A400M engine problems.

[2805662]

Originally Posted by BEagle

The A400M specification was agreed by the participating nations and coordinated through OCCAR.

The aircraft will carry items which won't fit in a C-130 at speeds greater than those of a C-130 to places where a C-17 cannot go.

It is the best overall solution.

And it's NOT American!!

Okay, so the specification was agreed. But what was it?

Not American? How's that working out for you so far?

[BEagle]

You can find the Type Certificate Data Sheets on the EASA website. If you have further queries, try contacting OCCAR.

Incidentally, by 'It's NOT American' I meant that, for once, the European Aviation industry has developed an excellent product to meet military requirements provided by the customers - not to decry the C-17 or C-130 which are also excellent in their own rights.

Although I gather that helicopter refuelling from the A400M is proving difficult to resolve at the current time.

[KenV]

The aircraft will carry items which won't fit in a C-130 at speeds greater than those of a C-130 to places where a C-17 cannot go.

Once again, I am NOT knocking the A400. It does what it was designed to do. My questions is, what was it designed to do? Was the requirement just to carry stuff a bit bigger than a C-130, but not really big or heavy stuff, and carry it a little faster than a C-130? What kind of stuff do the European armies have that are just a little too big for C-130, but still small/light enough for an A400?

Edit: When spec'ing the C-17 cargo floor we found that any Army stuff that was "outsize" for the C-130/C-141 (they have the same cargo hold cross section), things got really big. The 10 ft wide cargo floor of those two aircraft is a natural sweet spot. Small increments in width resulted in smaller increments in capability. It was not until C-17's cargo floor got to 18 ft wide that it reached another sweet spot. Another sweet spot is at 19 ft, which is the width of the C-5 cargo floor. But that was for US Army and USMC equipment. Is European military equipment that much different than US equipment that there's a sweet spot at 13 ft?

As for going where the C-17 can't go, the C-17 goes to 90+% of the places a C-130 can go. So of the less then 10% of places that C-17 can't go (relative to C-130), how many can A400 go to? And what drives that? Field length does not seem to be the driver keeping the C-17 out because A400 and C-17 have essentially the same field length requirements. Is it CBR? Are there that many airfields 3000 ft or longer with a CBR less than 12?

[KenV]

You can find the Type Certificate Data Sheets on the EASA website. If you have further queries, try contacting OCCAR.

Type Certificate Data Sheets tell you nothing about what military equipment the A400 cargo compartment was designed around nor what runways the A400 was designed to operate into and out of. CBR 6 is all well and good and is a fantastic capability if you're going into a permafrost runway in Siberia in summer, but other than that, what does CBR 6 get you?

[KenV]

Last I read there are still two important tasks the A400 cannot do with no solution in sight.
Air refueling of helicopters due to wake issues.
Simultaneous paratroop drops out the side doors without them being swept together and hitting each other in the airstream behind the aircraft.

C-17 had both those issues. The wake problem for helos had a solution but since no one ever bought a C-17 tanker version, that was mooted. The troop drop issue was driven by the width of the C-17 and was thoroughly resolved. The A400 is less wide than the C-17 so it should have a less severe problem in that area than C-17 so the C-17 solution should work for A400. On the other hand the turbo props result in a very different flow field behind the aircraft than C-17 and if that is the primary driver, then a very different solution would be needed, assuming there is one. Maybe run the outboard engines to max power while running the inboards at a much lower power setting during the drop?

How many countries are doing operational helicopters refueling and paratrooper air drop?

Does it matter how many? If the primary customers (UK, France, and Germany) have those requirements and the aircraft cannot meet them, then what is the point of the program? Other than being a jobs program of course.

[ancientaviator62]

Ken the RAF spent years trying to resolve the C130K sim stick para collision problem. As for throttling the inboards back during the drop, that is exactly what we used to do on the Hastings. On the 'call of 'troops gone' the inboards were banged up again just as we were manually retrieving the para bags !

[VX275]

The Hastings had staggered para doors which helped with reducing crossover. We suggested this could be considered for the A400M but Airbus knew better (never having designed a tactical transport) and proposed the handed propeller solution.

[HeliHenri]

Originally Posted by KenV

Does it matter how many? If the primary customers (UK, France, and Germany) have those requirements and the aircraft cannot meet them, then what is the point of the program? Other than being a jobs program of course.

Yes it matter.
The point of the program is a military transport aircraft.
The primary customers wanted all and everything but for what oprational purpose in reality ?
The French have only 4 operational helicopters that can be air refueled and in the last years, they've done only one paratroop drop in war zone.
.

[2805662]

Originally Posted by HeliHenri

Yes it matter.
The point of the program is a military transport aircraft.
The primary customers wanted all and everything but for what oprational purpose in reality ?
The French have only 4 operational helicopters that can be air refueled and in the last years, they've done only one paratroop drop in war zone.
.

Doesn't that answer your own question? "Only one" para drop. You're talking about Op SERVAL? I'd call that a mass para drop. Seems like the ability to do that is pretty important. Where would they be if they had lacked that capability?

Don't forget the numerous, smaller, SF parachute insertions, too.

[Forrest Black]

Remember that the A400M will replace smaller C-130s and C-160s in Europe. So there absolutely is a gain in strategic capabilities. The C-17 is too large and costly for most of the tasks the A400M was made for.

The A400 was designed to transport modern (that is 1990s/early 2000s) quick reaction forces. Heavy tanks were considered less important than they used to be in massive cold-war age conflicts. Other armoured vehicles have become heavier and more bulky than the ones the C-130 was designed for. Within Europe, heavy tanks will usually be transported by by train.

