Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RJMAZ wrote:The CN-295 is only good for carrying troops. That is great for small countries but for a high end force the A400M aircraft are being abused doing short hops with light payloads because the CN-235/295 is too small. This is why the C-130J continues to sell. France and Germany both recently had to purchase C-130J.
Another key benefit, once A400M production ends around 2030 the A200M can take over the rough STOL and Austere tactical work. The A400M can then have a long life doing easier strategic work. This is what the USAF did with the C-5 fleet once the C-17 arrived. So A400M replacement then gets pushed out to beyond 2050 resulting in money saved.
744SPX wrote:I don't think it would have the same speed as the A400M. The wing of the A400M has more to do with the cruising speed than the engines.A 200M would be killer. Jet-like cruise speeds as well.
docmtl wrote:I posted on another forum about Embraer KC-390 on several NATO countries choosing this plane as their C-130 replacement (Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary) along with probably Sweden and Austria.
Would that build up enough momentum and sort of shortcut this European FMTC project ?
docmtl
RJMAZ wrote:The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller. I could easily see 500 A200M sold. Most C-130 operators would be using the A200M by 2050.
docmtl wrote:I posted on another forum about Embraer KC-390 on several NATO countries choosing this plane as their C-130 replacement (Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary) along with probably Sweden and Austria.
Would that build up enough momentum and sort of shortcut this European FMTC project ?
docmtl
kitplane01 wrote:With one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies.
kitplane01 wrote:And there is zero chance the AN200 has better economics than the C130. As for Europe making a military plane operated by 67 different nations (the C-130 operator list) ...
RJMAZ wrote:The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:With one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies.
I would consider the CN235 and CN295 as one family. We consider the A321 and A319 as the same family.
Well over 500 CN235 and CN295 aircraft have been produced. Production lines are still going with no signs of them stopping.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:And there is zero chance the AN200 has better economics than the C130. As for Europe making a military plane operated by 67 different nations (the C-130 operator list) ...
I would say the KC-390 already has better economics than the C-130 so it is not hard. The CN-295 is also much cheaper to operate than the C-130. A modern cleansheet design would have have a fraction of the parts.
RJMAZ wrote:The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller.
The CN235 and CN295 are examples of aircraft that would probably remain in production for decades as they are sized small enough where the market is quite large. If no cleansheet replacement is launched they might hit a combined production total of 1,000 aircraft in 20 years time.
I could see all European CN295, C-27J and C-130 operators buying this proposed cleansheet tactical airlifter. That's not far off 500 aircraft. It might not even use two engines from the A400M. It might use the brand new PW127XT-L engine that has just been certified.
kitplane01 wrote:
I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.
I'm not arguing the proposed plane is a bad idea, I'm arguing that Europe has not shown they can do it economically. They've shown the opposite. Which is super weird, because Airbus commercial and Boing commerical costing are in the same neighborhood.
Which seems more likely
(1) Europe outside Sweden make a plane with low-cost economics
(2) An Indian military procurement goes as planned and on time
(3) You find $100 bill on the sidewalk on your next walk.
kitplane01 wrote:I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.
kitplane01 wrote:I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.
Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective.
kitplane01 wrote:I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.
They are definitely capable. They have never had price as a primary design goal.
With the Eurofighter and Rafale the goal was to make an aircraft that can beat anything Russia has. They were both state of the aircraft. This will always be expensive. Europe can't fly Hawks and Alpha jets against Russian fighters.
With the A400M it is the heaviest tactical airlifter in history. It has extreme performance for its size. Only transport aircraft half the weight could operate on runways as short or as soft. This is why the A400M is expensive.
Now designing a smaller tactical that only has average performance for its size would be relatively easy and cost effective. It could easily beat the C-130J on price and operating cost.
However if Europe decides again to go for extreme performance then it would not be price competitive against the C-130J. Such extreme performance in a tactical airlifter would be a tilt wing or tilt rotor with extreme STOL or even VTOL capability.
The CN295 is too skinny for pallets and vehicles. The C-27J is the best option to form the basis of this new tactical airlifter. I think a C-27J-30 would be perfect like how the C-130J-30 has a small fuselage stretch and MTOW bump.
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.
Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective.
kitplane01 wrote:Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one??
kitplane01 wrote:Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one?
petertenthije wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one??
There’s a wide range of light and medium helicopters to choose from. The H145 and various derivatives, the Lynx/Wildcat, the Puma and various derivatives.
And it’s not like the US has no difficulty keeping prices down. How much did the JSF go over budget again? Or the Osprey? Or the Comanche…
The main strength of the US is not designing inherently cheaper planes. It’s main advantage is having a home market that guarantees sales in the hundreds if not thousands, thus making the price per unit somewhat manageable. And even then it does not always work out (B-2, Comanche).
RJMAZ wrote:kitplane01 wrote:Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one?
This generation?
Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and A400m. There is only four military only aircraft to choose from. Only one was designed with cost as a design goal the other three designed for extreme performance.
RJMAZ wrote:I assume you included the words "this generation" to exclude the Hawk, Alpha Jet, Jaguar and AMX. These were all extremely cost effective aircraft. A combined total of well over 2,000 aircraft produced with over 30 operators with just these four aircraft.
