A 200M would be killer. Jet-like cruise speeds as well.

RJMAZ wrote:

The CN-295 is only good for carrying troops. That is great for small countries but for a high end force the A400M aircraft are being abused doing short hops with light payloads because the CN-235/295 is too small. This is why the C-130J continues to sell. France and Germany both recently had to purchase C-130J.

Another key benefit, once A400M production ends around 2030 the A200M can take over the rough STOL and Austere tactical work. The A400M can then have a long life doing easier strategic work. This is what the USAF did with the C-5 fleet once the C-17 arrived. So A400M replacement then gets pushed out to beyond 2050 resulting in money saved.

With the current global developments and the fact that Moldova and Ukraine (and possibly Georgia and maybe even Armenia) will join the EU, the Zeitenwende in Berlin, and more happening in Africa, but also in Taiwan and the Kabul-affair for the EU, I think the strategic air transport has become more real, and it will cover the upper end of air transport. But also because Ukraine is a big country, not to mention getting troops to Georgia or even Taiwan, should we want to.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1467371

744SPX wrote:

A 200M would be killer. Jet-like cruise speeds as well.

I don't think it would have the same speed as the A400M. The wing of the A400M has more to do with the cruising speed than the engines.

A straight wing will be lighter, burn less fuel, reduce take-off speeds and improve STOL performance. The higher speed is only useful for longer strategic flights or to refuel fighters. I think this new aircraft will be a tactical airlifter with extreme STOL performance. I don't think it will be a mini strategic airlifer.

The A400M has runway performance that can match an aircraft half its weight. I think the A200M will also match the runway performance of an aircraft half its weight. So I would expect C-27J runway performance while carrying double the payload. So any beach or field can be used. Definitely a straight wing and a traditional 600km/h cruising speed would be best.

I posted on another forum about Embraer KC-390 on several NATO countries choosing this plane as their C-130 replacement (Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary) along with probably Sweden and Austria.

Would that build up enough momentum and sort of shortcut this European FMTC project ?

docmtl

docmtl wrote:

I posted on another forum about Embraer KC-390 on several NATO countries choosing this plane as their C-130 replacement (Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary) along with probably Sweden and Austria.

Would that build up enough momentum and sort of shortcut this European FMTC project ?

docmtl

Its likely the French and Germany that drives it.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller. I could easily see 500 A200M sold. Most C-130 operators would be using the A200M by 2050.

Eurofighter Typhoon: 561
NH90: 471
Dassault Rafale: 409
CN 295: 200
Eurocopter Tigre: 180
AW 101: 140
A400: 111
A330 MRTT: 56

With one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies. And there is zero chance the AN200 has better economics than the C130. As for Europe making a military plane operated by 67 different nations (the C-130 operator list) ...

(Data sourced from the very first google answer .. might be off by a bit but the point is clear).

docmtl wrote:

I posted on another forum about Embraer KC-390 on several NATO countries choosing this plane as their C-130 replacement (Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary) along with probably Sweden and Austria.

Would that build up enough momentum and sort of shortcut this European FMTC project ?

docmtl

It’s not so much about operator quantity, or even total orders, but production rate. It has to ramp up production to a higher rate to really compete on cost long term. That’s not really happening.

kitplane01 wrote:

With one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies.

I would consider the CN235 and CN295 as one family. We consider the A321 and A319 as the same family.

Well over 500 CN235 and CN295 aircraft have been produced. Production lines are still going with no signs of them stopping.

kitplane01 wrote:

And there is zero chance the AN200 has better economics than the C130. As for Europe making a military plane operated by 67 different nations (the C-130 operator list) ...

I would say the KC-390 already has better economics than the C-130 so it is not hard. The CN-295 is also much cheaper to operate than the C-130. A modern cleansheet design would have have a fraction of the parts.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller.

The CN235 and CN295 are examples of aircraft that would probably remain in production for decades as they are sized small enough where the market is quite large. If no cleansheet replacement is launched they might hit a combined production total of 1,000 aircraft in 20 years time.

I could see all European CN295, C-27J and C-130 operators buying this proposed cleansheet tactical airlifter. That's not far off 500 aircraft. It might not even use two engines from the A400M. It might use the brand new PW127XT-L engine that has just been certified.

What is the problem (military wise) with the CN295 and CJ27J - other than the nations needing an economic injection - that they cannot continue to be produced?

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

With one exception .. no European military aircraft sells 500 copies.

I would consider the CN235 and CN295 as one family. We consider the A321 and A319 as the same family.

Well over 500 CN235 and CN295 aircraft have been produced. Production lines are still going with no signs of them stopping.

I'm not sure that 554 is "well over 500".

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

And there is zero chance the AN200 has better economics than the C130. As for Europe making a military plane operated by 67 different nations (the C-130 operator list) ...

I would say the KC-390 already has better economics than the C-130 so it is not hard. The CN-295 is also much cheaper to operate than the C-130. A modern cleansheet design would have have a fraction of the parts.

