SchorschIt probably will resemble the A400 (which kinda resembles the C-130) but it will be an all new A/C……have better performance than the A400….. be cheaper than the A400….and then this whole stupid argument can continue…….until the end of time!
Using the technology used on the A400M there isn’t much you can make better.
The US industry has also failed to show any cost advantages for the last 20 aircraft programs, actually they are even less cost efficient than their European counterparts.
The A400M resembles the C-130 in a way that it has high wing and 4 props. With this config it also resembles the Shorts Belfast or the Antonov 12.
SchorschThe simple fact is the 330 costs more per unit.
Can you imagine the RAF (or any other air arm) saying “We’re not going to buy the cheapest plane?”
Too bad the 330 bigger than what the USAF wants at this time (but maybe not if the future if they go to a multi-tanker strategy). And it would be nice if someone had alreday done the tanker R&D. The VH-71 VVIP helo is also having problems with the mods the contractors promised not going as well/cheaply as planned.
The 767 seems to be a “less risky” program, and that plus lower unit costs make it a logical choice…
To bad the U.S. anti-Boeing partisans and the European Pro-Airbus croud can’t seem to accept that.😀
I think the A330 is the better aircraft, but if I was the USAF I would go for the B767. And I am officially registered Airbus fanboy.
Schorsch*Hahem!*
And know, the stop-driking-whiskey-for-breakfeast moment.
I know that a cargo/freight version of the Airbus A-380 (A-380F) had been planned, but finally cancelled. It was supposed to carry a 150 tonnes payload on a 10,400 km range.
I wonder if such an A-380 would have mad a good combi Transport/Tanker aircraft for the USAF or other Euro air forces…
I know: it’s 9:00 pm around here, and I have already drunk more beer than reasonable, but I still love the idea… 😎
Merlock-“Beer (especially German beer) is good for your mind and imagination”.
No, that wouldn’t make sense at all. The USAF wants to refuel F-16 with the KC-X, not B-52s.
SchorschThe A400 is such a great battle proven all-round airlifter! It is just CRIMINAL that the US EVER got into the second (or third?) rate C-130 business in the first place!!!!! Whoever was in charge of procurment of the C-130 should be executed!!!! Why didnt the US just get A400s from the get go?!
I wouldn’t discount the probability that in 2015ish an aircraft lifts off from Marietta or elsewhere that strongly resembles an A400M, with American engines, systems and some customizing. Whatever the USAF procures as C-130 successor, it will either be a very expensive optimized niche aircraft (tiltrotor, ESTOL, stealth) or it will look basically the same as the A400M. When the problem is broadly similar (tactical/strategic airlift, short field, medium payload), the solutions will be, too.
SchorschSorry, war keine Absicht!
Danke!
@ delivering combat vehicles in bits and peaces:
“We” did the numbers (again :rolleyes: ) for the EU mission to Chad.
The critical factor is aircraft on ground at any given time. Think 1 airlift wing for 1 BCT to fly in, think 1 airlift squadron to support that outfit, and now try to keep the line flowing into a sub-optimal airstrip. You don’t have to roll off the ramp guns blazin’. Flying in partially assembled vehicles is ABSOLUTELY DEADLY for your logistics. So much for the use of add-on armor for overweight Pumas and Boxers. French VBCI work, btw (but we’ll all be dead before European forces are standardizing).
Is something like an fully armoured infantry fighting vehicle not a complete overkill for such a conflict? Of course, nice to have. But with armed light tanks like Fuchs you rule the situation.
There is always the chance to get other airlift assets and use the tactical transporter for the tactical transport, to prevent pointless missions like flying coke cans from US to Iraq in a C-17.
I don’t see a very big chance for a decent C-130 successor to be developed.
Maybemaybe a chance for the A400M. Larger than ZERO?
How do you define “decent”? The A400M can do nearly everything twice as good. The C-130J is not useful for strategical logistical operations, it lacks payload-range, speed and volume. Most buyers of the A400M will have a strategical transport the first time, and it still can do all missions of the C-130J. Isn’t that “decent”? The A400M can actually haul an empty C-160 from Germany to Chad, provided the Transall is packed in boxes.
SchorschWith a total of 250+ Backfire “C” models manufactured, I would suspect that 150 ready for use isn’t a total over-estimate.
It may well be an over-estimate. Nearly all of those were produced before 1990. We know that Soviet material has a considerable demand for maintenance and that Russia was short of cash until a few years ago. I guess despite being listed as active many aircraft have only collected a very small amount of flight hours in the last 15 years and are not up for real service. Probably quite a lot have been abandonded to get spares. Reactivating those is considerable effort. Not only the technical and logistical side, but also the crews have to be re-qualified.
Going into battle with systems that virtually are unchanged 1980 technology will result in a huge turkey shoot. The shear number of airframes is sometimes secondary.
SchorschAnd the chances of a “Future Tactical Airlifter” for the USAF being based on a “BWB” design by Lock Mart or a Tilt Rotor by Bell/Boeing are a big fat “ZERO”.
I would even see a value smaller than ZERO.
I think the USAF will return to affordability focus rather than capability focus. The Osprey already is a huge failure.
SchorschBoth the F-15 (last developments) and Su-27/J-11 (from the start) have FBW.
While FBW is not necessarily care-free handling. I guess all have a g-limiter and AOA-limiter, but especially in the low speed region a pilot can fool his limiters (and finally get fooled himself by tricky high-AOA behavior of his aircraft).
