A400 question
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT I have been out of the loop now for a good number of years. You sound in the know.
If it is not a secret could you tell us what the current Airdrop capabilities are? How many CDS containers, what weight of platforms from what height. Splits or Sequential. How many static line parachutists in a split or sequential stick.
I know what the aspirations were but have no idea where we are upto.
Same on the C130J. The baseline requirement was to replicate what we could do on the K. We were no where near when I left. Most we could do was one ton CDS.
Ken, I hear what you say about C17. Problem perhaps is the UK not wishing to invest in US Airdrop kit. Great reluctance over TypeV when we bought a few for C130J. I must admit most of this was politics rather than technical. We had been spoilt with Reefed Mains Extraction techniques. This would never have been safe with the B@P CHS or the Airbus version on A400.
Our attempts to employ our own UK chutes deployed by Static Line, as we had successfully done with PURIBAD rather than use the extractor to pull the mains using the EFTC to trigger. All down to petty internal politics. In my opinion and experience.
If it is not a secret could you tell us what the current Airdrop capabilities are? How many CDS containers, what weight of platforms from what height. Splits or Sequential. How many static line parachutists in a split or sequential stick.
I know what the aspirations were but have no idea where we are upto.
Same on the C130J. The baseline requirement was to replicate what we could do on the K. We were no where near when I left. Most we could do was one ton CDS.
Ken, I hear what you say about C17. Problem perhaps is the UK not wishing to invest in US Airdrop kit. Great reluctance over TypeV when we bought a few for C130J. I must admit most of this was politics rather than technical. We had been spoilt with Reefed Mains Extraction techniques. This would never have been safe with the B@P CHS or the Airbus version on A400.
Our attempts to employ our own UK chutes deployed by Static Line, as we had successfully done with PURIBAD rather than use the extractor to pull the mains using the EFTC to trigger. All down to petty internal politics. In my opinion and experience.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. There were proposals for timing the exit of the troops using some kind of device so troops never jumped from both doors simultaneously, but that was discarded very early in the process. The final solution works very well and C-17s have been used routinely for large mass troop drops both in training and in actual combat.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
I'm struggling to think of a major modern programme, military or civil, inteh west that has NOT had major issues in the last 25 years.
Even Mr B can't convert a 767 into a tanker, which most people would think would have been straight vanilla, without massive problems (some of which are still unresolved)
A real problem for all western industries appears to be the engine manufacturers these days - - they all seem to have problems right now
I'm struggling to think of a major modern programme, military or civil, inteh west that has NOT had major issues in the last 25 years.
Even Mr B can't convert a 767 into a tanker, which most people would think would have been straight vanilla, without massive problems (some of which are still unresolved)
A real problem for all western industries appears to be the engine manufacturers these days - - they all seem to have problems right now
There were schemes to stagger the exits of the paras from the two para doors of the RAF C130K. The major problem with this I found was the paras desire to get out of the a/c ASAP, to get out of the 'honk box' and get the weight of the kit off their legs. The 'runaway train' that was an operational para drop was always a shock to any observer.
Even if 'staggering' had worked it would have necessitated much longer DZs and if you were dropping wedge and door bundles then the DZ would have needed to have been very long indeed. Couple this with the spread of the paras on the ground and real problems with a swift form up and equipment recovery occur.
Even if 'staggering' had worked it would have necessitated much longer DZs and if you were dropping wedge and door bundles then the DZ would have needed to have been very long indeed. Couple this with the spread of the paras on the ground and real problems with a swift form up and equipment recovery occur.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these days when every kid in the Middle East and Africa has immediate access to his/her own AK-47 mass para drops are likely to be a very bloody operation if carried out in day light
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actual combat experience proves you wrong. Operation Northern Delay during the Iraq War in 2003 involved the airdrop of about 1000 paratroops into Bashur Airfield. Granted, the DZ had been somewhat secured by Special Forces troops and Kurdish fighters. The airdropped troops secured the airfield which enabled M1 Abrams tanks to be airlifted there. Those forces on the Iraqi northern flank forced Iraq to commit six divisions to protect their flank. Six divisions that could not be used to engage the forces invading from the south. This type of operation is called a Strategic Brigade Airdrop and one of the missions the C-17 was specifically designed to perform. So yeah, mass paratroop drops are still very much relevant.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Army paratroopers seize airfield in northern Iraq | McClatchy Washington Bureau
"The drop zone, within an autonomous Kurdish enclave, was considered "permissive," meaning the soldiers didn't expect to be shot at as they descended to earth with enough gear, food and water to survive for several days."
The main reason seems to have been to get a lot of men on the ground in short order without risking a C-17 - certainly not an oppose drop such as Arnhem, Sicily or Normandy
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24435169.html#storylink=cpy"
"The drop zone, within an autonomous Kurdish enclave, was considered "permissive," meaning the soldiers didn't expect to be shot at as they descended to earth with enough gear, food and water to survive for several days."