I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130. But European military aircraft are, with just about the C295 being the only exception, super costly to buy and operate. Basically, if it's made in Europe but not Sweden and it's a military aircraft it costs more.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A200M with a MTOW around 60t would probably be the size where it could permanently remain in production. The market is much bigger as aircraft get smaller.
The CN235 and CN295 are examples of aircraft that would probably remain in production for decades as they are sized small enough where the market is quite large. If no cleansheet replacement is launched they might hit a combined production total of 1,000 aircraft in 20 years time.

I could see all European CN295, C-27J and C-130 operators buying this proposed cleansheet tactical airlifter. That's not far off 500 aircraft. It might not even use two engines from the A400M. It might use the brand new PW127XT-L engine that has just been certified.

I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.

I'm not arguing the proposed plane is a bad idea, I'm arguing that Europe has not shown they can do it economically. They've shown the opposite. Which is super weird, because Airbus commercial and Boing commerical costing are in the same neighborhood.

Which seems more likely
(1) Europe outside Sweden make a plane with low-cost economics
(2) An Indian military procurement goes as planned and on time
(3) You find $100 bill on the sidewalk on your next walk.

kitplane01 wrote:

I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.

I'm not arguing the proposed plane is a bad idea, I'm arguing that Europe has not shown they can do it economically. They've shown the opposite. Which is super weird, because Airbus commercial and Boing commerical costing are in the same neighborhood.

Which seems more likely
(1) Europe outside Sweden make a plane with low-cost economics
(2) An Indian military procurement goes as planned and on time
(3) You find $100 bill on the sidewalk on your next walk.

It all comes down to what European members keep saying on here "the US just wants us to increase our military spending to buy US weapons". So, they cut off their nose to spite their face by designing and producing by committee. This lets them spend their money at home. But, like the NH90, they let everyone customize the product so it's super-expensive, takes a long time to develop, and doesn't satisfy hardly anyone.
PS--I'm looking on the ground for that $100 bill!

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.

Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective.

kitplane01 wrote:

I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.

They are definitely capable. They have never had price as a primary design goal.

With the Eurofighter and Rafale the goal was to make an aircraft that can beat anything Russia has. They were both state of the aircraft. This will always be expensive. Europe can't fly Hawks and Alpha jets against Russian fighters.

With the A400M it is the heaviest tactical airlifter in history. It has extreme performance for its size. Only transport aircraft half the weight could operate on runways as short or as soft. This is why the A400M is expensive.

Now designing a smaller tactical that only has average performance for its size would be relatively easy and cost effective. It could easily beat the C-130J on price and operating cost.

However if Europe decides again to go for extreme performance then it would not be price competitive against the C-130J. Such extreme performance in a tactical airlifter would be a tilt wing or tilt rotor with extreme STOL or even VTOL capability.

The CN295 is too skinny for pallets and vehicles. The C-27J is the best option to form the basis of this new tactical airlifter. I think a C-27J-30 would be perfect like how the C-130J-30 has a small fuselage stretch and MTOW bump.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.

Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective.

kitplane01 wrote:

I could see a market for a C130 replacement. That the C390 is not selling is worrying, but there non-economic reasons. What I cannot see is Europe outside of Sweden making a military aircraft for a competative price. Just does not happen. They seem incapable.

They are definitely capable. They have never had price as a primary design goal.

With the Eurofighter and Rafale the goal was to make an aircraft that can beat anything Russia has. They were both state of the aircraft. This will always be expensive. Europe can't fly Hawks and Alpha jets against Russian fighters.

With the A400M it is the heaviest tactical airlifter in history. It has extreme performance for its size. Only transport aircraft half the weight could operate on runways as short or as soft. This is why the A400M is expensive.

Now designing a smaller tactical that only has average performance for its size would be relatively easy and cost effective. It could easily beat the C-130J on price and operating cost.

However if Europe decides again to go for extreme performance then it would not be price competitive against the C-130J. Such extreme performance in a tactical airlifter would be a tilt wing or tilt rotor with extreme STOL or even VTOL capability.

The CN295 is too skinny for pallets and vehicles. The C-27J is the best option to form the basis of this new tactical airlifter. I think a C-27J-30 would be perfect like how the C-130J-30 has a small fuselage stretch and MTOW bump.

Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one??

Price is not a primary goal, and their stuff being high performance, are reasons WHY they are not cost competative.

Again, I'm not asking WHY they fail to be cost competative, I'm asking for an example of them BEING cost competative.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe a KC390 made at Brazilian wage rates, using a commercial engine, might be competative with a C-130.

Even when measuring the operating cost using non Brazillian wages it is cost effective.

I'm not saying your're wrong, but I'd like a source for this. I'm interested, but I didn't think there was any data either way.

kitplane01 wrote:

Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one??

There’s a wide range of light and medium helicopters to choose from. The H145 and various derivatives, the Lynx/Wildcat, the Puma and various derivatives.

And it’s not like the US has no difficulty keeping prices down. How much did the JSF go over budget again? Or the Osprey? Or the Comanche…

The main strength of the US is not designing inherently cheaper planes. It’s main advantage is having a home market that guarantees sales in the hundreds if not thousands, thus making the price per unit somewhat manageable. And even then it does not always work out (B-2, Comanche).

kitplane01 wrote:

Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one?

This generation?

Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and A400m. There is only four military only aircraft to choose from. Only one was designed with cost as a design goal the other three designed for extreme performance.

