A400M

To be fair i think it was more to do with the L100 age than anything else. Bit of a obscure fact, the plane we used was the same one that was in the 7 Days to Entebbe film. Of course it was painted slightly differently to how we had it.

rsz_screen_shot_2020-08-14_at_212632.jpg
 
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



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.
According to this article, the LM C-130XL is basically a paper plane that sits as a placeholder while waiting for the US to come up with some firm requirements. This dates from the 2008 period, and not much seems to have happened since.
PICTURE: Lockheed Martin unveils wider, larger C-130XL to fight A400M

The central problem is that the US saw the C-130 as being too small to carry the vehicles that were coming up in future, and a larger plane would be needed.
The USAF has acknowledged it may need an aircraft with more payload capacity than the C-130 after 2015. The US Army currently plans to acquire manned ground vehicles for brigade combat teams equipped with the Boeing Future Combat System that exceed the C-130's payload limits.
The US are facing the same sort of problems with their ground vehicles that UK tank designers did in the WWII era when tank sizes were limited by UK railway gauge considerations. The solution for the Americans is to buy a new generation of larger planes to carry the new larger vehicles the army would like to buy. The issue though is money.
 
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.
Once again Arrse comes up trumps with a proper SME!
 
According to this article, the LM C-130XL is basically a paper plane that sits as a placeholder while waiting for the US to come up with some firm requirements. This dates from the 2008 period, and not much seems to have happened since.
PICTURE: Lockheed Martin unveils wider, larger C-130XL to fight A400M

The central problem is that the US saw the C-130 as being too small to carry the vehicles that were coming up in future, and a larger plane would be needed.


The US are facing the same sort of problems with their ground vehicles that UK tank designers did in the WWII era when tank sizes were limited by UK railway gauge considerations. The solution for the Americans is to buy a new generation of larger planes to carry the new larger vehicles the army would like to buy. The issue though is money.
Depending in the size of the order, LM could, in theory license build the A400m should the US decide it meets their needs.
Be interesting move if they did. Engine wise, RR-Allison or PW could pick up the engine.
 
Depending in the size of the order, LM could, in theory license build the A400m should the US decide it meets their needs.
Be interesting move if they did. Engine wise, RR-Allison or PW could pick up the engine.
never happen, look at the firestorm picking the Airbus A330 MRTT caused even with US production.

if the USAF decided it needed a 40 tonne class plane, although why when they have huge numbers of C-17’s?, they would simply get LM to dust off the fat C-130 work.

production of the A400M will end with the current launch partner orders.
It was simply the wrong plane, designed by people operating well outside their technical competence.
 
Reasons why its a pointless unneeded task and why a C130 does it a million times better in 5...4...
 

Sexton Blake

War Hero
Reasons why its a pointless unneeded task and why a C130 does it a million times better in 5...4...
Blimey, almost 24 hours have passed and nothing.

I hope everything is ok.

Smiley face, thumbs up, smiley face etc.
 
mustn’t disappoint you..;)

and of course, the C-130 can refuel at a higher rate after the A400M helichopter refueling ‘fix’

ORLÉANS, France, Sept. 19, 2019 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered the first of two KC-130J Super Hercules aerial refuelers to representatives from France’s Armée de l'Air's 62st Transport Wing at Orléans-Bricy Air Base today.....
.....As the preeminent tactical aerial refueling tanker, the KC-130J is a battle-tested solution that takes full advantage of the tremendous technological and performance improvements inherent in the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. A true force multiplier, the KC-130J refuels both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft as well as conducts rapid ground refueling.”


 

4(T)

LE
Random "I haven't read the whole thread" question:

Is/was there a road map to "stretch" the A400, thus enhancing its payload/volume?
 
Atlas flaps down and nose well up, Caracal nose down and going perhaps not quite flat out.
Not an optimal combination. C130 better at low speed?
Not necessarily - image is not mine

OIP.jpeg
 
A400 has the flaps full down, the Herc hasn't, thereby indicating that the Herc is managing better at low speed and could theoretically go even slower. I don't think that the A400 had that option.
Depends on altitude and stall speed at flap angle X and weight Y - without the pilots notes it's hard to say.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Hercules needed less flap - it's flies slower and lower and there's always a trade off between higher speeds and the low speed limits of the wing you go for. It also uses a different design of flap.
 

Sexton Blake

War Hero
mustn’t disappoint you..;)

and of course, the C-130 can refuel at a higher rate after the A400M helichopter refueling ‘fix’

ORLÉANS, France, Sept. 19, 2019 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) delivered the first of two KC-130J Super Hercules aerial refuelers to representatives from France’s Armée de l'Air's 62st Transport Wing at Orléans-Bricy Air Base today.....
.....As the preeminent tactical aerial refueling tanker, the KC-130J is a battle-tested solution that takes full advantage of the tremendous technological and performance improvements inherent in the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. A true force multiplier, the KC-130J refuels both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft as well as conducts rapid ground refueling.”


PhotEx,

Merci,

But simply pasting in some self agrandissant from the actual makers of the C130 hardly cuts the mustard (be it French, American, English or even German mustard). I could be my usual lazy self and ‘cut and paste’ some bumf from Airbus that states its aircraft has better AAR in the round than C130, but I won’t yet.

I expect better next time, not to mention that any comparable aircraft can’t be No 1 in every aspect of TAC (or possibly Strat) AT.

On paper, and progressively by T&E, the Atlas is shaping up quite well nes pas?
 

Sexton Blake

War Hero
As long as you forget the C17 exists.
True to a certain point.

I was more comparing C130 to Atlas in this instance.

Or we get into a never ending circular debate on the attributes of all 3 ac (Atlas, Herc, C17) others are available)) with regards to Airdrop v medevac v AAR v NSO v range v SF stuff v air land v etc.

Edited due to quaffing of vino calapso.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top