According to a parliamentary report written by the French deputies Benjamin Griveaux and Jean-Louis Thiériot in July 2020, Airbus is working on a project that the French military calls "Future Medium Tactical Cargo aircraft" (FCTM). It's supposed to replace the CN-235s and C-130Hs of the French airforce und will incorporate many elements of the A400M, including the engines.

"Flash" mission on the role of the defense industry in the recovery policy (PDF, p. 22)

Des opportunités européennes à saisir

L’armée de l’air met en avant un projet de futur cargo tactique médian (FCTM), destiné à remplacer à la fois les C130 et les Casa, flottes aujourd’hui vieillissantes. Ce FCTM, qui serait un concurrent direct du C130J américain, ferait aux yeux de l’armée de l’air un excellent produit pour un plan de relance européen. Airbus conçoit en effet un appareil se plaçant sur le segment capacitaire du C130 et reprenant nombre d'éléments de l'A400M, dont les moteurs, ce qui permet d'envisager des économies d'échelle en matière de formation, de logistique et d'emploi. Les Espagnols, en particulier, pourraient être intéressés par ce projet. Mieux encore qu’un soutien du FEDef, un tel projet pourrait être financé au titre du plan de relance européen, pour cinq ou six milliards d’euros.

Translation:

European opportunities to seize

The Air Force is putting forward a project for a future medium tactical cargo aircraft (FCTM), intended to replace both the C130 and the Casa, fleets now aging. This FCTM, which would be a direct competitor of the American C130J, would make in the eyes of the Air Force an excellent product for a European recovery plan. Airbus is designing an aircraft that fits into the capacity segment of the C130 and incorporates many elements of the A400M, including the engines, which makes it possible to envisage economies of scale in terms of training, logistics and employment. The Spaniards, in particular, might be interested in this project. Better still than European defense fund support, such a project could be financed under the European recovery plan, for five or six billion euros.

In an interview with Le Monde (paywall), Philippe Lavigne, the chief of staff of the Franch air and space force is talking about "a twin-engined medium (15 t) transport aircraft, a smaller derivative of the A400M", according to a journalist on Twitter.

No official news yet from Airbus.

Noray wrote:

According to a parliamentary report written by the French deputies Benjamin Griveaux and Jean-Louis Thiériot in July 2020, Airbus is working on a project that the French military calls "Future Medium Tactical Cargo aircraft" (FCTM). It's supposed to replace the CN-235s and C-130Hs of the French airforce und will incorporate many elements of the A400M, including the engines.

The Air Force is putting forward a project for a future medium tactical cargo aircraft (FCTM), intended to replace both the C130 and the Casa, fleets now aging. This FCTM, which would be a direct competitor of the American C130J, would make in the eyes of the Air Force an excellent product for a European recovery plan. Airbus is designing an aircraft that fits into the capacity segment of the C130 and incorporates many elements of the A400M, including the engines, which makes it possible to envisage economies of scale in terms of training, logistics and employment. The Spaniards, in particular, might be interested in this project. Better still than European defense fund support, such a project could be financed under the European recovery plan, for five or six billion euros.

No official news yet from Airbus.

This to me signals the death of the A400M, they have basically acknowledged by going after this market segment that the A400M is too big for most operators. It appears they can’t make up their minds on what market segment they want to cover, one aircraft covering a 30,000lb payload range from the CN-235 to the C-130, what could go wrong… If it isn’t close to the payload of a C-130J then it won’t be a viable replacement and if it is close to the payload of a C-130J it won’t be a viable CN-235 replacement. They could just build a C-27J sized aircraft and call it the middle but that hasn’t been a resounding success either.

I’m also not sure 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. Something below the AE2100 in hp makes more sense (you would expect the airframe to be lighter and have less drag than a C-130) and even that may be too much engine depending on what final payload range they look for.

Finally, taking five to six billion Euros from Europe to develop this aircraft is an utter waste of European Recovery Fund. At the moment 13.2 Billion Euro is set aside for security and defence, I would be stunned that this project could take half of that planned funding.

Ozair wrote:

Finally, taking five to six billion Euros from Europe to develop this aircraft is an utter waste of European Recovery Fund. At the moment 13.2 Billion Euro is set aside for security and defence, I would be stunned that this project could take half of that planned funding.

I agree, but I don't blame them for offering to stick their hand in the pot. Everybody else will be trying to do the same. Might as well throw the idea on the wall and see if it sticks.