I assume you included the words "this generation" to exclude the Hawk, Alpha Jet, Jaguar and AMX. These were all extremely cost effective aircraft. A combined total of well over 2,000 aircraft produced with over 30 operators with just these four aircraft.

Not only were they cost comparable to UK/Korean/Swedish pricing the Europeans significantly beat them in cost to performance ratio.

I would look at the UH-72 Lakota as an example of just how cost effective Europeans can make aircraft in the 21st century. The US military purchasing a European helicopter is a BIG deal. The H145 was designed with cost as a primary design goal for the civilian market.

Modern designs with reduced parts count have proven to be cheaper to produce and maintain. A cleansheet tactical airlifter sized between the C-27J and C-130J would easily beat the Hercules in purchase cost and maintainance costs. In theory it could match the costs of the CN295 while offering double the payload.

petertenthije wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one??

There’s a wide range of light and medium helicopters to choose from. The H145 and various derivatives, the Lynx/Wildcat, the Puma and various derivatives.

And it’s not like the US has no difficulty keeping prices down. How much did the JSF go over budget again? Or the Osprey? Or the Comanche…

The main strength of the US is not designing inherently cheaper planes. It’s main advantage is having a home market that guarantees sales in the hundreds if not thousands, thus making the price per unit somewhat manageable. And even then it does not always work out (B-2, Comanche).

The H145 is a civilian helicopter ... or a training helicopter. I totally agree Airbus civil has reasonble prices. The Puma had it;s first flight in 1965, the Lynx in 1971.

Both US and European military programs do go way over budget. But after the mutual missed budgets, the US/Korean/Swedish stuff costs less.

Again, I'd ask for a military program from Europe from this generation that's the economical choice. I wonder if the C295 or M346 qualifies ... but that's about it. And the C295 had it's first flight 27 years ago, so I'm not so sure it's "this generation" any more.


That the US has a huge home market is a solid reason WHY the US stuff costs less. It's not an argument that the European stuff costs less.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Can you name any military aircraft from non-Swedish Europe this generation that has a cost comparable to the US/Korean/Swedish pricing? Just one?

This generation?

Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and A400m. There is only four military only aircraft to choose from. Only one was designed with cost as a design goal the other three designed for extreme performance.

I think the Gripen does not qualify .. the goal was non-Swedish Europe. Saab is pretty good at making economical military aircraft, which makes the Europe-costs-more thing even more interesting.

There are exactly four western fighters developed in the last 20-ish years. The Gripen has the lowest operating cost, the F-35 has the highest combat value .. and the Rafale/Typhoon cost more than both.)

As for the A400 .. it has not direct comparisions. But it is super expensive.

RJMAZ wrote:

I assume you included the words "this generation" to exclude the Hawk, Alpha Jet, Jaguar and AMX. These were all extremely cost effective aircraft. A combined total of well over 2,000 aircraft produced with over 30 operators with just these four aircraft.

That's true. I'd add the Mirage jet fighter family and the Puma helicopters as other very successful military aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

I would look at the UH-72 Lakota as an example of just how cost effective Europeans can make aircraft in the 21st century. The US military purchasing a European helicopter is a BIG deal. The H145 was designed with cost as a primary design goal for the civilian market.

All true. Airbus civil has very reasonable pricing, and is totally competative with the best in the world. My claim is limited to
(1) Europe except Sweden
(2) Military, not deriviative
(3) This generation

RJMAZ wrote:

Modern designs with reduced parts count have proven to be cheaper to produce and maintain. A cleansheet tactical airlifter sized between the C-27J and C-130J would easily beat the Hercules in purchase cost and maintainance costs. In theory it could match the costs of the CN295 while offering double the payload.

I'm not saying there is no market for this plane. I'm not saying that modern techniques are no better than old techniques. I'm saying the chance Europe makes a low cost military aircraft are about the same as the chance that the next Indian military program goes smoothly, or that you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk on on your next walk.

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm not saying there is no market for this plane. I'm not saying that modern techniques are no better than old techniques. I'm saying the chance Europe makes a low cost military aircraft are about the same as the chance that the next Indian military program goes smoothly, or that you find a $100 bill on the sidewalk on on your next walk.

It may be that you are getting to the point where there are no military projects, but civilian economic programs that will also produce a military item, as the greatest cost are all the offsets, what will be built in which country, who will get what, my thinking is that these civilian mandates are now more important than the actual weapon system and its capabilities.
It is all about the money.

Industrial politics play a role too. The Transall could easily have been ordered in the US as C130, but the Transall companies were all vital for the foundations of Airbus.

I guess an A200M can be economical if it uses

a) the A400 engine
b) key A400 components (Avionics, Landing Gear, Tooling Assembly9
c) is assembled with the A400 tooling, if possible.

We will see.

TheSonntag wrote:

Industrial politics play a role too. The Transall could easily have been ordered in the US as C130, but the Transall companies were all vital for the foundations of Airbus.

I guess an A200M can be economical if it uses

a) the A400 engine
b) key A400 components (Avionics, Landing Gear, Tooling Assembly9
c) is assembled with the A400 tooling, if possible.

We will see.

