RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

On a twin you need extra power per engine to meet single engine take-off performance requirements. If one engine fails just before lift off, too late to abort, e.g. a C130 has 3x5000shp left, an A200M just 11.000shp, to clear the fence at the end of the runway.

You are talking about twin engine jet airliners being
forced to have bigger engines to be able to climb or maintain altitude with one engine gone. This does not apply to tactical airlifters. Tactical airlifters have so much excess power that the single engine out power requirement doesn't even set the minimum engine power. Manufacturers still go with even more power for extremely short takeoff and have big brakes to stop quickly.

Two TP400 engines in a conventional winged design would result in a huge aircraft. More expensive than a C-130J and with only 15t payload it will be vastly inferior. It would get no sales outside of the launch customers. Europe is not stupid enough to develop such an aircraft so close to the A400M in size. Paying citizens to plant trees would be a better jobs program than a conventional airlifter design. But the obvious option is to just purchase the C-27J Next Gen that has the higher MTOW. It is the perfect combo with the A400M.

The Transalls didn't have enough excess power to fly across the mountains of Afghanistan safely in case of an engine failure. They had to take indirect routes along the valleys or fly with an unsatisfactory payload.

You seem to be very enthusiastic about the C-27J, although I can't see how the Next Gen would reach the 15 t payload class required here. Also, it wouldn't fulfil the economic-political demands of France and Spain.

On the other hand, developing an A200M based on the A400M opens up the possibility to integrate new developments into an updated version of the A400M. If Spain and France pay for the effort, they could thereby compensate for a reduction of their A400M purchase. Or they could swap some of their A400M orders for A200Ms.

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Hard to be less that the C-130J cost of $100M, and somebody pays most of the sustainment costs.

France and Germany just purchased new C-130J so buying extra Hercs provides a very small increase in sustainment costs compared to whole new aircraft type.

It's interesting that they're still planning to create a new plane in the same/similar class, altough they have just purchased a few C-130Js. Maybe they wouldn't consider this if they received the C-130J at the same price as the US forces. Maybe its better to have some competition than to be dependent on a market-dominating company.

Grizzly410 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Question: Is the PWC engine, which of course if produced, likely would come from Canada, really subject to export limits from the US? Also, wouldn’t Pratt be willing to consider, plausibly, a production line in the EU?

It’s not a question of production site but about content. A little subsystem, a software or a simple microchip is enough to make the whole engine ITAR relevant.

texl1649 wrote:

Re-using the basic A400M (shortened) fuselage might make a lot of sense, imho, contingent on costs somehow being much lower for the ‘little brother.’ Armored vehicles are a key role it serves, and they are getting fatter/heavier across the globe (often too much for a C-130 cargo box). I really don’t see the C-130 as the prime competition to this notional plane, but rather the KC-390, which seems affordable/capable, and now already has a couple key customers even in the EU.

Re-using fuselage is an idea regularly floated on this forum for various programs and I never really understand the real benefits of it. Wings would have to be redesigned, therefore wingbox, weight going down the LG too, etc… In the end, even keeping same dimension for the interior you would have to redesign the fuselage.

The real benefit of re-using technology is with kind of things like systems architecture, product structure, design tooling, building method and processes, supply chain. The thing you can re-use whether your product is scaled up or down. But for all the detailed design there is no saving to be made, as soon as you need a new type certificate you got to start from a clean sheet.

The A400M wing, wingbox, mid section landing gears are made to operate at 120-140t from bumpy, short runways. That makes it relative heavy, so for a A200M you would have to redesign these assemblies to make them useful for a 15-17t tactical air lifter. Also wing sweep, anhedral and profile would need to be optimized for twin engine operations, weights and operational requirements. So at least a new wing, wing box, center section and alnding gears. Front section, cockpit,, doors could be reused, as well as many (cabin, hydraulics, pneumatic, communication, protection) systems, structures, avionics, APU, and parts of the tail could be re-used. And most importantly; the engines, engine mountings and supporting systems.



The main driver would be it could carry vehicles like the Spanish VEC armored reconnaissance vehicles and equivalents, that are high and weigh up to 13-14t dependent on specific versions. I think that is where the "15t" requirement comes from.


http://www.military-today.com/apc/vec.htm

Noray wrote:

It's interesting that they're still planning to create a new plane in the same/similar class, altough they have just purchased a few C-130Js. Maybe they wouldn't consider this if they received the C-130J at the same price as the US forces. Maybe its better to have some competition than to be dependent on a market-dominating company.

The US has proven again and again to be an unreliable fickle supplier introducing surprises from "political opinion" changes.
a blackmailing strategy.
Compare to the Soviets or now the Russians: they deliver reliably independent of weather changes.

"The A400M wing, wingbox, mid section landing gears are made to operate at 120-140t from bumpy, short runways. That makes it relative heavy, so for a A200M you would have to redesign .."

No idea how this cuts into the AX00M design alley, but
with the A350 Airbus has gone to more or less parametric design processes.
you change the loads and that trickles as changes through the full design.