And yes, I'm not sure what they are after and how successful it might be. If they want a twin engine C-130 replacement, they should call down to Embraer and ask how it's going. I like the KC-390, but it has not been a sales success thus far, and I don't think its cure would be those turbos.

*cough* Tilt rotor *cough*

We have lots of airlifters.
CN-295 - 23.2t MTOW 4,354kw power
V-22 - 27.4t MTOW, 9,180kw power
C-27J - 31.8t 6 MTOW, 6,916kw power
C-130J - 70.3t MTOW, 13.832kw power
KC-390 - 87t MTOW, 278.8kn thrust
A400M - 141t MTOW, 32,800kw power

If we assume two engines off the A400M we have a massive 16,400kw. Nearly 4 times the power of the CN-295 and 18% more power than the C-130J.

15t of payload is less than two thirds of the what this thrust indicates from a conventional turboprop design.

This will be a tilt rotor/tilt wing like the V-22. We have 1.8 times the engine power of the V-22 so we can multiply the V-22 specs by 1.8 to give a rough estimate.

Payload: 58 troops or 16.3t internal
Empty weight: 26t
MTOW vertical: 38.6t
MTOW normal: 49.4t

This will be a big hit on the market and is exactly what we should expect moving forward. Finally something that can make the C-130J irrelevant.

If we look at the Bell V-280 it can lift approximately 90% of the V-22 payload range with only 70% of the thrust. So it should be very easy to hit the scaled up V-22 specs listed above. It should be able to have a CN-295 sized cabin and fly the same payload further than the CN-295. It would be a perfect compliment to the A400M.

A twin engine mini A400M is obviously a silly idea when you already have C-130J being purchased in Europe. Every international customer would buy the Hercules. VTOL is the future and I'm sure the Germans will be ordering this as they just passed on the King Stallion and Super Chinook.

The Italian Air Force might be interested in such a project.
The Italian Ministry of Defence has recently released a Document in which it outlines the planned investment for all branches of the Armed Forces in the near future and for the Air Force one interesting paragraph is the need for a C-130J replacement.
The ItAF currently operates about 20 C-130J and J-30 which have been delivered in the early 2000s, Italy being one of the earliest customers for the newest Hercules version.
The proposed new Airbus medium lifter might become available right when the Italian Hercules reach the end of their service life.
However it would ironic since Italy was one of the founding members of the EuroFLAG Program which eventually mutated into the Airbus A400M and at one point Italy was the leading partner in the development but then it abandoned it altogether and chose the C-130J instead.

Replacing the CASAs with something 4 times as powerful, is probably destroying their biggest advantage which are the very low operating costs.

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

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

A twin has to have more total power than an equivalent quad for engine failure modes.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

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

A twin has to have more total power than an equivalent quad for engine failure modes.

Exactly, that is what i had in mind.

best regards
Thomas

Ozair wrote:

This to me signals the death of the A400M,

Maybe. Just like the C-27J marked the death of the C-130J. Oh wait, wishful thinking from Lockheed country ...

Ozair wrote:

they have basically acknowledged by going after this market segment that the A400M is too big for most operators.

They have acknowledged that the A400M is too large, heavy or expensive for some tasks.

Ozair wrote:

It appears they can’t make up their minds on what market segment they want to cover, one aircraft covering a 30,000lb payload range from the CN-235 to the C-130, what could go wrong… If it isn’t close to the payload of a C-130J then it won’t be a viable replacement and if it is close to the payload of a C-130J it won’t be a viable CN-235 replacement. They could just build a C-27J sized aircraft and call it the middle but that hasn’t been a resounding success either.

The French CN-235s were nothing but a stop-gap. France would have bought more Transalls had they been still in production. To me, the FCTM specifications sound like a "Transall 2". The Transall wasn't a huge commercial success either, but it had its strong points where it was better than the C-130, like performance on unpaved runways. Also, the A400M isn't dead, but the FCTM will be its counterpart. A400M and FCTM will attack the C-130 from two sides. At least in the eyes of the French. Their paradigm is strategic independence, not market control.

Ozair wrote:

I’m also not sure 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. Something below the AE2100 in hp makes more sense (you would expect the airframe to be lighter and have less drag than a C-130) and even that may be too much engine depending on what final payload range they look for.

One of the Transall's biggest drawbacks was that it didn't have enough power for hot & high operations in engine failure mode.

Ozair wrote:

Finally, taking five to six billion Euros from Europe to develop this aircraft is an utter waste of European Recovery Fund. At the moment 13.2 Billion Euro is set aside for security and defence, I would be stunned that this project could take half of that planned funding.