SchorschJ 10 vs J 11 isn’t the same as F 16 vs F 15; the reason that most of the 1:1 DACT are won by f 16 is because the fly by wire allows a carefree handling of the f 16., while the pilot ofn the f 15 must be carrefull not to exist the enveloppe. that’s not the case with the J10 and J 11. they are more or less in the same class regarding carefree handling.
Or more because the F-16 is the much better dog fighter:
– considerably less drag with 4xAAM and cannon
– lower energy dumb in turning (LE device, relaxed stability)
– better transonic performance
– smaller in size
– better vision for the pilot
FBW is only part of the game. The F-16 is by the way not carefree handling, the F-16C manual has a dozen pages of education on limitations in handling.
SchorschWhen the Typhoon 2 had to get TVC in the 90s, that idea has been given up for a while through the changes in threat perception and kind of warfare.
The stunts shown at air-shows and open-days is just for pleasing the uninformed crowds and transform fuel into noise. I learned that lesson with the F-20.
Why the F-20? Good aircraft that lacks the last percentage of agility an F-16 has or because it flew quite a good performance at Farnborough?
SchorschWhat? Are you saying the J-10 weighs more than the early J-8I, even though the latter plane is much longer, has two engines, has little to no composites, uses an older form of aluminum alloy and has a greater wingspan? AFM and the Sinodefence website now reporting 8300kg which I think is reasonable.
I have never seen any proof or claim that the MTOW can reach nearly 25,000kg.
The original 9700kg something weight was something that was spec’ed for the J-9 project.
If you set a g-limit of 2.5g for any given fighter, its weight would go down considerably. So what is the g-limit of the J-8 and what that of the J-10? Are you sure your OEW figures for J-8 are accurate? I ask because accurate OEW is some of the hardest information to get, when MTOW, sea-level static thrust rating and radar range is often given as it has no real meaning.
SchorschWell, the FLA/A400M was designed from the outset for Puma. At least from the German side. Which it can’t do any more, since Puma grew the same way FCS is growing right now.
An-70 could fly a Puma, or even a Boxer (talking about FRES). So it looks like future EU-Battlegroup armored airmobile units have a real problem (and that thing about add-on armor is just BS in my mind, given aircraft-on-ground restrictions in an expeditionary environment, which results in 50%+ dragged-out airlift operations).Talking about FCS: In case no “Future Tactical Airlifter” (like that NGCO stealth-ESTOL-BWB) is built in the U.S. to fly the FCS around (which originally should have fitted into a C-130J) there might be a slim chance for A400M in the U.S., as the FCS’ 30 metric tons fit just nicely within the capabilities of the A400M.
Which actually would call for a vehicle optimized for the aircraft. 25-30 tons is enough for a light tank. The Europeans, and the Germans in particular, have a never-ending love affair with heavy armor. The current Leopard 2A6 even exceeds the tactical payload of a C-17.
Please explain: ESTOL, NGCO, FCS, FRES.
Nice you know so many abbreviations, but do you post to communicate or to show off?
SchorschYC-14 for the win. :p
Actually, when I see the concepts of 20t payload tilt rotor aircraft, when the 6t payload variant already cost 20 bln USD to develop and is by all means a nightmare program, I think that alternatives should be considered. A STOVL optimized aircraft will have obvious disadvantages compared to a helicopter, you always need 500m airstrip, but you gain a lot.
The question is: how often is it an essential necessity to bring in 15-20t payload vertically after a 300 mile ride at speeds above 150kts TAS. 12t over 200 miles at 140kts TAS is what a Chinook can do today. If it carries the grass mower to the right location, you can use the 20t over 500nm* A400M afterwards.
———-
*: that is: 500nm with 20t payload into an improvised airstrip, out with 15t and another 500nm, no refuel at improvised airstrip. You’ll hardly find any aircraft with comparable performance.
SchorschJonesy, thanks for your answers. Always nice to have some lesson about modern naval warfare based on educated opinion.
So what are you sending a 500ft 18000ton SSGN with a crew of 118 out to patrol for when you have 9000ton SSNs with less than 2/3rds the crew requirement with every bit as advanced sensors and much better shallows performance for patrol?. Bit stupid sending out the SSGN when its not required isnt it?.
There are other threads to a CVBG. A 600t conventional submarine can actually penetrate the security perimeter of a carrier. The USN is a bit concerned about the new 212 class, which connects exceptional quietness with some SSN-like performance parameters (especially fast submerged speeds and long submerged endurance). Can be quite a show stopper.
SchorschAs pointed out the increase of agility is not of concern anymore. Aircraft like Eurofighter, F-16 and Russian aircraft have more than enough of it at medium speeds (the Eurofighter rules above Mach 1). It is always more intelligent to make the missile more agile. A missile must be replaced every 10 to 15 years anyways.
I think TVC has gains for large aircraft to reduce maneuver loads and achieve the agility of smaller aircraft. We should not forget that latest Flanker and F-22 are close to 20t OEW aircraft, so basically suffer from obesity like the Tomcat did. The Eurofighter, and even more so Rafale and Gripen, are 40%, 50% or 60% lighter. For such ambitious performance targets, problems are a quadratic function of weight.
An obvious advantage is trim drag at supersonic speeds, as even unstable designs will have positive stability margin at supersonic speeds. The reduced trim drag might just be the tiny thing you need to get over the wall or come a bit further with the thrust at hand. However, the question is if a slightly more powerful engine might not have similar results with only small penalties in fuel burn.
Remember: a TVC is another degree of freedom that must be regarded in the flight control design, this degree of freedom is depending on speed, altitude and thrust setting, may further be in an (undetected) error state. Lots of headache for the designer, lots of hours of additional test flight. Lots of USD.
As for the future: I am sure no tail means no pilot, too.
Sign In
