Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A400M

The C-27 could be bought for 6 cents per lbs when they were scrapped.

How much for the German, Spanish A400?
 
Watched them being broken up at Kabul. All hidden away behind hastily put barriers. Stupid decision and they still ended up with C130's which they use to ferry more commercial stuff around than anything warfighting. As seen when I was at a certain ex-ISAF owned airfield that had transferred over to AAF and we had to move our L100 out of the way to allow an AAF C130 to land (pilot was getting all upset!). Out of the back came a couple of civ 4x4's and about 100 civilians (exaggeration but seemed like it) for EID celebrations or something!


I expect they needed C-130's to carry the pallet loads of money being siphoned off out of the country.
 
I expect they needed C-130's to carry the pallet loads of money being siphoned off out of the country.
The flow was at one time inwards.

Erm, allegedly, one C130 crash landed in Afghanistan with a lot of cash on board that was loaded on a 4x4 on board ready to be driven away . Not a yankee plane either.

Wild rumour of course.
 
The flow was at one time inwards.

Erm, allegedly, one C130 crash landed in Afghanistan with a lot of cash on board that was loaded on a 4x4 on board ready to be driven away . Not a yankee plane either.

Wild rumour of course.


Sounds like the shrink wrapped pallet go round at Baghdad International at one point
 
Sounds like the shrink wrapped pallet go round at Baghdad International at one point
When were you ever in Baghdad?
 
If i recall correctly
The USAF dropped the Aircraft and sought to sell them on and the OEM threw a wobbler and threatened to not support ex ESAF aircraft.

Pretty sure Agusta did similar viz the UK 109s which Argentina hadn't paid for - as i recall the UK had to stump up some cash before there was spares support
The US wouldn't buy directly from a European company such as Alenia. The sale had to go through an American partner who would also be in charge of long term support.

When the US dropped the plane the American company backed out of the partnership while pocketing the money that was meant for support. Alenia said they weren't going to be left holding the bag on support costs they hadn't been paid for, so any buyer would be getting them without warranty from Alenia.

These ex-US planes were the ones that Canada was looking at for SAR, so it wasn't that Alenia wouldn't support them at all. Their objection was to the US trying to sell them on as being under warranty from Alenia when Alenia hadn't been paid the warranty money.

I won't go through the long saga of the C-27 in Canada, as that has been covered on another thread. The short answer though is that it was found to be more expensive to operate than the C295 and so lost out even though we were supposedly getting a discount on the initial purchase price.

What I have read about the C-27 is that it was designed to have parts in common with the Hercules in order to appeal to existing operators of the latter from a maintenance personnel and parts stocking perspective, so it wasn't optimised in terms of operating costs on a stand alone basis. When the US air force took over tactical air lift from the US army, they didn't see the point of having both C-27s and Hercules, and so dropped the former. The US army had wanted something smaller than the Hercules because they said it was too big to do tactical airlift properly and couldn't get into a lot of places they needed to go. The US air force on the other hand were more concerned about the support costs of operating another aircraft type, already had lots of Hercules, and felt that the greater carrying capacity of the Hercules offset any disadvantages it may have had with respect to tactical operations.
 

Sexton Blake

War Hero
Silly thing about the A400M was it was in large part driven by the fantasy de jour of flying massed armoured hordes direct to the battlefield. There used to be very butch Airfix box art style posters back in the day at the airshows of the things on battle fields, ramps down, with armoured things charging out along with stern men in green - all the guns going dagagagagaga!

Well, that fantasy never survived contact with reality, so here we are, its too big grommet, but not really big enough to be properly big. It won't carry FRES, it got heavier, losing payload, now under 40 tonnes, as did FRES, its a hefty big boy now, over 40 tonnes.


Lockheed, who are the market experts in these sort of things, looked at a wide body 'Super Hercules' back in the day, it ended up much the same size as the A400M, oddly enough, they also came to the conclusion as did the end users, the suck wasn't worth the squeeze and gave it up. For the 5% of stuff that wont fit in a regular C-130, buying a plane twice as big doesn't make sense. Still plenty of life in the old C-130 dog, even with the existing wings/engines, it could be certified out to 30 tonnes payload if the market had a need.
You won't bulk out an A400M, but you'll easily max out its load and have heaps of space to spare.
 