The main criterium of almost all transport competitions recently has been cost, and to a lesser extent reliability. Get boxes from A to B. I don't see how an A400M-derived twin-engine aircraft could hope to compete. All the items you listed, that make the A400M a very capable and special aircraft, also drive the cost. Commonality with the A400M only benefits its operators, a quite limited group of states.

It might win some here and there, who have very specific requirements or political considerations aside from capability. I just don't see a market when 90% of buyers would be okay with buying old but cheap C130 or C-295.

TheSonntag wrote:

I guess an A200M can be economical if it uses

a) the A400 engine
b) key A400 components (Avionics, Landing Gear, Tooling Assembly9
c) is assembled with the A400 tooling, if possible.

An aircraft that shares commonality with the A400M will never be economical. It would also use outdated design and assembly techniques.

The TP400 engines are very expensive and high maintenance. A big premium is paid due to their high power level. Usually fewer engines is less expensive but in this case there would be no costing savings designing a medium size aircraft with two A400M versus four C-130J engines. Overall power would be similar for both.

The A400M landing gear would be hard to reuse on an aircraft half the weight. Dropping from 6 wheels to 4 wheels using the same legs could reuse some parts but the majority would be new. Also the cross section would be terribly inefficient for an aircraft half the weight. Many hypothetical A200M renderings show the same cross section but significantly shorter. Lots of extra weight and drag using the A400m cross section. It would be hard to close the business case. To beat the C-130J in it would have to be a highly optimised cleansheet or offer unique performance.

The world is craving for a giant tilt rotor aircraft. The cost premium for tilt rotors is dropping and their safety is improving.

I have watched every natural disaster in the the last 10 years and thought how good it would be to have a C-130 sized tilt rotor with 2,000nm range. Most disaster aid requires helicopters and when the international C-130/A400/C-17 arrive they have no way to distribute the aid to other hubs.

I watch wildfires every year and see helicopters dropping small amounts of water multiple times per hour and large fixed wing aircraft dropping large volumes of water once per hour if they are lucky. A large tilt rotor could drop at the frequency of a helcopter with water volumes of a larged fixed wing aircraft. A tilt rotor C-130 sized would be dropping multiple times the water volume of a normal C130 per hour. It would do the job of a dozen helicopter. It would be the cheapest option in terms of litre of water dropped per hour. Deploying the short range helicopters when a wildfire starts takes time. A huge tilt rotor can deploy a large distance from a central hub. Roll in the fire fighting tank into the cargo hose and away you go.

The above is a great way to sell it to the public. The military application's are obvious. No need for front line forward operating bases where fixed wing aircraft deliver and helicopters distribute. Mounted vertical maneuver MVM concept is a game changing tactic. Deliver the vehicles behind enemy lines they wreak havoc on the enemy and they get picked up and move to another location.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/P ... 7484cb7603

When we look at the time it took to bring the V-22 to IOC, the time it is now taking for the replacement of the Blackhawk, the OH58 which already had the Comanche cancel, time will tell on the outcome of the new program, the current darling F-35 and its decades long continued development (one version already being scrapped because too expensive to upgrade which was a design point) and the new bomber B-21, one can only think of how many decades will have to pass before a tilt rotor in the C-130 size range will come to fruition. Oh and I forgot the NGRAD whatever that will come out to be.....

I wouldn't want to be the person in charge of developing the FBW system for that tilt rotor. NASA did an extensive study of the feasibility of a 737-class civil tilt rotor (plus other configurations) about 15 years ago. Use of unobtanium was permitted, within limits. Bottom line: not easy. The study was later extended by others to flight dynamics and handling qualities. At that size and weight, the proprotors lower the natural frequencies of the wings so much that wing/proprotor dynamics must be accounted for in the FBW design. Good luck!

That is news to me. Bell and Boeing had done all the research on big tilt rotors for the FCS program (future combat system). More recently Lockheed has done studies on various C-130 replacements including a tilt wing design.

The big tilt rotor idea was dropped because FCS program was dropped due to the long counterinsurgency war on terror. Funding was taken from high end programs. FCS and the mounted vertical maneuver concept was designed for a near peer conflict.

The fact that the US is now looking at large sea planes and fitting the C-130 with floats to land on water shows the demand for a large tilt rotor is extremely high. The US knows runway denial will prevent weapons making it to Taiwan.

I have been posting for nearly a decade that a large STOL/VTOL transport aircraft is desperately needed. The middle east conflict proved that to me. Having to build, patrol and protect large forward operating bases that could land a C-130J so that cargo can be distributed to short range helicopters is a terrible solution. Having a safe base 500nm further back away from the enemy and using long range tilt rotors instead of short range helicopters solves all the problems. A large portion of fuel truck convoy drivers would be still alive today.

The biggest problem isn't the FBW system or proprotor dynamics but the fight between the USAF and US Army on who would operate a large VTOL transport. Would a Chinook or C-130 pilot fly the aircraft? If the army flew the aircraft then the USAF would lose its entire C-130 budget and the C-130 line would have to quickly close. Jobs lost. Senators will have a field day. Would half of the C-130 pilots have to join the army?

I don't think European countries have this budget fighting between their Air Force and Army. Australia for example the Air Force operated Chinooks for a couple decades and they transferred them to the Army. The Army helicopters also fly off Navy ships. Australia could operate a big tilt rotor with any of the problems.