So far, there seems to be no funding at all.

RJMAZ wrote:

*cough* Tilt rotor *cough*

We have lots of airlifters.
CN-295 - 23.2t MTOW 4,354kw power
V-22 - 27.4t MTOW, 9,180kw power
C-27J - 31.8t 6 MTOW, 6,916kw power
C-130J - 70.3t MTOW, 13.832kw power
KC-390 - 87t MTOW, 278.8kn thrust
A400M - 141t MTOW, 32,800kw power

If we assume two engines off the A400M we have a massive 16,400kw. Nearly 4 times the power of the CN-295 and 18% more power than the C-130J.

15t of payload is less than two thirds of the what this thrust indicates from a conventional turboprop design.

This will be a tilt rotor/tilt wing like the V-22. We have 1.8 times the engine power of the V-22 so we can multiply the V-22 specs by 1.8 to give a rough estimate.

Payload: 58 troops or 16.3t internal
Empty weight: 26t
MTOW vertical: 38.6t
MTOW normal: 49.4t

This will be a big hit on the market and is exactly what we should expect moving forward. Finally something that can make the C-130J irrelevant.

If we look at the Bell V-280 it can lift approximately 90% of the V-22 payload range with only 70% of the thrust. So it should be very easy to hit the scaled up V-22 specs listed above. It should be able to have a CN-295 sized cabin and fly the same payload further than the CN-295. It would be a perfect compliment to the A400M.

A twin engine mini A400M is obviously a silly idea when you already have C-130J being purchased in Europe. Every international customer would buy the Hercules. VTOL is the future and I'm sure the Germans will be ordering this as they just passed on the King Stallion and Super Chinook.

Development of your idea will cost € 15.000.000.000 or so, and the aircraft will be ready in 15 years. I doubt that this is realistic. Airbus don't even have a tiltrotor prototype.

The German King Stallion/Super Chinook purchase isn't dead, but will be reissued in the next weeks.

Somehow such move would make sense for Airbus Defense&Space, the C-295 platform is getting old (nicely overhauled for the Canadian FWSAR though), there is a LOT of lesson learnt from the A400M that could benefit such a new program [in aspects like conceptual phase, worksharing, supply chain, design tools and methods, workforce now used to Airbus philosophy....], and commonality too [avionic suite, cockpit design, FBW…] !
Re-using TP400 doesn’t sound like a crazy idea to me, either.

Now, not only France and Spain wouldn't be enough to launch such project, but also more customer would mean, given the current economic climate, any customer/country would fight hard for workshare. Which is kind of things Airbus needs/wants to avoid (lesson learnt).

All in all, I'm afraid the chance of such a program happening are extremely remote, the money is just not there to launch something like that.

Noray wrote:

Ozair wrote:

This to me signals the death of the A400M,

Maybe. Just like the C-27J marked the death of the C-130J. Oh wait, wishful thinking from Lockheed country ...

Same for me, I wouldn’t be so categorical. An airforce buying an A400M would do it because it needs the capacity, otherwise buy an Herc, therefore I cannot see an A200M stealing anything in the already super tiny A400M marketplace.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying it would help A400M sales, but with enough commonality there is an argument for operating mixed fleet where a small number of A400M aren’t that costly to have (provided Airbus manage to sell them cheaper).

I remember discussing this > a decade ago, even made a sketch & guesstimated payload.



For many missions the A400M is way too capable, expensive. Moving around 25 people, a few pallets in anything bigger then a CN235/C-27 seems a waste. Unless you need the training hours anyway .

If they can use the cross section of the A400M, it would be possible to move around significant vehicles, which might be a advantage.

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.

That said the KC390 seems a capable aircraft, as do the CN235 & C-27. So additional USP's would be needed.

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

seahawk wrote:

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

The CN-295 is a good aircraft, efficient aircraft, sold well in various militairy versions.
But maybe in a different class as a transport.

The cross section restricts moving significant vehicles / loads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_CASA_C-295


https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/12244230209160423/

New aircraft like the Embraer and A400M ( ^^) are able to carry significant armored vehicles, which became a key assets in modern conflicts.

Payload of the CASA is about 7t instead of 15t as indicated by the AF chief.Cruise speed would ~300km/hr less as well range & cruise level.
So also a twin prop, but bit of a different animal for a transport requirement.