Still plenty of life in the old C-130 dog, even with the existing wings/engines, it could be certified out to 30 tonnes payload if the market had a need.
.
Thats about a 50% - Im sceptical there's that much reserve in the design - thats an awful lot of fdead weight to be carrying around.

You won't bulk out an A400M, but you'll easily max out its load and have heaps of space to spare.

That would depend on what the cargo is and floor loading

Im not sure why - if you see airlifting armours a dumb idea you think it not being able to airlift armour is a problem -
 
Thats about a 50% - Im sceptical there's that much reserve in the design - thats an awful lot of fdead weight to be carrying around.

Thats Lockheeds figures. C-130J isn't short of power and lift.


That would depend on what the cargo is and floor loading

Im not sure why - if you see airlifting armours a dumb idea you think it not being able to airlift armour is a problem -

A function of a very big hull volume but a fairly short load floor, that stems from the vision of flying light armour direct to the battlefield. At one time, Airbus was looking at stretched version, but as the existing A400M flopped, that died a death.


In a nutshell, Airbus didn't do its market homework properly
717dce370d371bef915882d3e62e10b0.jpg
 
A function of a very big hull volume but a fairly short load floor, that stems from the vision of flying light armour direct to the battlefield. At one time, Airbus was looking at stretched version, but as the existing A400M flopped, that died a death.


In a nutshell, Airbus didn't do its market homework properly
View attachment 496990

Typically its claimed hercs bulk out -
A400 wont bulk out as quickly because its a piece longer and wider - but thats a long way from will run out of payload before space.

Stuff sent by air tends not to be high density cargo as thats both inefficient and theres issues in floor loading.

A400 can arguably be said to be to tall because there will be unfilled height - but thats going to be true of our friend the herc as well.

Thats Lockheeds figures. C-130J isn't short of power and lift.

Ive searched for a lockheed proposal along those lines - nada - I dont find it a credible claim

Im assuming youve seen something and arent just looking at engine power and assuming lots = spare capacity, forgetting things like engine out requirements on take off, MTWA /MTOW and just as importantly max landing weight (and yes thats often less than MTWA/MTOW**).

Theres also the issue that whilst the core may be able to deliver more power - the aircraft itself may not be able to use it (see the 3 different power ratings for the old Allisson engine on Herc - P3/Electra and E3

Incidently lift and engine power dont translate into structural strength and floor loading - hence my remark about reserve capacity.
You dont build a 20 tone airlifter with the strength to be a 30 ton lifter because thats a significant amount of structural penalty and subsequent increase in operating costs - because buyers of a 20 ton lifter wont want to pay those costs.




**Same thing - but 2 acronyms possibly civ v mil or new v old
 
Typically its claimed hercs bulk out -
A400 wont bulk out as quickly because its a piece longer and wider - but thats a long way from will run out of payload before space.

Stuff sent by air tends not to be high density cargo as thats both inefficient and theres issues in floor loading.

A400 can arguably be said to be to tall because there will be unfilled height - but thats going to be true of our friend the herc as well.



Ive searched for a lockheed proposal along those lines - nada - I dont find it a credible claim

Im assuming youve seen something and arent just looking at engine power and assuming lots = spare capacity, forgetting things like engine out requirements on take off, MTWA /MTOW and just as importantly max landing weight (and yes thats often less than MTWA/MTOW**).

Theres also the issue that whilst the core may be able to deliver more power - the aircraft itself may not be able to use it (see the 3 different power ratings for the old Allisson engine on Herc - P3/Electra and E3

Incidently lift and engine power dont translate into structural strength and floor loading - hence my remark about reserve capacity.
You dont build a 20 tone airlifter with the strength to be a 30 ton lifter because thats a significant amount of structural penalty and subsequent increase in operating costs - because buyers of a 20 ton lifter wont want to pay those costs.