Hey RJMAZ,
Totally agree with all that you say, especially the part about Australia. I suspect that a couple of times over the past decade the Osprey has been quietly discussed as an option for Australia, and I truly wish that we had a squadron of them for all kinds of purposes. I haven’t heard rumours for a few years though.
Take care,
Bunumuring

RJMAZ wrote:

The fact that the US is now looking at large sea planes and fitting the C-130 with floats to land on water shows the demand for a large tilt rotor is extremely high. The US knows runway denial will prevent weapons making it to Taiwan.

Strange that the Navy has not come up with the most obvious solution, turn their retired SSBN into cargo mules as was done by the Japanese during WWII.
The Navy took 2 of their SSBN's and turned them into SSGN (I think) so they are getting ready to put into service a new SSBN, why not re-use the retired boats? Such a project will ensure that the Navy continues to be at the fore front of the Pacific theatre, funding will be ensured, and they will be able to show how many tons of critical supplies they could deliver, put into place an entire logistics chain that will identify military supplies by their criticality and ensure those are what is carried by the subs to ensure the military situation remains manageable.

Think that is all pie in the sky, well the Navy has been pretty good with such things, Zummalt, retire frigates, bring in LCS and retire them while still building more, bring back frigates, the Marines have a plan for their brown water Navy that requires X ships while US ship building is -10X and on and on it goes.

par13del wrote:

Strange that the Navy has not come up with the most obvious solution, turn their retired SSBN into cargo mules as was done by the Japanese during WWII.

Now the USAF just needs a 10,000t airlifter so the submarine can be airdropped into many large lakes around Taiwan. That would make a big splash.

Imagine a nuclear sub at a beach in Taiwan surfaced for hours while cranes unload. I can smell the radioactive fallout from here.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Strange that the Navy has not come up with the most obvious solution, turn their retired SSBN into cargo mules as was done by the Japanese during WWII.

Now the USAF just needs a 10,000t airlifter so the submarine can be airdropped into many large lakes around Taiwan. That would make a big splash.

Imagine a nuclear sub at a beach in Taiwan surfaced for hours while cranes unload. I can smell the radioactive fallout from here.

Does the USAF now air drop SSBN's when they go on patrol, I am confused what the USAF has to do with a SSBN travelling the Pacific.
As for being at the beach, I can imagine numerous ways that funds can be spent to have clandestine delivery of as mentioned "critical supplies".

bunumuring wrote:

Hey RJMAZ,
Totally agree with all that you say, especially the part about Australia. I suspect that a couple of times over the past decade the Osprey has been quietly discussed as an option for Australia, and I truly wish that we had a squadron of them for all kinds of purposes. I haven’t heard rumours for a few years though.
Take care,
Bunumuring

Australia should have purchased the V-22 Osprey instead of the C-27J. Then the aging Chinooks could have been replaced with more Ospreys. There would also be missions where a pair of Blackhawks are used that could be done by one Osprey. They could also operate from the two LHD ships. Add firefighting capability and it would be easy to have justified a fleet of 30 V-22. While the cost of the V-22 is high once you consider that it can replace both a helicopter and fixed wing aircraft in certain missions it improves in value.

The main problems with the V-22 are as follows
1) First gen tilt rotor adds cost.
2) Wing folding mechanism adds weight and cost.
3) Smaller than optimal rotors to fit on a ship.

A cleansheet tilt rotor design with no ship folding capability would be able to lift significantly more payload and fly further. It would also be significantly cheaper to purchase and operate.

The V-22 is very expensive and poor value for what it does. If there was a tilt rotor 50% bigger than the Osprey that costs less than the Osprey to purchase and operate now that would be a highly valuable asset. It would start to capture significant market share from Chinooks and Hercules operators.

Europe making a tilt rotor with a pair of A400M engines would be great. It would have similar payload range to the C-27J and it would make a great compliment to the A400M. This is what the FMTC might become.

Though I think only a Boeing and Bell team could make a tilt rotor good enough to beat the C-130. It's not just outright performance but the cost. Bell and Boeing have done significant ground work to make it happen.

par13del wrote:

Does the USAF now air drop SSBN's when they go on patrol, I am confused what the USAF has to do with a SSBN travelling the Pacific.
As for being at the beach, I can imagine numerous ways that funds can be spent to have clandestine delivery of as mentioned "critical supplies".

We are talking about amphibious aircraft delivering to lakes.

Even if the Navy had floating cans in the Polaris missile bays you only have two C-17s worth of cargo volume. A C-17 could do a dozens of flights in the time it takes for a submarine to cross the Pacific.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Does the USAF now air drop SSBN's when they go on patrol, I am confused what the USAF has to do with a SSBN travelling the Pacific.
As for being at the beach, I can imagine numerous ways that funds can be spent to have clandestine delivery of as mentioned "critical supplies".

We are talking about amphibious aircraft delivering to lakes.

Even if the Navy had floating cans in the Polaris missile bays you only have two C-17s worth of cargo volume. A C-17 could do a dozens of flights in the time it takes for a submarine to cross the Pacific.