Accessorizing parts ( "Frankensteining", what Boeing likes so much ) hasn't been
in Airbus genes all that much anyway.

WIederling wrote:

"The A400M wing, wingbox, mid section landing gears are made to operate at 120-140t from bumpy, short runways. That makes it relative heavy, so for a A200M you would have to redesign .."

No idea how this cuts into the AX00M design alley, but
with the A350 Airbus has gone to more or less parametric design processes.
you change the loads and that trickles as changes through the full design.

Accessorizing parts ( "Frankensteining", what Boeing likes so much ) hasn't been in Airbus genes all that much anyway.

.. if we exclude the A300, A310, A310 MRTT, A330, A330MRTT, A330NEO, A340, A340NG .. But you are right A300, A310, A330, 340, A340NG had optimized new wings, wing boxes, engines, landing gears. An A200M would have to be certified top down, integral as a new type. Still it saves a lot of money time if your cockpit, fuselage, system integration, engine, supply chain is mature at the start of the project, instead of a blank sheet..

I took a look at Armored vehicles developed in Germany, France, Netherlands, UK. At first glance they all are >22T in combat layout. Interesting to see if you can develop a twin prop that can climb out with that+ fuel when one engine gave up.. The C-17 / A400M can easily do it, but something twin engined from an unprepared runway seems would require real big engines.. Maybe a build in JATO that kicks if that happens? Setting the prairy on fire in the process

keesje wrote:

WIederling wrote:

"The A400M wing, wingbox, mid section landing gears are made to operate at 120-140t from bumpy, short runways. That makes it relative heavy, so for a A200M you would have to redesign .."

No idea how this cuts into the AX00M design alley, but
with the A350 Airbus has gone to more or less parametric design processes.
you change the loads and that trickles as changes through the full design.

Accessorizing parts ( "Frankensteining", what Boeing likes so much ) hasn't been in Airbus genes all that much anyway.

.. if we exclude the A300, A310, A310 MRTT, A330, A330MRTT, A330NEO, A340, A340NG .. But you are right A300, A310, A330, 340, A340NG had optimized new wings, wing boxes, engines, landing gears. An A200M would have to be certified top down, integral as a new type. Still it saves a lot of money time if your cockpit, fuselage, system integration, engine, supply chain is mature at the start of the project, instead of a blank sheet..

I took a look at Armored vehicles developed in Germany, France, Netherlands, UK. At first glance they all are >22T in combat layout. Interesting to see if you can develop a twin prop that can climb out with that+ fuel when one engine gave up.. The C-17 / A400M can easily do it, but something twin engined from an unprepared runway seems would require real big engines.. Maybe a build in JATO that kicks if that happens? Setting the prairy on fire in the process

EXACTLY, keesje. On both points. Perhaps an ‘almost common’ type rating could be achieved, but that would be an issue in the 2020’s. And there’s really no need to develop an all new one unless it can haul around a modern APC/armored recon etc. vehicle, all of which are at least 15T stripped down, but ideally capable of a 20-22T load is needed. If not doing that, I can’t fathom what the need for a new aircraft would be, as the C-27/C-130/KC-390 etc. cover the rest of the real world mission sets.

2020 is weird; I’m agreeing with you fully. But I like new aircraft programs so hope it works/happens.

What is the magic necessity to carry one armoured vehicle?

steman wrote:

keesje wrote:

The C27 is a usefull tactical platform. If it would meet the requirements od WestEuropean airforces really depends on those requirement.


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/defense ... 1-s50.html

The aircraft has sizeable T56 engines providing 5000 shp and max 11t payload. Question is how much further this could beefed up on this aircraft.

I believe the engines are the AE2100, the same mounted on the C-130J.
The C-27J is the result of the cooperation between Leonardo (ex Alenia) and Lockheed at the time the Italian Air Force became a launch customer for the C-130J.
The two companies created a joint venture, LMATTS, to develop and market a second generation of the G-222/C-27A that would have as much commonality with the then new C-130J. I believe engines, propellers and probably part of the cockpit and instrumentations are common.
The Joint Venture didn´t last long though and Leonardo has pursued market opportunities for themselves.

The power output of the C-27J version of the AE2100 was increased to 5,100 hp in 2015, so the engine has diverged a bit from the C-130J version.

https://www.flightglobal.com/alenia-aer ... 46.article

seahawk wrote:

What is the magic necessity to carry one armoured vehicle?

It comes down to dimensional space and lifting capacity. Not really magic, but look at the vehicles both keesje and I referenced. Or any other armored vehicles in European service that were designed in the 90's or later (ideally later). In the US, for reference any future C-130 replacement will necessarily have a larger cargo hold, as the US Army is selecting from a set of very...plump designs.

HMMWV replacement:

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... ompetitors.

Bradley replacement (Lynx is one of 2 or 3):

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/omf ... ent-again/

texl1649 wrote:

the US Army is selecting from a set of very...plump designs.