The main reason seems to have been to get a lot of men on the ground in short order without risking a C-17 - certainly not an oppose drop such as Arnhem, Sicily or Normandy
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24435169.html#storylink=cpy"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is indeed the whole point of a mass troop drop. So your own statement seems to debunk your earlier claim. As for the failures of mass troop drops in WW2, that's rather the point of "lessons learned." We learned that dropping large numbers of troops into a defended urban/suburban area results in heavy losses. So we don't drop them into such areas any more. But we most certainly do drop them. Paratroops, and mass drops of those troops, remain very much relevant in today's world.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So C17 can do it.
What about the A400M? The topic of this Fred.
Last time UK deployed was Suez. A plan during Balkan campaign was cancelled after a good bit of planning.
I remember during one planning round when they were seeking huge cuts, oddly enough during the same period the requirements for A400M were being finalised in order to get the contract signed off. Several parties were in favour of cutting Brigade level dropping. The only argument that could be put up by 16AA was over recruitment and retention of soldiers and how important it was to morale for them to have red berets and wings to set them aside from other units. Also to feed the SF.
Several high ranking army types had written to the papers slamming the RAF. The MP for Bridgend was very vocal. (All the chutes were made in his constituency). The “Entitlement to Parachte” paper which drove the requirement was more than halved. It was at a time when a high proportion of our LLPs and reserves were coming up for life ex. In reality the savings in £ were minuscule.
What about the A400M? The topic of this Fred.
Last time UK deployed was Suez. A plan during Balkan campaign was cancelled after a good bit of planning.
I remember during one planning round when they were seeking huge cuts, oddly enough during the same period the requirements for A400M were being finalised in order to get the contract signed off. Several parties were in favour of cutting Brigade level dropping. The only argument that could be put up by 16AA was over recruitment and retention of soldiers and how important it was to morale for them to have red berets and wings to set them aside from other units. Also to feed the SF.
Several high ranking army types had written to the papers slamming the RAF. The MP for Bridgend was very vocal. (All the chutes were made in his constituency). The “Entitlement to Parachte” paper which drove the requirement was more than halved. It was at a time when a high proportion of our LLPs and reserves were coming up for life ex. In reality the savings in £ were minuscule.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.
I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.
I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.
Ken,ken - most of those are towards the end of the alphabet - you'd seriously hope by the time they got to the "K" version they'd know what they were doing................... I mean - the F-16V.........
I believe we need to add the air to air refueling of helicopters. That seems to be one of the original A-400 requirements that may get dropped?
I imagine the prop wash/flow was the main issue for the trailing hoses as well?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And four of those are for F-15s which do NOT follow the usual alphabetical sequence, but denote the country that bought them. So yeah, the Saudi F-15s have an S suffix, but that does not mean they were the 19th derivative version.
Last edited by KenV; 19th Mar 2018 at 14:42.
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.
I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.
Allow me to assist you with your struggles: F/A-18E. F/A-18F. F/A-18G. F-15I, F-15S. F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA. F-16I. F-16V. P-8A. AH-64E. H-47F. H-47G. 777-300ER. 767F. 767AWACS. KC-767. 777F. 747-8I. 747-8F. 737 MAX. 787-9. 787-10. E-190. A330. A340. A330F. A330MRTT. And if we discount the early wiring issues, A380.
I did not include biz jet aircraft, of which there have been numerous new types over the past 25 years.
The F-15SA - What has happened to the Boeing F-15SA? | Combat Aircraft
KC-767- https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...tanker-352625/
A330 MRTT - Boom or bust! ? RAAF KC-30 loses boom | Australian Aviation (lost a couple of booms, IIRC).
Probably doesn't have much of an impact on your overall point, but, you know, facts.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to F-15SA? They began deliveries in late 2016. The program was formally launched in late 2010. So six years from launch to first delivery. The flight test of the all-new digital fly by wire system took 4 months longer than expected, but I would not call that a "major issue." As is often the case, you don't know what you don't know until testing begins and as so often happens, it took extra testing to thoroughly understand the new system. That's done and deliveries are continuing on schedule.
KC-767? Yeah, it encountered unforeseen wing flutter problems with the wing aerial refueling pods installed. Was that a "major issue"? It depends on how you define it and what it took to resolve it. And yes, wing flutter is a major issue, but no, it didn't take anything extraordinary to resolve it, nor anything extraordinary to test the solution.
A330 MRTT? Yeah, the boom broke off. Was that a "major issue?" I don't know, but apparently not. We don't know the cause of this failure nor if it was a design issue or an operator error. I say "apparently not" a major issue because RAAF accepted all five aircraft they ordered and even operated them in a combat zone supporting combat operations.
Last edited by KenV; 19th Mar 2018 at 14:45.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is no. The airflow behind the wing is just too energetic for helicopters because of the shear size and weight of the aircraft. C-17 had the same issue and no props. Airbus's proposed solution is to lengthen the hose to put the helos farther behind the wing. I have my doubts this will work as it did not work on the C-17. And a longer hose will almost certainly create entirely new unforeseen problems. But we won't know until they try it and test the results.