So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.
I stand down, however, I honestly do not think that China would allow a situation like Gulf War I where they just sat there and watched all the ships and a/c bring untold numbers of troops and their equipment into theatre, Hopefully Taiwan thinks the same way to and realizes that they need to have supplies dispersed and protected in caves or mountains to withstand the initial assault.

par13del wrote:

So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.

Cargo flights coming from the east of Taiwan would be somewhat protected by terrain. There would be enough F-35 coming and going east of Taiwan that there would be no need for dedicated escorts for the cargo flights.

par13del wrote:

I honestly do not think that China would allow a situation like Gulf War I where they just sat there and watched all the ships and a/c bring untold numbers of troops and their equipment into theatre, Hopefully Taiwan thinks the same way to and realizes that they need to have supplies dispersed and protected in caves or mountains to withstand the initial assault.

Definitely, these cargo flights to Taiwan would be flown like a 1980's attack aircraft mission. Dropping down to low altitude once they near the island. Then flying in the valleys of the mountains before cargo is delivered to a river or lake where the freight is quickly unloaded. I predict most of the SAM sites and offensive missiles will be located high up in the mountains facing west.

Tsengwen Reservoir and Sun Moon Lake would be ideal locations for amphibious aircraft to land. Aircraft on the water would be hidden by terrain even with AWACs located 200 miles away to the west. The ideal missile locations would be close to these lakes. There are so many rivers up in the mountains that a C-130 with floats could land. A tilt rotor would add even more potential landing locations but with over 300 C-130 aircraft available it would be far quicker to build floats for most of the fleet.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.

Cargo flights coming from the east of Taiwan would be somewhat protected by terrain. There would be enough F-35 coming and going east of Taiwan that there would be no need for dedicated escorts for the cargo flights.
[...]

Good luck!

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/08/a-bloody-mess-with-terrible-loss-of-life-how-a-china-us-conflict-over-taiwan-could-play-out/

A US Marine Littoral Regiment stationed in southern Taiwan is holding off hostile forces conducting an amphibious invasion near Tainan City. The MLR’s land-based, anti-ship missiles have slowed the Chinese fleet’s advances considerably, but the unit is running low on ammunition. It will need to be resupplied soon or face long odds in continuing to repel the invaders.

Despite the risks, the US sends in a C-17 Globemaster to restock the Marines’ precious supply of missiles — and the plane is summarily shot down by the Chinese. [...]
It’s not a pleasant scene, but it is a realistic one, according to a series of wargames hosted in early August at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based think tank. [...]

(boldface is mine)

RJMAZ wrote:

Tsengwen Reservoir and Sun Moon Lake would be ideal locations for amphibious aircraft to land. Aircraft on the water would be hidden by terrain even with AWACs located 200 miles away to the west.

China just encircled Taiwan to show that they could deploy a naval blockade, they even had a carrier deployed on the far side of the island and launch aircraft in mock attacks, where are these amphibious a/c that you are talking about that can be used as a counter show to China? How about a congo line of C-17's heading to Taiwan for show? Its not whether the US thinks a show means anything, China obviously thought it was important to show the Speaker what China could do.
Imagine if the Navy had taken the option to deploy a CVBG to within a couple hundred miles of the China flotilla to show they could respond - note I say a couple hundred miles so that there would be no direct confrontation other than China knowing they were out there - versus waiting for a couple weeks after to sail a single destroyer for freedom of navigation?
Personally, I believe that Taiwan has to take a more aggressive posture when China continues to send a/c into their zones, heck if they know ships are on the way have long range air patrols go out to meet them. In the long run, if conflict does come, the war will not be won by some tactical surprise because one side or the other did not know of an existing capability.

IADFCO wrote:

Despite the risks, the US sends in a C-17 Globemaster to restock the Marines’ precious supply of missiles — and the plane is summarily shot down by the Chinese. [...]
It’s not a pleasant scene, but it is a realistic one, according to a series of wargames hosted in early August at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based think tank. [/i] [...]

(boldface is mine)

I am not surprised. I'm sure a 747 freighter would also get shot down.

Obviously they wouldn't run the war game with multiple amphibious C-130 transports showing them all get through. China would then improve their strategy.

The C-130 flying at half the altitude of the C-17 might double the survivability.
The C-130 reduced heat signature might double the survivability.
The C-130 ability to land on any river and not have to air drop from 1,000 feet might double the survivability.

2x2x2 is 8 times the survivability over the C-17.

par13del wrote:

the war will not be won by some tactical surprise because one side or the other did not know of an existing capability.

Actually this is rarely true. Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't have invaded Kuwait if he knew the USAF had secret stealth fighters that could bomb Baghdad with impunity. There would be many exusting capabilities that the other side doesn't know.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

the war will not be won by some tactical surprise because one side or the other did not know of an existing capability.

Actually this is rarely true. Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't have invaded Kuwait if he knew the USAF had secret stealth fighters that could bomb Baghdad with impunity. There would be many exusting capabilities that the other side doesn't know.

Saddam did not bury his fighters in the sand because he did not know of any US secret programs, he did that because he knew he was not in a peer conflict, China is to Taiwan what the US and coalition was to Iraq, a flipped script.

par13del wrote:

Saddam did not bury his fighters in the sand because he did not know of any US secret programs, he did that because he knew he was not in a peer conflict, China is to Taiwan what the US and coalition was to Iraq, a flipped script.