HMMWV replacement:

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... ompetitors.

Bradley replacement (Lynx is one of 2 or 3):

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/omf ... ent-again/

I know this is a a little bit of a digression, but what is the Army going to do when they just need a Jeep-sized vehicle? They've clearly gone way beyond that.

N328KF wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

the US Army is selecting from a set of very...plump designs.

HMMWV replacement:

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... ompetitors.

Bradley replacement (Lynx is one of 2 or 3):

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/omf ... ent-again/

I know this is a a little bit of a digression, but what is the Army going to do when they just need a Jeep-sized vehicle? They've clearly gone way beyond that.

Frankly, it's crazy. I'm sure they'll come up with something but after Afghanistan and Iraq they seem determined to procure only IED-resistant (nothing can totally avoid death/serious injury) vehicles. I'd defend it if...I thought I could. Some (at least half or so) of the humvees will stick around thru the mid-2030's I think, and at some point it will have a 'light' successor in the pipeline I imagine (and public derision of the 'old 2020 plans'). Keep in mind it (humvees) is something like quadruple the weight of the original willys 'jeeps' of WW2. These new monsters will certainly limit air mobility, at least unless/until some sort of giant quad tiltrotor comes about. I had read about a 'chinook' looking heavy helicopter from Airbus too but not the past couple of years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/army-tr ... ges-2019-2

texl1649 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What is the magic necessity to carry one armoured vehicle?

It comes down to dimensional space and lifting capacity. Not really magic, but look at the vehicles both keesje and I referenced. Or any other armored vehicles in European service that were designed in the 90's or later (ideally later). In the US, for reference any future C-130 replacement will necessarily have a larger cargo hold, as the US Army is selecting from a set of very...plump designs.

HMMWV replacement:

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... ompetitors.

Bradley replacement (Lynx is one of 2 or 3):

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/omf ... ent-again/

Yes, but what is the tactical point of air lifting such vehicles into landing strips that can not take an A400? Those vehicles themselves have quite a big operational footprint and even a company worth of the them needs a lot of supplies. In the European theatre it is pointless. You can much more quickly move the units by train that by small tactical airlifters. Yes, I can see that you want to carry 1 or 2 7-8t armoured vehicles for patrols and such, but a full blown IFV, I think it pointless. 22t with a meaningful range is a plane bigger than a C-130J.

RJMAZ wrote:

The medium armoured vehicles being discussed seem to be too big for the C-130. It is like they sized them slightly too big on purpose so they can not roll off ready for combat. They fit the KC-390 perfect.

There is no perfect fit for the KC-390 at all. CV-90 except for latest upgraded version fits, the Boxer IFV is too heavy, the Lynx is too wide, tall and heavy, AMPV is too heavy and wide, VBCI is too heavy, Puma is too heavy and too wide, Hunter AFV is too heavy and too tall, Ajax is too heavy, K21 too heavy and probably too close for width, Type 89 is too heavy, ASCOD too heavy and wide, Dardo fits, Bionix fits, BMP-3 fits, no idea on Abhay.

Whether people like it or not the risk appetite for crew death in armoured vehicles is low and so survivability of the crew is the current primary requirement for most acquisition programs. That is why size and weight has increased with the current and emerging generation with most emerging generation vehicles now too heavy for the A400M such as AMPV, Lynx, Ajax etc.

I've said it once, I've said it 36 times, the best replacement for a C130 is another C130.

TWA772LR wrote:

I've said it once, I've said it 36 times, the best replacement for a C130 is another C130.

For now, you're right. I think the only way really revolutionize that space is a Quad Tilt Rotor.

N328KF wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I've said it once, I've said it 36 times, the best replacement for a C130 is another C130.

For now, you're right. I think the only way really revolutionize that space is a Quad Tilt Rotor.

Agreed. And it will be a good while (for this childless 28 year old) when my grandkids operate one with the speed and range of a Herc.

RJMAZ wrote:

Ozair wrote:

There is no perfect fit for the KC-390 at all.

I'm talking about Armoured personnel carriers where they have three weight classes and make up the vast majority of the military vehicles.

Infantry mobility vehicle (IMF) and Protected Mobility Vehicle (PMV) are light and usually under 10t. The HHMMWV, Oshkosh L-ATV and Hawkei come in here.

Wheeled Infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) is medium and are usually 15-22t. The Styker, ASLAV are examples here and usually max out fully loaded at 22t. Some of these are so tight inside the C-130J but would fit like a glove in the KC-390.

Tracked Infantry fighting vehicle are heavy class with the Bradley and the most of the models you mentioned.

These seem to be the categories used with most recent government RFP's

Those categories are changing. Boxer is an eight wheeled IFV replacing Stryker/ASLAV, it is slightly wider, a little lower and a little longer but in standard config 80% heavier. Patria is the lightest of the new gen APCs, at 22 ton in Polish service but with variants up to 27t. Piranha V is 33t while VBCI is above 28t. No one is buying new Strykers/ASLAVs etc anymore. The market has clearly shifted to heavier and better protected vehicles.