Pretty sure I suggested something like this a little while back. I would see this as more of a CN-235 and C-295 replacement though. Maybe encroaching on C-130 territory, but that's quite a stretch covering 235 to 130. I could definitely see a place for it though, and is obviously meant to pair nicely with the A400M. While the C-130 and A400M can certainly co-exist, there is some overlap. IMO, Airbus should have replaced the the 235 and 295 with a "A200M" a few years ago.
If they could somehow use the fuselage barrel sections from a A220 or A320 to some degree, that could help with costs too.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

The CN-295 is a good aircraft, efficient aircraft, sold well in various militairy versions.
But maybe in a different class as a transport.

The cross section restricts moving significant vehicles / loads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_CASA_C-295


https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/12244230209160423/

New aircraft like the Embraer and A400M ( ^^) are able to carry significant armored vehicles, which became a key assets in modern conflicts.

Payload of the CASA is about 7t instead of 15t as indicated by the AF chief.Cruise speed would ~300km/hr less as well range & cruise level.
So also a twin prop, but bit of a different animal for a transport requirement.

In the end it would probably be something a a new Transall. Engines around 4500kw, 16t payload. Which is exactly the power of the proposed PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop. But just from the basic concept I would stay with the CASA before shrinking the A400, because that is what a C-160 3rd Gen. would be.

The TP-400 turboprop engine had a problematic trajectory and it is difficult to suppose to win in the competitive market for military medium transport aircraft with this disadvantage.

The Casa C-295 is the best selling in its class and this hypothetical A200M would be in a completely different class.

This month Embraer presented the concept of the hybrid propulsion STOUT. Although the purpose of replacing the EMB-110 Bandeirante and EMB-120 Brasilia in missions in the Amazon has been disclosed to the press, it seems that it has more similarities in terms of cargo capacity with the Casa C-295, also operated by the Brazilian Air Force.

Noray wrote:

Development of your idea will cost € 15.000.000.000 or so, and the aircraft will be ready in 15 years. I doubt that this is realistic. Airbus don't even have a tiltrotor prototype.

The V-280 went from a blank piece of paper to first flight in only 4 years. AgustaWestland has extensive experience with tilt rotors and they build a third of the NH90 with Eurocopter. They would no doubt provide the European tilt rotor experience.

Sounds purely like a job creation/retention project.

seahawk wrote:

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

France will avoid US export rules deciding who it can or can´t be exported to.

Noray wrote:

Ozair wrote:

they have basically acknowledged by going after this market segment that the A400M is too big for most operators.

They have acknowledged that the A400M is too large, heavy or expensive for some tasks.

It is also the only aircraft on the market that can do the missions that drove the specs.

(Transall vs. C130), like performance on unpaved runways.

plus larger Cargo space and kneeling ability, making it a more capable battlefield taxi.

best regards
Thomas

Transall 2.0 is spot on.

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

France will avoid US export rules deciding who it can or can´t be exported to.

While I agree it would be a good idea for European military program to be free from US export control, producing a military aircraft without ITAR contain would go far beyond the engine choice.

If the task also benefits other programs, like A400M obviously, and permit to share the costs there could be an intensive to develop things. But right now, using modern off the shelf military systems it is pretty much impossible to avoid ITAR.

Grizzly410 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But not with the A400 engine. Update the CASA with the PWC Next Generation Regional Turboprop and it should be just fine.

France will avoid US export rules deciding who it can or can´t be exported to.

While I agree it would be a good idea for European military program to be free from US export control, producing a military aircraft without ITAR contain would go far beyond the engine choice..

in deed.. but if you chose a US engine, other choices become irrelevant. And doesnt the Rafale already have enough non-ITAR components for a transport since France started to de-ITAR it a few years ago?

best regards
Thomas

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?

The TP400 has been at least half of the Achilles heel to A400M costs/sales opportunities, but what is the actual maintenance costs on that engine per hour relative to, for instance, the C-130 engines? I’ve read before the C-130 costs around $35K/hour to operate, but no idea on the A400M.

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.

tommy1808 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

France will avoid US export rules deciding who it can or can´t be exported to.

While I agree it would be a good idea for European military program to be free from US export control, producing a military aircraft without ITAR contain would go far beyond the engine choice..

in deed.. but if you chose a US engine, other choices become irrelevant. And doesnt the Rafale already have enough non-ITAR components for a transport since France started to de-ITAR it a few years ago?

best regards
Thomas

I didn’t know about the Rafale de-ITAR, did a quick search and the only reference mentioning component affected by ITAR I found points to SCALP missiles. Which is a rather limited effort, if there is nothing else (which I doubt).
Taking the A400M as an example I know well. Being a transport it is surely more representative for A200M than a combat, A400M ITAR contain (sorry can’t share) is quite large and touch a lot of different systems. Of course doesn’t mean there’s no ITAR free equivalent system available for all of them, but I’m sure that’s the case for most.