The script is not flipped. It is the exact same script. Taiwan is Kuwait. China is Iraq. Both China and Iraq have or had big armies and lots of good military equipment.

If China invades Taiwan it will be based on them thinking the US will not get involved due to the US calculating a very high number of casualties. This is exactly what Saddam did.

The US in 1990 had secret capabilities that suddenly made the casualties rates much lower. The US then joined without much hesitation as victory would be swift.

China would not invade Taiwan if they thought there was a very high probability of the US joining the war. If the US joined and suddenly showed highly advanced and secret capabilities just like in the first Gulf War then China would also bury its fighters in the sand so to speak. To live to fight another day.

Europes FMTC program as a tactical transport will be shaped based on how cargo is delivered in Ukraine and how it would be delivered to Taiwan. A C-27J, C-160 or C-130J style fixed wing aircraft just doesn't work in a modern near peer conflict. Runways are too vulnerable and are much easier to hit compared to 30 years ago.

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

Saddam did not bury his fighters in the sand because he did not know of any US secret programs, he did that because he knew he was not in a peer conflict, China is to Taiwan what the US and coalition was to Iraq, a flipped script.

The script is not flipped. It is the exact same script. Taiwan is Kuwait. China is Iraq. Both China and Iraq have or had big armies and lots of good military equipment.

If you want to compare the Chinese military to the Iraq military including their capabilities, so be it, I think you are wrong but that is my opinion.

There's only one thing that will prevent Taiwan from being rapidly overrun by China, and that's a significant second-strike capability featuring WMDs that China can not easily neutralize. Anything less than that is going to cost a ton of lives, lots of destroyed equipment, massive amounts of money, and not keep Taiwan independent. At this point, it's all just a matter of both time and how many losses China is willing to stomach to make it happen. They continue to build up equipment and resources, train their soldiers on how to do it, and work on their planning every day. Short of someone physically attacking China, which absolutely WILL NOT HAPPEN, there is nothing that's going to stop them from eventually trying.

par13del wrote:

If you want to compare the Chinese military to the Iraq military including their capabilities, so be it, I think you are wrong but that is my opinion.

It is very accurate comparison. Iraq had a million soldiers. This is far more than what China will be able to deploy to Taiwan.

In 1990 Iraq had French and Russian fighters and IDS that were maybe one full decade behind what the US had in terms of technology. One decade of technological improvement translates into a 100:1 kill ratio in battle.

I think the US has a similar technological advantage over China in both Navy, Air Force and surface based radar systems. The J-20 at best is similar in capability to the F-22 20 years ago. The rest of the Chinese Air Force is similar to the F-16 and F-15 from 30 years ago. I actually think the Chinese Navy will be destroyed just as quickly as the Iraqi tanks. Both sitting highly exposed to the air against a far more advanced enemy.

LightningZ71 wrote:

There's only one thing that will prevent Taiwan from being rapidly overrun by China, and that's a significant second-strike capability featuring WMDs that China can not easily neutralize.

That is EXACTLY what observers said about Iraq in 1990.

Saddam Hussein Seriously Feared a U.S. Nuclear Strike During the Gulf War
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... -the-19164

But then the US deployed secret technology that could strike any target in Iraq and cause more destruction in the first month than multiple nukes. No nukes will be needed on China. China will run out of boats long before the US ran out of bombs and missiles. They can't swim to Taiwan.

It is a double edged sword. If the US made public how much of an overmatch they have against China they will get their military budget cut. However if people petend like China could hold it own against the US to secure more funding it will encourage China to attempt an invasion. Based on this most members on this forum are encouraging an invasion.

I would cite the Korean war and why it ended the way it did and the lines where it ended, but I will agree to disagree with your assessment.

China is not going to run out of boats. It is a well known fact that much of their ferry fleet (that is continually being expanded in public/private partnerships) is designed for dual use as what is essentially serviceable RO/RO transports. They are pumping them out at a fantastic rate and show no signs of stopping. I dare say that (and this is the part that is topic relevant) they will have sufficient quantities of them to manage attrition and still bring FAR more equipment across the strait than ANY conjectural even vaguely cost-efficient medium transport that the US or its allies will field.

China won't fear any nuclear strike. They have their own strategic arsenal and no one else in the world would risk MAD by using them on mainland China. Taiwan has zero nukes that anyone knows of. I'm sure that they would be making a big deal about them if they had any, even if they were just booby trap explosives at obvious landing points on the coast.

Any war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logistics required would put the pacific theater of WWII to shame.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Any war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logistics required would put the pacific theater of WWII to shame.

Training drills show that the kill ratio increases exponentially with a linear improvement in equipment capability. For instance the Super Hornet going from APG-73 to APG-79 and Typhoon Tranche 2 to Tranche 3 showed more than a 2:1 kill ratio improvement. That slight detection advantage kept getting used over and over. Ask any fighter pilot and they will tell you this.

Same applies with sea radar and missile end game tracking. A linear increase in capability gives exponentially gains. There is a compounding effect when you combine the advantages of every system. A 20% detection advantage might give a 2:1 kill ratio. A 40% detection advantage might give a 8:1 kill ratio. A 60% detection advantage gives a 32:1 kill ratio. Adding better missiles that by themselves give a 2:1 kill ratio now sees the platform go from 32:1 to 64:1.

