you the lower drop speeds also helped.
Staggering the paradoors doesn't need to be as severe as one at the front, one at the back such as the Horsa, the C-46 and the Hastings had exits staggered by only a few frames and crossover was less of a problem, mind you the lower drop speeds also helped.
VX,
thanks for the clarification. On the Hastings the para doors were indeed staggered with the starboard door being further forward. As I understood it this for for structural reasons and any para benefit was a bonus. We used to drop below safety speed with the inboards throttled back and as soon as 'Troops gone' was called the inboards were banged up making manual bag retrieval a very physical job.
Sorry about the thread drift but it does show that the A400M problem is not unique and there are no easy solutions.
thanks for the clarification. On the Hastings the para doors were indeed staggered with the starboard door being further forward. As I understood it this for for structural reasons and any para benefit was a bonus. We used to drop below safety speed with the inboards throttled back and as soon as 'Troops gone' was called the inboards were banged up making manual bag retrieval a very physical job.
Sorry about the thread drift but it does show that the A400M problem is not unique and there are no easy solutions.
A400 DOUBTS
I believe that the MOD Air Staff AT branch were not too enamoured by the A400M as far back as 1996, when it was to be a tanker, strategic and tactical transport. Could it be that they were right all along?! Surely not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France orders KC-130J for helicopter refueling
It's beginning to look official, France has given up on trying to use the A400M for helicopter refueling, even though that is a contract requirement. Interestingly, they also bought two non-tanker C-130Js. Since the A400 was optimized for tactical aerial delivery, why do they need C-130Js to do the same thing?
France Orders New C-130s From U.S. Air Force
PARIS – French defense procurement agency DGA has
ordered four new Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules
airlifters from the U.S. Air Force in an effort to make
up for capabilities shortfalls and delayed deliveries of
the Airbus A400M.
Signed on Jan. 29, the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) agreement
calls for two of the four aircraft to be sold to the French air force
in the KC-130J configuration, which is capable of inflight refueling
of aircraft and helicopters. The latter, a requirement stipulated
in the Airbus A400M contract, is one that company officials have
said may never be met.
In a Feb. 1 announcement, DGA said French Defense Minister
Jean-Yves Le Drian approved the purchase last Dec. 15, after a midyear
update of the nation’s multi-year defense budget that included
an increase of €330 million ($357 million) to pay for the new aircraft.
As a key measure in the budget increase, the C-130J purchase
was concluded in a very short time, DGA said. France had also
considered buying modernized secondhand C-130 aircraft.
Under the terms of the agreement, the first two C-130Js will
be delivered in late 2017 and early 2018, respectively, while the
two KC-130J refuelers will be delivered in 2019.
DGA said the aircraft will strengthen the middle segment of
France’s tactical transport fleet, which currently comprises C-160
Transall and C-130H Hercules airlifters, with the latter undergoing
a midlife upgrade.
“These aircraft are in particularly high demand now and are
facing challenges given the difficult environmental conditions
in which they operate,” DGA said in the statement, referring to
French operations in Africa and the Middle East.
In November, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
which manages FMS sales, said the cost of major defense equipment
under the agreement is valued at $355 million, though the
total value – including items such as electronic countermeasures
and missile warning systems and other non-defense equipment –
is $650 million.
France Orders New C-130s From U.S. Air Force
PARIS – French defense procurement agency DGA has
ordered four new Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules
airlifters from the U.S. Air Force in an effort to make
up for capabilities shortfalls and delayed deliveries of
the Airbus A400M.
Signed on Jan. 29, the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) agreement
calls for two of the four aircraft to be sold to the French air force
in the KC-130J configuration, which is capable of inflight refueling
of aircraft and helicopters. The latter, a requirement stipulated
in the Airbus A400M contract, is one that company officials have
said may never be met.
In a Feb. 1 announcement, DGA said French Defense Minister
Jean-Yves Le Drian approved the purchase last Dec. 15, after a midyear
update of the nation’s multi-year defense budget that included
an increase of €330 million ($357 million) to pay for the new aircraft.
As a key measure in the budget increase, the C-130J purchase
was concluded in a very short time, DGA said. France had also
considered buying modernized secondhand C-130 aircraft.
Under the terms of the agreement, the first two C-130Js will
be delivered in late 2017 and early 2018, respectively, while the
two KC-130J refuelers will be delivered in 2019.
DGA said the aircraft will strengthen the middle segment of
France’s tactical transport fleet, which currently comprises C-160
Transall and C-130H Hercules airlifters, with the latter undergoing
a midlife upgrade.
“These aircraft are in particularly high demand now and are
facing challenges given the difficult environmental conditions
in which they operate,” DGA said in the statement, referring to
French operations in Africa and the Middle East.
In November, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
which manages FMS sales, said the cost of major defense equipment
under the agreement is valued at $355 million, though the
total value – including items such as electronic countermeasures
and missile warning systems and other non-defense equipment –
is $650 million.
Signs of Progress
24m hose replaced by 36.5m one...
From Flight Global:-
French aerospace laboratory details A400M refuelling tests
From Flight Global:-
French aerospace laboratory details A400M refuelling tests
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the linked article:
Wait, what? "Deploy the spoilers to achieve the low speeds required...." Certainly this is an error. Could the author have meant "deploy the flaps?"
Earlier flight tests had demonstrated that the intended 24m (80ft) hose was unstable due to the vortices generated by the need to deploy the A400M’s spoilers to achieve the low speeds required of around 108-130kt (200-240km/h), Onera says.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd think they do both: spoilers for aerobraking and flaps for maximum lift. Certainly the spoilers would create extremely turbulent airflow in their wake (their main function is to mess up the airflow). I assume they can't just throttle the engines further down for some reason, but that's just my armchair reasoning.