Only Patria will fit in a KC-390 for weight and the rest are a damn tight fit on the sides even if KC-390 could take the weight.

I think in the end (2030) we will see something powered by 4x Pratt NGTP's (7000-8000shp) that can carry a sizeable vehicle of up to 30t. First though the law has to be changed, so congress stops adding C-130 to the budget & the USAF must revitalize their long term requirements for a bigger C-130 replacement. The VTOL/ hybrid powerpoints will evaporate again. Transatlantic range, tanker capability, fast, a kind of US mini A400M I guess.

texl1649 wrote:

Frankly, it's crazy. I'm sure they'll come up with something but after Afghanistan and Iraq they seem determined to procure only IED-resistant (nothing can totally avoid death/serious injury) vehicles.

you want small?

ref: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _1_TOW.jpg

is it only me seeing some reminiscence to Short Circuit's #5 following its buddies ?

keesje wrote:

I think in the end (2030) we will see something powered by 4x Pratt NGTP's (7000-8000shp) that can carry a sizeable vehicle of up to 30t.

Keesje all that does is repeat the mistake of the A400M. This aircraft, if it ever gets off the ground, should be focused on pallet moving and the light tactical vehicles RJMAZ is referencing. France will have plenty of A400M to carry the VBCI and Jaguar/Griffon, there is literally no point over engineering this aircraft for such a small component of its mission set.

keesje wrote:

First though the law has to be changed, so congress stops adding C-130 to the budget & the USAF must revitalize their long term requirements for a bigger C-130 replacement. The VTOL/ hybrid powerpoints will evaporate again. Transatlantic range, tanker capability, fast, a kind of US mini A400M I guess.

Nonense, Congress doesn't add C-130s because it is lawfully obliged to do so and you can't stop Congress, who controls the money, from adding more aircraft simply because you don't like it. The replacement for the C-130 in USAF service almost certainly isn't going to be a heavy vehicle mover anyway, they don't need that capability and building a tactical aircraft to carry the AMPV and Bradley replacement is a waste of money.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think in the end (2030) we will see something powered by 4x Pratt NGTP's (7000-8000shp) that can carry a sizeable vehicle of up to 30t.

Keesje all that does is repeat the mistake of the A400M. This aircraft, if it ever gets off the ground, should be focused on pallet moving and the light tactical vehicles RJMAZ is referencing. France will have plenty of A400M to carry the VBCI and Jaguar/Griffon, there is literally no point over engineering this aircraft for such a small component of its mission set.

keesje wrote:

First though the law has to be changed, so congress stops adding C-130 to the budget & the USAF must revitalize their long term requirements for a bigger C-130 replacement. The VTOL/ hybrid powerpoints will evaporate again. Transatlantic range, tanker capability, fast, a kind of US mini A400M I guess.

Nonense, Congress doesn't add C-130s because it is lawfully obliged to do so and you can't stop Congress, who controls the money, from adding more aircraft simply because you don't like it. The replacement for the C-130 in USAF service almost certainly isn't going to be a heavy vehicle mover anyway, they don't need that capability and building a tactical aircraft to carry the AMPV and Bradley replacement is a waste of money.

Congress has been the one stretching the C130 lifecycle & continuous to act so.

2018: " The Department of Defence was also appropriated 16 additional Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft of differing variants – more than double the number of aircraft requested. "

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 07.article, and it has been going on for more than 30 years.

The C130 replacement is going to be a heavy vehicle mover in all studies that I have seen.

..the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation. Meanwhile, reports from the USAF indicate that C-130Js are often flying with very little weight and/or small cargo, because the demands of counterinsurgency airlift lead to more and smaller requests from a number of front line sources.

The C-130J thus finds itself in the odd position of offering capabilities that are both too great for many tactical needs, while being too small to meet important American strategic goals. Even Special Forces worry that future air defense threats will make the C-130 non-survivable in future gunship and insertion roles.

https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/3 ... ttlenecks/

I'm almost sure a "conventional" C-130 replacement will be launched to meet operational requirements that have outgrown the C130. It probably can't be the A400M because of national interests, so either Boeing, LM, both in combination with Raytheon Collins will come up with a badly needed, suitable, affordable platform. A ATT - Advanced Theater Transport or any other 3 character proposal.

Carrying NGCV and AMPV would be basic requirements, so up to 30t.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think in the end (2030) we will see something powered by 4x Pratt NGTP's (7000-8000shp) that can carry a sizeable vehicle of up to 30t.

Keesje all that does is repeat the mistake of the A400M. This aircraft, if it ever gets off the ground, should be focused on pallet moving and the light tactical vehicles RJMAZ is referencing. France will have plenty of A400M to carry the VBCI and Jaguar/Griffon, there is literally no point over engineering this aircraft for such a small component of its mission set.

keesje wrote:

First though the law has to be changed, so congress stops adding C-130 to the budget & the USAF must revitalize their long term requirements for a bigger C-130 replacement. The VTOL/ hybrid powerpoints will evaporate again. Transatlantic range, tanker capability, fast, a kind of US mini A400M I guess.