But I agree that engine choice is a very early decision for a program, if one objective is trying to be ITAR free, it would be stupid to pick an US engine even if you know you may struggle later to effectively reach the ITAR free objective.

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.

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.

I’ve seen some analyses on that and sometimes it’s true on the fuselage itself. But I think it’s often oversimplified relative to the wing box and MLG. Airbus, for instance, did pretty darn well with the basic A300 thru A340 (WB) frame over the past 5 decades. Common systems (like the floor), as well as common cockpits, in conjunction with common production methodology/facilities/lines, can lead to quite efficient development. The wing box change is significant but has been done in many families (777x the latest). The MLG could be very easily simplified, vs. an all new one on a non-derivative, without much radical costs with a decrease in the bogies.

The same ramp, basically the same tail section, systems integrated as such...for a relatively low volume aircraft creating a family can make a lot of sense. Incorporating the problem of the parent/donor DNA is where I see the issue (TP400, namely).

steman wrote:

The Italian Air Force might be interested in such a project.

And neglect the C-27J Spartan as a result?

Slug71 wrote:

I would see this as more of a CN-235 and C-295 replacement though. Maybe encroaching on C-130 territory, but that's quite a stretch covering 235 to 130.

Ozair wrote:

one aircraft covering a 30,000lb payload range from the CN-235 to the C-130, what could go wrong… If it isn’t close to the payload of a C-130J then it won’t be a viable replacement and if it is close to the payload of a C-130J it won’t be a viable CN-235 replacement. They could just build a C-27J sized aircraft and call it the middle but that hasn’t been a resounding success either.

The size is pretty much in the ballpark. Is there scope in the AE2100 for a thrust bump to boost capability? Otherwise, the new P&W could be it...something like a C-27J neo. Maybe they could call it the C-27K...but then, that would go against national and commercial interests.

LTEN11 wrote:

Sounds purely like a job creation/retention project.

smithbs wrote:

I agree, but I don't blame them for offering to stick their hand in the pot. Everybody else will be trying to do the same. Might as well throw the idea on the wall and see if it sticks.

There seems to be plenty of that going on...a lot of programs fighting for a slice of limited military transport budgets. Something akin to the i.e. AFJT project.

Devilfish wrote:

steman wrote:

The Italian Air Force might be interested in such a project.

And neglect the C-27J Spartan as a result?

The C-27J is much smaller than the C-130J.
The ItAF has been operating both platforms for many years.
I don´t think their commitment to the C-27J has finished. Leonardo has just introduced an updated/uprated versions of the Spartan
but it still is a small tactical cargo platform and it cannot cover all airlift needs of a modern Air Force.
That´s why the C-130J replacement in the ItAF will need to be a similarly sized platform if not bigger.
If Airbus develops a new airlifter in that class, Italy might be interested in it.
But if the new Airbus cargo lifter is a CN-235 sized aircraft than the ItAF will not get any, in order to protect Leonardo´s position.

TheSonntag wrote:

Transall 2.0 is spot on.

3.0
A400M is technically a lot of enlarged C160 details.

texl1649 wrote:

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.

I’ve seen some analyses on that and sometimes it’s true on the fuselage itself. But I think it’s often oversimplified relative to the wing box and MLG. Airbus, for instance, did pretty darn well with the basic A300 thru A340 (WB) frame over the past 5 decades. Common systems (like the floor), as well as common cockpits, in conjunction with common production methodology/facilities/lines, can lead to quite efficient development. The wing box change is significant but has been done in many families (777x the latest). The MLG could be very easily simplified, vs. an all new one on a non-derivative, without much radical costs with a decrease in the bogies.

The same ramp, basically the same tail section, systems integrated as such...for a relatively low volume aircraft creating a family can make a lot of sense. Incorporating the problem of the parent/donor DNA is where I see the issue (TP400, namely).

A300 and A340 may share a fuselage diameter but that's it. The A330/340 program in Airbus is way closer to A320 than it is from A300 on all aspects except the size.

Also, I'm not sure citing the 777 line as an argument for a wingbox change with same fuse to make economic sense where the production volume for a A400M/A200M are a a good magnitude lower, and more importantly not done in the frame of a common TC.
Maybe there's something doable with MLG, maybe...