RJMAZ wrote:I would look at the UH-72 Lakota as an example of just how cost effective Europeans can make aircraft in the 21st century. The US military purchasing a European helicopter is a BIG deal. The H145 was designed with cost as a primary design goal for the civilian market.
RJMAZ wrote:Modern designs with reduced parts count have proven to be cheaper to produce and maintain. A cleansheet tactical airlifter sized between the C-27J and C-130J would easily beat the Hercules in purchase cost and maintainance costs. In theory it could match the costs of the CN295 while offering double the payload.
kitplane01 wrote:I'm not saying there is no market for this plane. I'm not saying that modern techniques are no better than old techniques. I'm saying the chance Europe makes a low cost military aircraft are about the same as the chance that the next Indian military program goes smoothly, or that you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk on on your next walk.
TheSonntag wrote:Industrial politics play a role too. The Transall could easily have been ordered in the US as C130, but the Transall companies were all vital for the foundations of Airbus.
I guess an A200M can be economical if it uses
a) the A400 engine
b) key A400 components (Avionics, Landing Gear, Tooling Assembly9
c) is assembled with the A400 tooling, if possible.
We will see.
TheSonntag wrote:I guess an A200M can be economical if it uses
a) the A400 engine
b) key A400 components (Avionics, Landing Gear, Tooling Assembly9
c) is assembled with the A400 tooling, if possible.
RJMAZ wrote:The fact that the US is now looking at large sea planes and fitting the C-130 with floats to land on water shows the demand for a large tilt rotor is extremely high. The US knows runway denial will prevent weapons making it to Taiwan.
par13del wrote:Strange that the Navy has not come up with the most obvious solution, turn their retired SSBN into cargo mules as was done by the Japanese during WWII.
RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:Strange that the Navy has not come up with the most obvious solution, turn their retired SSBN into cargo mules as was done by the Japanese during WWII.
Now the USAF just needs a 10,000t airlifter so the submarine can be airdropped into many large lakes around Taiwan. That would make a big splash.
Imagine a nuclear sub at a beach in Taiwan surfaced for hours while cranes unload. I can smell the radioactive fallout from here.
bunumuring wrote:Hey RJMAZ,
Totally agree with all that you say, especially the part about Australia. I suspect that a couple of times over the past decade the Osprey has been quietly discussed as an option for Australia, and I truly wish that we had a squadron of them for all kinds of purposes. I haven’t heard rumours for a few years though.
Take care,
Bunumuring
par13del wrote:Does the USAF now air drop SSBN's when they go on patrol, I am confused what the USAF has to do with a SSBN travelling the Pacific.
As for being at the beach, I can imagine numerous ways that funds can be spent to have clandestine delivery of as mentioned "critical supplies".
RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:Does the USAF now air drop SSBN's when they go on patrol, I am confused what the USAF has to do with a SSBN travelling the Pacific.
As for being at the beach, I can imagine numerous ways that funds can be spent to have clandestine delivery of as mentioned "critical supplies".
We are talking about amphibious aircraft delivering to lakes.
Even if the Navy had floating cans in the Polaris missile bays you only have two C-17s worth of cargo volume. A C-17 could do a dozens of flights in the time it takes for a submarine to cross the Pacific.
par13del wrote:So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.
par13del wrote:I honestly do not think that China would allow a situation like Gulf War I where they just sat there and watched all the ships and a/c bring untold numbers of troops and their equipment into theatre, Hopefully Taiwan thinks the same way to and realizes that they need to have supplies dispersed and protected in caves or mountains to withstand the initial assault.
RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.
Cargo flights coming from the east of Taiwan would be somewhat protected by terrain. There would be enough F-35 coming and going east of Taiwan that there would be no need for dedicated escorts for the cargo flights.
[...]
RJMAZ wrote:Tsengwen Reservoir and Sun Moon Lake would be ideal locations for amphibious aircraft to land. Aircraft on the water would be hidden by terrain even with AWACs located 200 miles away to the west.
IADFCO wrote:I am not surprised. I'm sure a 747 freighter would also get shot down.Despite the risks, the US sends in a C-17 Globemaster to restock the Marines’ precious supply of missiles — and the plane is summarily shot down by the Chinese. [...]
It’s not a pleasant scene, but it is a realistic one, according to a series of wargames hosted in early August at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based think tank. [/i] [...]
(boldface is mine)
par13del wrote:the war will not be won by some tactical surprise because one side or the other did not know of an existing capability.
RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:the war will not be won by some tactical surprise because one side or the other did not know of an existing capability.
Actually this is rarely true. Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't have invaded Kuwait if he knew the USAF had secret stealth fighters that could bomb Baghdad with impunity. There would be many exusting capabilities that the other side doesn't know.
par13del wrote:The script is not flipped. It is the exact same script. Taiwan is Kuwait. China is Iraq. Both China and Iraq have or had big armies and lots of good military equipment.Saddam did not bury his fighters in the sand because he did not know of any US secret programs, he did that because he knew he was not in a peer conflict, China is to Taiwan what the US and coalition was to Iraq, a flipped script.
RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:The script is not flipped. It is the exact same script. Taiwan is Kuwait. China is Iraq. Both China and Iraq have or had big armies and lots of good military equipment.Saddam did not bury his fighters in the sand because he did not know of any US secret programs, he did that because he knew he was not in a peer conflict, China is to Taiwan what the US and coalition was to Iraq, a flipped script.
par13del wrote:If you want to compare the Chinese military to the Iraq military including their capabilities, so be it, I think you are wrong but that is my opinion.
LightningZ71 wrote:That is EXACTLY what observers said about Iraq in 1990.There's only one thing that will prevent Taiwan from being rapidly overrun by China, and that's a significant second-strike capability featuring WMDs that China can not easily neutralize.
LightningZ71 wrote:Any war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logistics required would put the pacific theater of WWII to shame.
The Brazilian leader courted controversy last weekend when he said that both Ukraine and Russia had decided to go to war, and claimed that the U.S. was “stimulating” the fighting. Earlier in the month, he irked Ukraine, the U.S. and the EU by suggesting that Ukraine should cede Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014, to end the current conflict.
Lula also welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Brasilia on Monday. The following day, Lula condemned the “violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity” while promoting his proposal for a club of nations, including Brazil, to mediate a peaceful resolution to the war.
IADFCO wrote:RJMAZ wrote:par13del wrote:So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.
Cargo flights coming from the east of Taiwan would be somewhat protected by terrain. There would be enough F-35 coming and going east of Taiwan that there would be no need for dedicated escorts for the cargo flights.
[...]
Good luck!
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/08/a-bloody-mess-with-terrible-loss-of-life-how-a-china-us-conflict-over-taiwan-could-play-out/
A US Marine Littoral Regiment stationed in southern Taiwan is holding off hostile forces conducting an amphibious invasion near Tainan City. The MLR’s land-based, anti-ship missiles have slowed the Chinese fleet’s advances considerably, but the unit is running low on ammunition. It will need to be resupplied soon or face long odds in continuing to repel the invaders.
Despite the risks, the US sends in a C-17 Globemaster to restock the Marines’ precious supply of missiles — and the plane is summarily shot down by the Chinese. [...]
It’s not a pleasant scene, but it is a realistic one, according to a series of wargames hosted in early August at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based think tank. [...]
(boldface is mine)
RJMAZ wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:Any war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logistics required would put the pacific theater of WWII to shame.
Training drills show that the kill ratio increases exponentially with a linear improvement in equipment capability. For instance the Super Hornet going from APG-73 to APG-79 and Typhoon Tranche 2 to Tranche 3 showed more than a 2:1 kill ratio improvement. That slight detection advantage kept getting used over and over. Ask any fighter pilot and they will tell you this.
Same applies with sea radar and missile end game tracking. A linear increase in capability gives exponentially gains. There is a compounding effect when you combine the advantages of every system. A 20% detection advantage might give a 2:1 kill ratio. A 40% detection advantage might give a 8:1 kill ratio. A 60% detection advantage gives a 32:1 kill ratio. Adding better missiles that by themselves give a 2:1 kill ratio now sees the platform go from 32:1 to 64:1.
I'd expect a worse case scenario of 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22/F-35 combo versus J-20. This is still utter domination. China loses 1000+ fighters in the first week compared to a few dozen US fighters.
The logistics to keep 100 fighters in the air near Taiwan is not that bad. Kadena Air Base in Japan is only 400nm from Taiwan. The F-35 can fly from there and provide 2 hour combat air patrol over Taiwan and return to Japan without any inflight refueling.
Guam to Taiwan is a tactically safe 1,500nm from Taiwan. The US Navy sitting the carriers closer to Tokyo and Guam in the Philippines Sea still allows the F-35C to hit Chinese ships from a safe distance. Bombers, P-8 and inflight tankers can all operate out of Northern Australia as its under 2,500nm away. Easy logistics.
RJMAZ wrote:Europes FMTC program as a tactical transport will be shaped based on how cargo is delivered in Ukraine and how it would be delivered to Taiwan. A C-27J, C-160 or C-130J style fixed wing aircraft just doesn't work in a modern near peer conflict. Runways are too vulnerable and are much easier to hit compared to 30 years ago.
“Many of these aircraft are coming toward the end of their lifespan and there is a question of what the 20-ton-class of transport aircraft looks like in the next decade or so,” Schoellhorn said.
Key aims of the Fasett study will be to find a configuration with the payload and volume capacity to accommodate new-generation vehicles used by European militaries, as many have introduced systems that do not fit on platforms such as the C-130.
[...]
“The Fasett feasibility study aims to carry out a cooperative analysis of the transport aircraft replacement needs of EU Member States on the 2030-40 horizon and to identify European development opportunities to address strategic gaps,” the documents state.
RJMAZ wrote:I watch wildfires every year and see helicopters dropping small amounts of water multiple times per hour and large fixed wing aircraft dropping large volumes of water once per hour if they are lucky. A large tilt rotor could drop at the frequency of a helcopter with water volumes of a larged fixed wing aircraft.