Nonense, Congress doesn't add C-130s because it is lawfully obliged to do so and you can't stop Congress, who controls the money, from adding more aircraft simply because you don't like it. The replacement for the C-130 in USAF service almost certainly isn't going to be a heavy vehicle mover anyway, they don't need that capability and building a tactical aircraft to carry the AMPV and Bradley replacement is a waste of money.

The Army will surely realize it needs to be able to airlift it’s new toys intra-theater quickly at some point in the late 2030’s. How do you envisage that could just be abandoned? Perhaps not the Bradley replacement itself, but why not design a quad copter to carry both if possible (ideally a sling load with a V280 for any/add’l troops)? The battle will be, as far as I can see it, an intro service one between a larger AAT-T (transport-tanker) more closely resembling a flying wing for the Air Force (also with a nominal tanker capability promised), and a quad tiltrotor the Army could operate (not a fixed wing!). Neither will be ‘affordable’ concepts, but the enormity of the C-130 replacement opportunity could be split in some form. Minor coincidence this will be happening as the C-17’s start becoming...really worn out.



Then, they get into a capability/cost/doctrine battle at the pentagon. It seems inevitable. Lockheed, NG, nor Boeing will just cede the space. United Tech (Pratt) might be happy to play on both/all teams.

A study finds out, that the C-130J often flies around wioth only a partial load and the answer is an aircraft that can take an even heavier load. Yes, that makes sense. A quad copter does not have the range or the speed for the role. In the end, it will be a strategic transport to replace the C-17 and Super Galaxy and hopefully a smaller, cheap C-130 replacement that will do ash and trash hauling.

How often does a C-17 or C-130J fly into/from a semi-improved airfield?

Politics and money are what matters, not how often capabilities are used. On either side of the Atlantic. On topic, a C-130 successor needs to accommodate both. I’m so old I remember when keesje touted the A400M for USAF to replace the Herc precisely because the added space/capability would be needed. He wasn’t totally wrong, just in the timeframe/scale. More importantly, if that’s where the ‘competition’ is headed, why de-scale to an ‘A200M’ at this point in time?

keesje wrote:

Congress has been the one stretching the C130 lifecycle & continuous to act so.

2018: " The Department of Defence was also appropriated 16 additional Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft of differing variants – more than double the number of aircraft requested. "

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 07.article, and it has been going on for more than 30 years.

The question to ask Keesje is are those additional aircraft being used? The answer is yes. Just because the USAF doesn’t ask for as many of them, even though they want them, is just the political game being played between the services and Congress.

keesje wrote:

The C130 replacement is going to be a heavy vehicle mover in all studies that I have seen.

Instead of making claims how about posting valid links?

keesje wrote:

..the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation. Meanwhile, reports from the USAF indicate that C-130Js are often flying with very little weight and/or small cargo, because the demands of counterinsurgency airlift lead to more and smaller requests from a number of front line sources.

The C-130J thus finds itself in the odd position of offering capabilities that are both too great for many tactical needs, while being too small to meet important American strategic goals. Even Special Forces worry that future air defense threats will make the C-130 non-survivable in future gunship and insertion roles.

https://harpgamer.com/harpforum/topic/3 ... ttlenecks/

Keesje the above didn’t come from a study, it came from a sales article in Aviation Week 13 years ago advocating for the A400M, only problem being those same vehicles referencing in the article are now greater than the payload of the A400M…

keesje wrote:

I'm almost sure a "conventional" C-130 replacement will be launched to meet operational requirements that have outgrown the C130. It probably can't be the A400M because of national interests, so either Boeing, LM, both in combination with Raytheon Collins will come up with a badly needed, suitable, affordable platform. A ATT - Advanced Theater Transport or any other 3 character proposal.

Carrying NGCV and AMPV would be basic requirements, so up to 30t.

Basic facts wrong Keesje, of the five NGCVs being looked at only one of them will definitely be under 30t, the light version of the RCV. The Bradley replacement is now approaching 50t and had the two vehicles in a C-17 requirement removed. AMPV is 36t, the Light Tank will go to GD which is close to 40T (based on Ajax with an Abrams turret and the Abrams replacement is obviously heavy…

Under the new NGCV Program, the following systems are planned for development:
The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV): the M-2 Bradley IFV replacement.
The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV): 2 the M-113 vehicle replacement.
Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF): 3 a light tank for Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs).
Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs): three versions, Light, Medium, and Heavy.
The Decisive Lethality Platform (DLP): the M-1 Abrams tank replacement.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf

texl1649 wrote:

The Army will surely realize it needs to be able to airlift it’s new toys intra-theater quickly at some point in the late 2030’s. How do you envisage that could just be abandoned?