I don't share your concern with the TP400. I don't dispute they caused a lot of problems to A400M program, and are not even yet at expected level, but for an A200M in like 8-10 years at best they wouldn't be a point of concern for the program. Rather a point of NO concern and a very well known thing.

Grizzly410 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

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.


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.

I’ve seen some analyses on that and sometimes it’s true on the fuselage itself. But I think it’s often oversimplified relative to the wing box and MLG. Airbus, for instance, did pretty darn well with the basic A300 thru A340 (WB) frame over the past 5 decades. Common systems (like the floor), as well as common cockpits, in conjunction with common production methodology/facilities/lines, can lead to quite efficient development. The wing box change is significant but has been done in many families (777x the latest). The MLG could be very easily simplified, vs. an all new one on a non-derivative, without much radical costs with a decrease in the bogies.

The same ramp, basically the same tail section, systems integrated as such...for a relatively low volume aircraft creating a family can make a lot of sense. Incorporating the problem of the parent/donor DNA is where I see the issue (TP400, namely).

A300 and A340 may share a fuselage diameter but that's it. The A330/340 program in Airbus is way closer to A320 than it is from A300 on all aspects except the size.

Also, I'm not sure citing the 777 line as an argument for a wingbox change with same fuse to make economic sense where the production volume for a A400M/A200M are a a good magnitude lower, and more importantly not done in the frame of a common TC.
Maybe there's something doable with MLG, maybe...

I don't share your concern with the TP400. I don't dispute they caused a lot of problems to A400M program, and are not even yet at expected level, but for an A200M in like 8-10 years at best they wouldn't be a point of concern for the program. Rather a point of NO concern and a very well known thing.

I don’t want this to be a B vs. A debate derail, but I think the A300 basic frame (not just diameter) was used across all A300, 310, 330, and 340 models. I do believe it is apt to compare/consider vs. a military type, and decline to further discuss anything Boeing-related here as it would just become a typical a.net Euro vs. US silly debate. The decision benefited Airbus in many respects, though all such decisions involve trade offs.

texl1649 wrote:

I don’t want this to be a B vs. A debate derail, but I think the A300 basic frame (not just diameter) was used across all A300, 310, 330, and 340 models.

The basic layout. a lot of design solutions are a continuous process across the wide body family.
like how the fuselage tapers to the tail, window layout, ...

But the cockpit arrangement changed from traditional 2+eng to 2, then to FBW instead of wires/pushrods, ...
the wingbox and thus the center sections have nothing much in common.
the tail may look the same but the aero surfaces are quite a bit larger. structure out of view will show pedigree
but is not the same.
I'd be surprised if even the fuselage frames in the plain tube sections are the same.
But the abstract and imho rather brilliant design idea of the 222" sectional arrangement is common. / XWB is a new step.

again: what Airbus produced is a succession of models that progress along a path.
They all have standalone certifications. no historic holdover of old rules.
Their designs stand on their history. ( But you could walk that back to the junkers F13 too.

It is not a base design that has been pimped to no end all adding to a historic certification.

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 development cost would pay for a lot of A400M's. 200 frames at $10M per frame development cost is only a $2B for development, at $50M per frame it gets to $10B, plus the unit cost. Hard to be less that the C-130J cost of $100M, and somebody pays most of the sustainment costs.

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.

Italy, Denmark, Norway and the U.K all have the Super Herc. I do not see them buying a conventional airlift made by Airbus that is similar size to the Hercules with only 15t payload.

A tilt rotor or tilt wing on the other hand I'd expect every Chinook, Sea Stallion, G-222, C-27J, CN-235, CN-295 and Hercules in Europe replaced in one swoop. Hundreds of aircraft. Even though a tilt wing or tilt rotor is extremely complex, powerful and expensive replacing multiple aircraft types with a single type will easily offset this cost.

The US has seen the flow on benefits of a tilt rotor. When sending cargo to troops 1000nm away on the front line a tilt rotor won't just replace the small tactical airlifter but the helicopters that take the cargo the last step of the journey. A tilt rotor will also make redundant the dirt strip runway, equipment and hundreds of personnel to secure and maintain the strip. The fuel and support for most of the utility helicopters is no longer needed. This tilt rotor could cost as much as an A400M and still be cheaper in the long run.