**Same thing - but 2 acronyms possibly civ v mil or new v old
LM could just put bigger engines on the Hercules and call it the "C-130 Max 8". Don't worry, it'll be fine.

Here's the official US document on Hercules load capacity. There are many, many, factors which go into deciding how much of what can go onto a plane under which circumstances. Comparing two different planes by just picking numbers off a brochure doesn't tell us anything about what can actually be carried under any given circumstances. Issues such as wooden shoring and safety aisles cut into volume, and shoring and structural issues cut into weight capacity (e.g. the Hercules must keep a certain amount of unusable fuel available at high loads due to act as a weight to counteract structural issues).


Also when looking at air transport, we need to remember that geography dictates requirements, so the optimum for one country may be completely different from that of another.
 
Typically its claimed hercs bulk out -
A400 wont bulk out as quickly because its a piece longer and wider - but thats a long way from will run out of payload before space.

Stuff sent by air tends not to be high density cargo as thats both inefficient and theres issues in floor loading.

A400 can arguably be said to be to tall because there will be unfilled height - but thats going to be true of our friend the herc as well.



Ive searched for a lockheed proposal along those lines - nada - I dont find it a credible claim

Im assuming youve seen something and arent just looking at engine power and assuming lots = spare capacity, forgetting things like engine out requirements on take off, MTWA /MTOW and just as importantly max landing weight (and yes thats often less than MTWA/MTOW**).

Theres also the issue that whilst the core may be able to deliver more power - the aircraft itself may not be able to use it (see the 3 different power ratings for the old Allisson engine on Herc - P3/Electra and E3

Incidently lift and engine power dont translate into structural strength and floor loading - hence my remark about reserve capacity.
You dont build a 20 tone airlifter with the strength to be a 30 ton lifter because thats a significant amount of structural penalty and subsequent increase in operating costs - because buyers of a 20 ton lifter wont want to pay those costs.




**Same thing - but 2 acronyms possibly civ v mil or new v old

C-130 is very substantially over engineered, the wide body Herc was nothing more than new fat hull using the existing enpenages.

As for the A400M? It falls in that black hole of airlifter capacity. Just big enough to lift an APC, but not big enough to lift a tank. There’s a reason the market has generally not much bothered with the 40 tonne niche - it’s the 2 tonne van in a world of 3.5 tonners for much the same money.

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

October 1, 2008 Wednesday

Lockheed Explores Niche For Widebody C-130

Lockheed Martin is studying widebody derivatives of its Hercules military airlifter able to carry larger loads, but believes the ‘C-130XL’ would only be a niche product and not a replacement for its C-130J tactical transport.

The C-130XL is one of several concepts being studied to fill the «white space» requirement for intra-theater transport of heavy U.S. Army equipment in the 2020 timeframe, says Jim Grant, vice president of business development for global mobility.

If today the C-130J can carry 95-percent-plus of everything in theater, in 2015-25 we still see the J carrying 90 percent of what the Army wants to move, he says. But there are some vehicles [such as the Future Combat Systems] that will be too big for the J.

As a result, Lockheed Martin sees a small white space to carry outsize equipment that will have to be moved by something, Grant says, and it is looking at «how to fill that white space in the out-years.

In addition to three notional sizes of larger C-130J derivative, the company is studying stealthy short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) concepts for the Air Force and tiltrotor vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) concepts for the Army.

The Air Force and Army are trying to combine their battlefield transport requirements under the Joint Future Theater Lift program, but it is not clear whether their competing desires for STOL and VTOL capability can be reconciled in one program.

There are things we don’t know, Grant says. What payload? What ranges? What runway conditions? If they need Hercules-size field operations, then could it be a derivative of the C-130?

If it’s down in the 1,000-2,000 foot STOL, none of the aircraft out there can routinely do that, he says. «If the Army pushes hard for VTOL, none of today’s aircraft can carry an FCS-size vehicle in a vertical environment.

The three sizes of conceptual C-130XL being studied are targeted at payloads of around 62,000, 72,000 and 80,000-85,000 pounds — up from around 42,000 pounds for the C-130J. All would have a wider, but not necessarily longer, fuselage.