No one is suggesting abandoning the transport of vehicles into theatre but the USAF isn’t using the C-130 to do that role. It fulfils a tactical transport role with people, pallets and the very occasional transport of vehicles that fit.

texl1649 wrote:

Perhaps not the Bradley replacement itself, but why not design a quad copter to carry both if possible (ideally a sling load with a V280 for any/add’l troops)?

Bradley replacement is around 50t, the AMPV is 36t. Good luck designing a quadcopter that has the ability to transport those loads and land in the areas you need it to. A quadcopter that transports a Stryker sized vehicle is more plausible and more likely for the role that those vehicles fulfil within the orbat.

texl1649 wrote:

The battle will be, as far as I can see it, an intro service one between a larger AAT-T (transport-tanker) more closely resembling a flying wing for the Air Force (also with a nominal tanker capability promised), and a quad tiltrotor the Army could operate (not a fixed wing!). Neither will be ‘affordable’ concepts, but the enormity of the C-130 replacement opportunity could be split in some form. Minor coincidence this will be happening as the C-17’s start becoming...really worn out.

Clearly the C-17/C-5 will need replacement at some point. Today sea based assets transport an overwhelming majority of US Army vehicles when they need to go outside the US and what is left goes via C-17/C-5. That role will continue with the next transport.

texl1649 wrote:

How often does a C-17 or C-130J fly into/from a semi-improved airfield?

Across Afghan/Iraq campaigns quite a bit, especially in the first ten years of the conflict in Afghanistan. The RAAF lands C-130Js on dirt strips all the time, as do a host of other nations. The RAAF lands C-17s on dirt a lot less frequently but still does.

texl1649 wrote:

Politics and money are what matters, not how often capabilities are used. On either side of the Atlantic. On topic, a C-130 successor needs to accommodate both. I’m so old I remember when keesje touted the A400M for USAF to replace the Herc precisely because the added space/capability would be needed. He wasn’t totally wrong, just in the timeframe/scale.

Except he was wrong, US Army vehicle weights have moved beyond the A400M.

texl1649 wrote:

More importantly, if that’s where the ‘competition’ is headed, why de-scale to an ‘A200M’ at this point in time?

The saving grace for any future program are the robotic vehicles. If you don’t have crew the survivability requirement changes to operation. There is no reason you couldn’t design a future light and medium robotic combat vehicle that could be C-130 capable (or within that weight size class), both in weight and size given you are removing the crew.

Bradley replacement is optionally manned so will still need sufficient crew protection and therefore weight.

Again, flying a 50t vehicle into theatre is a rare solution. You can carry too few and if the roads do not allow those vehicles to be driven to their area of operations from a central logistic hub in theatre, it is very likely that those vehicles will be pointless at the location, as they could not use the same roads for patrols either.

seahawk wrote:

Again, flying a 50t vehicle into theatre is a rare solution. You can carry too few and if the roads do not allow those vehicles to be driven to their area of operations from a central logistic hub in theatre, it is very likely that those vehicles will be pointless at the location, as they could not use the same roads for patrols either.

Agreed. I remember the Dutch flying in by C-17s one or two armored howitzers to their Afghan base for artillery support. But that's too rare a case to be specifically designing your new plane around. And a problem that's easier solved by flying in lighter towed artillery on smaller aircraft, since the artillery will never leave the base anyway (if only the Dutch would have kept some towed artillery around...).

FrancisBegbie wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Again, flying a 50t vehicle into theatre is a rare solution. You can carry too few and if the roads do not allow those vehicles to be driven to their area of operations from a central logistic hub in theatre, it is very likely that those vehicles will be pointless at the location, as they could not use the same roads for patrols either.

Agreed. I remember the Dutch flying in by C-17s one or two armored howitzers to their Afghan base for artillery support. But that's too rare a case to be specifically designing your new plane around. And a problem that's easier solved by flying in lighter towed artillery on smaller aircraft, since the artillery will never leave the base anyway (if only the Dutch would have kept some towed artillery around...).

We are not talking 50t vehicles. But 15t-30t vehicles that just don't fit in the outstanding, highly respected, reliable, loved, old C130. It has been a well acknowledged and documented limitation for decades. It's just the investments were high and LM (& AF reserves, states) have had an extreme strong lobby in congress, fighting to dismiss, deny operational limitations & keep the C-130 line going. Against the USAF requirements. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a391744.pdf

Mobility, employability and personal protection are seen as key in todays defense projections and policy makers are acting on it. https://www.defenceiq.com/armoured-vehi ... ure-trends I don't expect US militairy accepting they'll be left behind.

Quick strike brigades are armour heavy, those will not be deployed by air.

Here is the latest airmobile vehicles the Germans bought:

https://soldat-und-technik.de/2020/11/m ... s-mrzr-d4/

Not that heavy.

This is the standard vehicle for air deployable troops:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_ESK

and that is probably the heaviest vehicle to the regularly deployed by air transport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_Dingo

tommy1808 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

18% more power than the C-130J..

but spread over just two engines... so not really more power than the C130J.