The A400M's range circle around Paris contains much of the French zone of influence in Africa. Heavy tanks aren't that important to the French strategy, less so in Africa.
The A400M also carries larger helicopters than the C-130. French Tiger attack helicopter in Afica transported by an A400M:
Première : Un A400M Atlas rapatrie un hélicoptère Tigre du Sahel - Air&Cosmos

Originally Posted by KenV

What kind of stuff do the European armies have that are just a little too big for C-130, but still small/light enough for an A400?

Bradley, VBCI, Puma, Boxer, Stryker with slat armour, M109, NH-90, Blackhawk, Tiger AH, Apache ...
You'll find much of this information at the Airbus web site: Military Aircraft Airbus DS | A400M
Even the US army has some of that stuff.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...iftMarket.aspx

Originally Posted by VX275

However, when I questioned it with the SME from Boscombe who attended the meetings where it was decided he replied along the lines of "The Germans want to reinvade Russia."

Funny. At the same time it's too small (for heavy tanks required for a huge invasion) and too large (for peace-loving Central Europeans supposed to stay at home and build family cars).

Originally Posted by BEagle

And it's NOT American!!

It's built in Europe and it was also designed to create jobs there, but dozens of the suppliers are American.

[riff_raff]

Why would France spend huge amounts of money to turn the A400 into an aerial tanker capable of in-flight refueling for just a couple helicopters, when there is an existing option in the C-130?

Airbus Targets Helo Refueling, Paratrooper Airdrops for A400M

The US had a need to ferry helos over long distances, so the C-130 tanker with its wing mounted hose/drogue system was developed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by KenV

Sadly, the fully developed and fully mature C-17 is no longer an option. And while the C-17 is only about 20% bigger, it has nearly 100% greater payload and almost 200% greater range with the same payload, about 100% greater cargo volume, and yet similar short austere field performance.

Ken, I have difficulty getting my head around your percentages as they could be referring to apples and pears.

20% bigger I can grasp in that it is one fifth larger but in which dimensions?
100% greater payload - double? 100% greater cargo volume - double?

But as mentioned later, volume isn't everything, length, breadth and height all have critical values.

200% greater range at same payload - 4 times? Looking at Wiki I find that hard to believe. Care to quote comparative figures - X payload Y range?

[Heathrow Harry]

and they're not buidling any more C-17's so you'll have to buy A400's is you want new in future.............................

[KenV]

Ken, I have difficulty getting my head around your percentages as they could be referring to apples and pears.

20% bigger I can grasp in that it is one fifth larger but in which dimensions?
100% greater payload - double? 100% greater cargo volume - double?

About 20% more wing span and overall length & about 15% more overall height
About double max payload of A400 (38T/75T)
Less than double cargo volume (340 sqm/620sqm)

200% greater range at same payload - 4 times? Looking at Wiki I find that hard to believe. Care to quote comparative figures - X payload Y range?

Each at respective max payload (A400=38T/C-17=75 T) 58% more range (1,700 NM/2,700 NM)
Each at 38T payload (A400 max) nearly triple the range (1,700 NM/5,000 NM)
Each at 20T payload (C-130 max) less than double the range (3,500/5,800)
All the above assume MIL-C-5011B reserves, still air, ISA

[KenV]

Remember that the A400M will replace smaller C-130s and C-160s in Europe. So there absolutely is a gain in strategic capabilities.......The A400M's range circle around Paris contains much of the French zone of influence in Africa.

I guess that's part of the problem, the difference in definition of "strategic". For European nations "strategic" is one end of Europe to the other. For the USA its East Coast USA to Central Europe (Frankfurt, Germany)

Heavy tanks were considered less important than they used to be in massive cold-war age conflicts.....Within Europe, heavy tanks will usually be transported by by train.

C-17 was used to transport an entire USMC LAV brigade to an unpaved field in Afghanistan and three M1 Abrams tank companies with support units into an austere field in Iraq. The US considers armor to still be very much relevant even in "regional conflicts" at strategic ranges.

The A400 was designed to transport modern (that is 1990s/early 2000s) quick reaction forces.

I think this may answer it. Apparently Europe's only expeditionary forces are "quick reaction forces" which are by definition light. The vast preponderance of European forces are garrison forces and neither designed nor equipped to be expeditionary (deployed overseas). This explains well the European military reaction to the Kosovo/Bosnia conflict.

In the US we have some garrison forces, but a lot (most?) are expeditionary. Indeed the entire USN and USMC are expeditionary and a big chunk of USAF and US Army are expeditionary.

A400 does seem to fit well in a European force structure which finally helps me make sense of its design. I was viewing this too much from a US perspective and US expeditionary forces mindset. This also helps explain why the UK, Australia, and Canada acquired C-17s. The UK is an island nation and the only remaining European power with globally deployed military forces, and Canada and Australia potentially have to move large/heavy units across big bodies of water also. It's finally coming together for me. THANKS!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you Ken, that reads better and makes more sense.

Of course factor in the C17 is effectively an ocean away from the European TOO so needs that extra reach.

[KenV]

Of course factor in the C17 is effectively an ocean away from the European TOO so needs that extra reach.

I think its two factors:
1. US "strategic" airlifters need to cross an ocean. European ones don't.
2. US force structure includes many heavy units that are expeditionary. Europe's heavy units are all garrison forces and its expeditionary forces are light rapid reaction forces.

The requirements are quite different and thus the airplane that results is quite different.

[Heathrow Harry]

ken - we're also a lot closer to areas where we need to go - Balkans. N Africa, Middle East

the USAF wouldn't need a vast fleet of C-17's if you were mainly concerned with C America, & Canada...................

[Pontius Navigator]

Repetition

[Heathrow Harry]

1 point to you and you have the subject.............. 28 seconds left.......