If we size the payload bay to handle larger vehicles, how much do we have to change about the aircraft? Can we increase the STOL capabilities? That depends on the requirements, he says.

While a 62,000-pound payload design could use the C-130J’s wing and engines, the larger concepts would require more changes. What can we do with the current propulsion? At what point do we need different propulsion? We are looking at all options, he says.

Lockheed Martin sees a C-130XL complementing and not replacing the C-130J. It would run in parallel, to meet a very specific requirement, Grant says. Although it could end up similar in size to the Airbus A400M, he does not foresee a big international demand for a larger Hercules. You could see a small fleet within a fleet – someone with 12 Js and two to three XLs.
 
The three sizes of conceptual C-130XL being studied are targeted at payloads of around 62,000, 72,000 and 80,000-85,000 pounds — up from around 42,000 pounds for the C-130J. All would have a wider, but not necessarily longer, fuselage.

If we size the payload bay to handle larger vehicles, how much do we have to change about the aircraft? Can we increase the STOL capabilities? That depends on the requirements, he says.

While a 62,000-pound payload design could use the C-130J’s wing and engines, the larger concepts would require more changes. What can we do with the current propulsion? At what point do we need different propulsion? We are looking at all options, he says.

A fag packet C130XL is not a C130J and that cut and paste rather undermines your argument and strengthens mine because thats not as you said

Still plenty of life in the old C-130 dog, even with the existing wings/engines, it could be certified out to 30 tonnes payload if the market had a need.

Which along with subsequent graphics rather suggests the existing aircraft could do it, instead whats being talked about is effectively a new aircraft using some existing bits.

So whilst c130XL could use C130Js wings and engines, The fuselage wing box* etc are all new - So there isnt simply the structural reserves in the design - to massively increase payload as you claimed -

Let me think
I want 50% more payload than a C130J hmm A400M or fat potentially underpowered STOL compromised C130J XL.**
I reckon the A400 walks away with that one. Chances are Lockheed did to and decided it wasn't worth competing - unless Uncle Sam wanted it in which case NIH is cash in LHs pocket.


Edit to add - I had heard of the Far Herc - i just didnt connect your statement and it.


* An area requiring careful attention on Hercs.
** Same engines extra weight = reduced power to weight ratio. Same wing increased weight is going to affect your stall speed. Thats a longer take off roll and higher landing speed right off the bat.
 
Last edited:
Worked a lot with civilian C130 version, L100 and ex Russian mil IL76's out in Afghanistan. So many variables on what an aircraft like those can carry. Never ever look on Google for max payload etc, it will never correspond to real life! One of the issues we had with the L100 is we had to load it up quite close to its departure as it could not sit on the ground with all up max weight for long periods of time.. Something to do with the stress on the wing spar/undercarriage.
IL76 on the other hand was typical Russian engineering and rarely if ever broke down. Only issues we had were tyre blow outs on landing. L100 was a little more delicate but still had good serviceability. To be fair the choice to move around would be the IL76 but its own issues of runway length limited where we could deploy it.
Good article here of one of the 1st IL76 missions and I am conviently out of shot in the pics!
This clip was filmed by me after the mission in the article returning back to base.
 
Worked a lot with civilian C130 version, L100 and ex Russian mil IL76's out in Afghanistan. So many variables on what an aircraft like those can carry. Never ever look on Google for max payload etc, it will never correspond to real life! One of the issues we had with the L100 is we had to load it up quite close to its departure as it could not sit on the ground with all up max weight for long periods of time.. Something to do with the stress on the wing spar/undercarriage.
IL76 on the other hand was typical Russian engineering and rarely if ever broke down. Only issues we had were tyre blow outs on landing. L100 was a little more delicate but still had good serviceability. To be fair the choice to move around would be the IL76 but its own issues of runway length limited where we could deploy it.
Good article here of one of the 1st IL76 missions and I am conviently out of shot in the pics!
This clip was filmed by me after the mission in the article returning back to base.

I was told that the C130K- 30s with the DAS system and some bits up front had issues with bending moments and associated restrictions on loading
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top