Ozair wrote:

[why you would want to use the TP400 for this role, it will be incredibly overpowered and create significantly greater sustainment costs than operating a smaller engine more suited to the aircraft size. .

Its already in the fleet, so probably same or lower sustainment costs than having an additional type to take care of. With two TP400 having just 18% more power than 4x AE2100 they are probably cheaper to maintain too, and unless there is an off the shelf engine from a European manufacturer in the right power band developing a new one would kill any advantage it may otherwise have.

best regards
Thomas

the TP400 even at de-rated power would be a good engine for a new airplane as it would only need to be maximized for fuel economy and reliability. the
AE2100 would then be the next candidate for major upgrade. unless PWA or PWC came up with a hybrid engine which I do not doubt they could..

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

and that is probably the heaviest vehicle to the regularly deployed by air transport

I guess some would think this simply reflects the lack of a capable aircraft. Let's say the US had a giant quad tilt rotor with 50t payload during the Afghanistan conflict. We would probably have seen a couple 25t fully loaded Strykers rolling out of it on the front line on a regular basis.

One thing I have noticed is it is very rare for air transport to carry a single vehicle that fully uses the available space or weight of the aircraft. However multiple smaller vehicles of equal weight is much more frequent. My answer is this comes down to the lighter vehicles are required first for rapid response. The lighter vehicles are used to secure the airport, sea ports. It is usually the smaller conflicts that flare up quickly and they often do not need heavy armour. With the C-5M we are then far more likely to see 14 light armoured vehicles roll out of it than two Abram tanks.

But I do agree flying a single 50t vehicle is a rare solution. But being able to air transport five 10t vehicles is totally awesome. This actually changes the aircraft requirement significantly the 50t vehicle would want a wide and tall cargo hold like the Kawasaki C-2 but the five 10t vehicles would want an aircraft like the C-141.

The C-17 is so good as it was big enough to fit two rows of light vehicles. That is why it is so short and stubby. Anything smaller in capacity would probably then want to go with a really long and skinny fuselage. Like a KC-390 but with twice the length.

There is a need for a strategic heavy lifter (C-5M/C-17 in the USA, A400M in France) and a smaller tactical trash hauler. Remember that the US Army actually wanted the C-27J for more flexibility and a higher frequency of supply runs than the USAF´s C-130. You see a similar pattern in France, where the A400/C-130 do the flying from France to Africa and the C-160 and C-235 do much of the work in Africa.

I have also heard nothing but praise for the Spanish CASAs. In the end they should ask the foot soldiers what they need and I think many agree that a small transport that flies every second day is better than a large one that flies once a week. Once a base has been established there is a constant need to shuttle small numbers of personal, palletized supplies and often smaller spare parts between the logistic central hub in theatre and the forward base. In peace time it is not much different. I think something between the CASA295 and the C-27s would be right on the mark. The CASA is a bit small when it comes to the diameter of the fuselage, while the C-27 is a bit short for palletized cargo.

I don't get the fascination here of a giant quad tilt-rotor. Can someone please highlight which official studies this shows up in? Or this just an a.net wish?

For the vertical lift capability, we have the helicopter - a well known piece of machinery that operationally has topped out at the Chinook / King Stallion / AW101 size. That picks up about 10-15t of payload. A 50t quad-rotor? That would be enormous, and an enormous expenditure of energy. I would think that if 50t vertical lift was needed, helicopters would already be doing it. If they aren't, it probably means the cost/benefit equation hasn't worked out.

Quadrotors have been popular because they scale down very nicely. Scaling up is a different matter.

smithbs wrote:

I don't get the fascination here of a giant quad tilt-rotor. Can someone please highlight which official studies this shows up in? Or this just an a.net wish?

For the vertical lift capability, we have the helicopter - a well known piece of machinery that operationally has topped out at the Chinook / King Stallion / AW101 size. That picks up about 10-15t of payload. A 50t quad-rotor? That would be enormous, and an enormous expenditure of energy. I would think that if 50t vertical lift was needed, helicopters would already be doing it. If they aren't, it probably means the cost/benefit equation hasn't worked out.

Quadrotors have been popular because they scale down very nicely. Scaling up is a different matter.

A two rotor tilt is being discussed. Not quad.

RJMAZ wrote:

the forwwrd operating bases will no longer require a runway. They can be smaller and require less resources to maintain and defend. The bases can also be in easier to defend locations as forces can now fly 500+mm with vertical lift. The high purchase price of a tilt rotor is irrelevant. Only the bean counters complain about the purchase price which is what we initially saw with the V-22.