Possible conflict scenarios shift back from global to Eastern Europe. Therefore a new tactical transport is needed. Typical payloads today, as mentioned above, are now blast protected jeeps. Big and heavy. It makes sense to reuse A400M technologies that are available. (well except for those most exotic engines). And the A400M is too big for many jobs and not rugged enough for unprepared fields.

They should have developed this from the beginning. Could they build some lightweight cousin as a ATR follow on? Or some A200M "Atlantique"?

Noshow wrote:

They should have developed this from the beginning. Could they build some lightweight cousin as a ATR follow on? Or some A200M "Atlantique"?

We should stop with the idea of the design having a passenger variant sharing a cross section. Someone suggested the A220 cross section earlier in the thread.



The C-27J is the minimum cross section that is needed to carry the light armoured vehicles used. The C-27J has a similar fuselage width to the A220. Passenger and Transport cross sections are totally incompatible at this size. The passenger A220 cross section has a high floor with cargo underneith. The C-27J has the floor as low as possible.

The tactical transport aircraft would also have a much stronger landing gear than a passenger aircraft. The passenger version would then carry dead weight around killing any efficiency advantage.

Even with rose coloured glasses nothing can make a new Airbus conventional airlift design look like a good idea.

With the C-27J improvements announced last month Europe really needs to get behind the Italian design. With the extra capability it could even do with more cabin volume aka C-27J-30. This would be the cheap solution and allows an extra light armoured vehicle. France and Germany would no doubt need a large portion of the parts made in their country.

RJMAZ wrote:

Noshow wrote:

They should have developed this from the beginning. Could they build some lightweight cousin as a ATR follow on? Or some A200M "Atlantique"?

We should stop with the idea of the design having a passenger variant sharing a cross section. Someone suggested the A220 cross section earlier in the thread.



The C-27J is the minimum cross section that is needed to carry the light armoured vehicles used. The C-27J has a similar fuselage width to the A220. Passenger and Transport cross sections are totally incompatible at this size. The passenger A220 cross section has a high floor with cargo underneith. The C-27J has the floor as low as possible.

The tactical transport aircraft would also have a much stronger landing gear than a passenger aircraft. The passenger version would then carry dead weight around killing any efficiency advantage.

Even with rose coloured glasses nothing can make a new Airbus conventional airlift design look like a good idea.

With the C-27J improvements announced last month Europe really needs to get behind the Italian design. With the extra capability it could even do with more cabin volume aka C-27J-30. This would be the cheap solution and allows an extra light armoured vehicle. France and Germany would no doubt need a large portion of the parts made in their country.

I was more referring to the barrel sections of the fuselage from A220. The floor height and strengthening of the outer ring would be modified specific to this aircraft of course. So not quite "drop in" solution. If it's not feasible or practical, then so be it. I just thought it may help with production and design to some degree.

steman wrote:

I don´t think their commitment to the C-27J has finished. Leonardo has just introduced an updated/uprated versions of the Spartan but it still is a small tactical cargo platform and it cannot cover all airlift needs of a modern Air Force.

That NG was what I had in mind.....

steman wrote:

That´s why the C-130J replacement in the ItAF will need to be a similarly sized platform if not bigger. If Airbus develops a new airlifter in that class, Italy might be interested in it.

If it could just be "similarly sized" as or a bit bigger than the C-130J, then it seems sensible to buy more of it or the C-130J-30...rather than wait and spend more for something Italy might be interested in indefinitely.

Devilfish wrote:

If it could just be "similarly sized" as or a bit bigger than the C-130J, then it seems sensible to buy more of it or the C-130J-30...rather than wait and spend more for something Italy might be interested in indefinitely.

It seems the cross section is a big decision. The C-27J and KC-390 have the best cross section on the market. The vehicles transported seems to fit into two size categories light and medium.

Light armoured vehicles that often get used on civilian roads usually max out at 2.5m wide and 2.5m high. This is far too big for the CN-295 but all of them fit in the C-27J with enough room to squeeze down the side. The C-27J can also fit a standard, full height 463L pallet while being able to squeeze down the side. The RAAF selected the C-27J because the Hawkei vehicle could not fit the CN-295.

Most medium armoured vehicles are too big for the C-130J. Gun mounts and any extra side armour needs to be removed. The KC-390 has an extra 30cm in width and 20cm in height and this allows two medium armoured vehicles to fit comfortably. The Australians designed the Bushmaster around the C-130J cross section.

Most other operators are limited to using the C-130J to carry light armoured vehicles so there is a lot of wasted space in the width and it is hard to hit max payload with only two vehicles. The C-130J-30 has now become popular as it can carry three light armoured vehicles and this usually maxes out the payload weight.