More options to locate bases, and fewer resources to initially set them up, absolutely yes. And that is probably well enough to justify the cost. But the perimeter you have to defend doesn´t really change between a 200 feet circle and a 2000 feet runway, as that is defined by enemy weapons range, not equipment footprint. A heavy machine gun will happily shred and aircraft 10k feet after all, plenty more once it is stationary.

best regards
Thomas

RJMAZ wrote:

JMR-Ultra - planned for 2025

Yes, but JMR-Ultra was given over to Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL), of which I'm having hard time finding any activity of it in recent years. This is probably the best I could find:

http://www.iceaaonline.com/ready/wp-con ... Georgi.pdf

My impression was that JMR-Ultra was a "that would be cool" feature to round out the JMR report, threw out an entirely unsubstantiated timeline, and then it was given to USAF and has wallowed ever since. It appears to exist mostly in the imaginations of the myraid of defense enthusiast/"news" websites. Yes, a tilt rotor does show up in the study I linked. So does an air ship.

RJMAZ wrote:

Nothing can beat a tilt rotor. Even if it costs more than the combined total of the helicopter and the tactical transport aircraft it replaces it still provides a total cost saving.

I agree with that statement: the tilt rotor would certainly cost more than, say, a CH-47F and C-130J-30 combined. But total cost saving? I would have to be convinced of that one, and the tactic of cost avoidance to justify a project has left me skeptical in my own professional experience.

No one has ever built a quad TR, nor of course tried to certify one (engine out performance would be "interesting" in this size category.)

We do have a thread about FVL/FLRAA but nothing specific to JFTL (JMR-ultra). I think this is functionally last in priority, and unlikely to see any real activity until FARA, FLRAA, and also the Chinook replacement is acquired; in other words toward 2040-2050.

viewtopic.php?t=1416091

The notional Bell Boeing V-44 was, frankly, less advanced in it's layout/design than the V280 is. I don't think it will be substantially revised/updated. My understanding is that the JFTL

texl1649 wrote:

No one has ever built a quad TR, nor of course tried to certify one (engine out performance would be "interesting" in this size category.)

We do have a thread about FVL/FLRAA but nothing specific to JFTL (JMR-ultra). I think this is functionally last in priority, and unlikely to see any real activity until FARA, FLRAA, and also the Chinook replacement is acquired; in other words toward 2040-2050.

viewtopic.php?t=1416091

The notional Bell Boeing V-44 was, frankly, less advanced in it's layout/design than the V280 is. I don't think it will be substantially revised/updated. My understanding is that the JFTL

The Osrpey needs about 2000kW installed engine power for lifting 1t VTOL.
IF you want to provide payload capability comparable to a C130 you'd need 36MW
IF you want to provide payload capability comparable to a n A400m you'd need 76MW

On November 16, the Future Medium-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC) was officially added to the list of PESCO projects, the Permanent Structured Cooperation defence cooperation between EU Member States.

France, Germany and Sweden are project members with France as the lead nation.

The objective of this project is to increase the air mobility capabilities of the armed forces of EU Member States with the new Future Mid-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC). It seeks to complement the missions of the A400M, including on narrow and short unprepared strips, to face collectively and efficiently the upcoming transport challenges in military operations or crisis response situations.

Another project adopted the same day is Strategic Air Transport for Outsized Cargo (SATOC) for the transport of outsized and heavy cargo (probably deserves a thread of its own).

This sounds like a project that will go through 2 decades of capabilities studies/renaming/panels/committees before any firm configuration/goals are reached, a la A400M.

Noray wrote:

On November 16, the Future Medium-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC) was officially added to the list of PESCO projects, the Permanent Structured Cooperation defence cooperation between EU Member States.

France, Germany and Sweden are project members with France as the lead nation.

The objective of this project is to increase the air mobility capabilities of the armed forces of EU Member States with the new Future Mid-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC). It seeks to complement the missions of the A400M, including on narrow and short unprepared strips, to face collectively and efficiently the upcoming transport challenges in military operations or crisis response situations.

Another project adopted the same day is Strategic Air Transport for Outsized Cargo (SATOC) for the transport of outsized and heavy cargo (probably deserves a thread of its own).

If I've time I will put all twin TP transports specs in xls to determine what reasonable payload can be achieved with the 11.000 shp TP400's.. or has it been done already? I see France is leading the project, but in reality CASA will be all over it. Nice to see Saab also being involved.

keesje wrote:

I see France is leading the project, but in reality CASA will be all over it.

So far, Spain isn't involved in the PESCO project. I've seen comments from Spanish people who don't think that a French dominated project is good for CASA.

I think France is mentioned because Airbus HQ location?

The C130 has 20t payload but is Korean war age design, the cabin became to low decades ago. But LM and politics have an iron grip on DoD. A C-130XL was avoided.

The Embraer KC-390 seems an alternative though..

keesje wrote:

I think France is mentioned because Airbus HQ location?

Airbus Defence HQ is in Germany.
France is mentioned because they have a requirement for this aircraft and are willing to push it forward. PESCO is about governments investing in military assets, and if the Spanish government isn't ready to invest, they're unlikely to play a large role.

LTEN11 wrote:

Sounds purely like a job creation/retention project.

This.

I'd love to see the pedigree of analysis that demonstrates the mission of this aircraft.