The ideal conventional tactical aircraft would be a C-27J-30. A 3 metre stretch would allow two light armoured vehicles. This is the same number as a normal length C-130 but with half of the engines. If we assume a slightly higher MTOW and tweaked engines this C-27J-30 has now grown to the point where it would be a serious contender as a C-130H replacement.

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.

How about just inheriting Embraer's C-390 for the job now that Boeing is not their partner anymore? Would make for some great rough field transport for developing countries and delivering supplies and such.

Noshow wrote:

Possible conflict scenarios shift back from global to Eastern Europe. Therefore a new tactical transport is needed. Typical payloads today, as mentioned above, are now blast protected jeeps. Big and heavy. It makes sense to reuse A400M technologies that are available. (well except for those most exotic engines). And the A400M is too big for many jobs and not rugged enough for unprepared fields.

They should have developed this from the beginning. Could they build some lightweight cousin as a ATR follow on? Or some A200M "Atlantique"?

Why would you fly single protected jeeps to Eastern Europe, if a train could transport hundreds within 1-2 days?

seahawk wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Possible conflict scenarios shift back from global to Eastern Europe. Therefore a new tactical transport is needed. Typical payloads today, as mentioned above, are now blast protected jeeps. Big and heavy. It makes sense to reuse A400M technologies that are available. (well except for those most exotic engines). And the A400M is too big for many jobs and not rugged enough for unprepared fields.

They should have developed this from the beginning. Could they build some lightweight cousin as a ATR follow on? Or some A200M "Atlantique"?

Why would you fly single protected jeeps to Eastern Europe, if a train could transport hundreds within 1-2 days?

Heh, well we really are getting back to the 1910’s and 1930’s it seems. Everything old is new again. Tactical transports have always been a bit of a question mark as to size/requirements. The advantages vs. rail are simply very rapid deployment, but it is a costly feature. What is ‘new’ is that the Jeep’s of today, such as they are (whether ‘blast proof’ or larger APC’s and scout/recon vehicles such as the French Jaguars, various iterations of German Boxers, or even G5’s) are vastly heavier/larger dimensionally than they were even 30 years ago, thanks to the proliferation/advancements in IED technologies/shaped charges and anti tank weapons. I hate to mention a US system, but compare the ubiquitous Jeep of 70 years ago to the JLTV.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/bud ... s-with-us/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/p ... hicle.html

I had posited that the KC-390 is a great replacement for the capability of the C-130’s, but it also suffers from the ‘not from around here’ status (and the French/Germans have new C-130J’s as mentioned above), so for a major joint EU/Airbus program perspective, a notional A200 type of project sized differently than the former reusing much of the A400M now that it is down to only 8 per year might make a lot of sense. I’d love to see the first quad tiltrotor to really hit the market (able to lift such tracked/wheeled beasts), but that is another scale of development costs. If they do build an A200 or quad tilt, it would probably take at least 12-15 years to do so, so possibly the super Hercs would be toward the high time status by the time it would (actually, not in some fantasy rapid internet timeline) be delivered in quantity anyway.

Imho it is not so easy. A C295 costs about 20-25% less to operate and is able to take more pallets and more soldiers than a C295. While probably a bit too small for a future design, it has one thing that is imho hugely important, it is cheap to operate. Which is a virtue in itself, as a lot of missions simply require not that much capability. Training paratroopers, regular supply runs between bases, delivering palletized cargo, hauling troops and so on are daily missions that can be done by it for rather low operating costs.
Spanish and French numbers show the C-295 costing about 50% of a C-130 and the C235 at around 1/3 of the costs of a C-130. Sure they haul less, but if you look at the normal use, there are few missions when the full capability is used. And look at the missions they fly. The provide logistics between bases, train paratroopers and are used for patrols and logistic support on islands. They are rarely seeing a full load.

The low operating costs are a virtue and if you do a small brother to the A400M it should be able to do ash and trash missions for little money.

seahawk wrote:

A C295 costs about 20-25% less to operate and is able to take more pallets and more soldiers than a C295.

Hmm. find the error

25% less than a C-27J.

It's my understanding that Lockheed co-developed the C-27J with Alenia. How much L-M IP is there in the current aircraft? I do wonder whether that would be an obstacle to making a substantially more capable C-27 derivative, seeing as such a plane would compete with the Herc (at least more than it does with the current J).

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.