I'd expect a worse case scenario of 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22/F-35 combo versus J-20. This is still utter domination. China loses 1000+ fighters in the first week compared to a few dozen US fighters.

The logistics to keep 100 fighters in the air near Taiwan is not that bad. Kadena Air Base in Japan is only 400nm from Taiwan. The F-35 can fly from there and provide 2 hour combat air patrol over Taiwan and return to Japan without any inflight refueling.

Guam to Taiwan is a tactically safe 1,500nm from Taiwan. The US Navy sitting the carriers closer to Tokyo and Guam in the Philippines Sea still allows the F-35C to hit Chinese ships from a safe distance. Bombers, P-8 and inflight tankers can all operate out of Northern Australia as its under 2,500nm away. Easy logistics.

I am not sure if the EU countries or the US would consider the KC390 considering what the current president of Brazil has been saying about the Ukraine conflict.

https://apnews.com/article/lula-portuga ... 85776d9c05

The Brazilian leader courted controversy last weekend when he said that both Ukraine and Russia had decided to go to war, and claimed that the U.S. was “stimulating” the fighting. Earlier in the month, he irked Ukraine, the U.S. and the EU by suggesting that Ukraine should cede Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014, to end the current conflict.

Lula also welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Brasilia on Monday. The following day, Lula condemned the “violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity” while promoting his proposal for a club of nations, including Brazil, to mediate a peaceful resolution to the war.

IADFCO wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

par13del wrote:

So all those cargo flights would be protected by F-35's which were not designed for escort duties and would be more useful in other areas. Ok, I thought the convo drifted when the ability to resupply without interference was mentioned.

Cargo flights coming from the east of Taiwan would be somewhat protected by terrain. There would be enough F-35 coming and going east of Taiwan that there would be no need for dedicated escorts for the cargo flights.
[...]

Good luck!

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/08/a-bloody-mess-with-terrible-loss-of-life-how-a-china-us-conflict-over-taiwan-could-play-out/

A US Marine Littoral Regiment stationed in southern Taiwan is holding off hostile forces conducting an amphibious invasion near Tainan City. The MLR’s land-based, anti-ship missiles have slowed the Chinese fleet’s advances considerably, but the unit is running low on ammunition. It will need to be resupplied soon or face long odds in continuing to repel the invaders.

Despite the risks, the US sends in a C-17 Globemaster to restock the Marines’ precious supply of missiles — and the plane is summarily shot down by the Chinese. [...]
It’s not a pleasant scene, but it is a realistic one, according to a series of wargames hosted in early August at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based think tank. [...]

(boldface is mine)

There is a reason why Rapid Dragon exists.
Instead of resupplying the ROC they could just launch JASSM-ER from C-130 and C-17

RJMAZ wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

Any war with a China that has equipment that is even half as good as our is (and I find it hard to believe that they aren't at least 90% as effective as our gear is) is going to be staggeringly expensive in life and equipment/money as we will be playing in their front yard the entire time. The logistics required would put the pacific theater of WWII to shame.

Training drills show that the kill ratio increases exponentially with a linear improvement in equipment capability. For instance the Super Hornet going from APG-73 to APG-79 and Typhoon Tranche 2 to Tranche 3 showed more than a 2:1 kill ratio improvement. That slight detection advantage kept getting used over and over. Ask any fighter pilot and they will tell you this.

Same applies with sea radar and missile end game tracking. A linear increase in capability gives exponentially gains. There is a compounding effect when you combine the advantages of every system. A 20% detection advantage might give a 2:1 kill ratio. A 40% detection advantage might give a 8:1 kill ratio. A 60% detection advantage gives a 32:1 kill ratio. Adding better missiles that by themselves give a 2:1 kill ratio now sees the platform go from 32:1 to 64:1.

I'd expect a worse case scenario of 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22/F-35 combo versus J-20. This is still utter domination. China loses 1000+ fighters in the first week compared to a few dozen US fighters.

The logistics to keep 100 fighters in the air near Taiwan is not that bad. Kadena Air Base in Japan is only 400nm from Taiwan. The F-35 can fly from there and provide 2 hour combat air patrol over Taiwan and return to Japan without any inflight refueling.

Guam to Taiwan is a tactically safe 1,500nm from Taiwan. The US Navy sitting the carriers closer to Tokyo and Guam in the Philippines Sea still allows the F-35C to hit Chinese ships from a safe distance. Bombers, P-8 and inflight tankers can all operate out of Northern Australia as its under 2,500nm away. Easy logistics.

Not if the runways are cratered.
Not if Japan says no.

If you reply "But China would not want to include Japan in the war" the obvious counter is "but if aircraft are being shot down from Japan ..."

Diplomacy is still the best strategy. China no more needs more territory and Russia does. Both have seriously shrinking populations. China has the huge advantage of their economy and many many brilliant researchers. (US maintains it population only by immigration) Russia is a basket case, China has all the elements of sustainable great future but does need to redo major pars of their economy. Unfortunately that may be harder than stupid aggression, which often appeals to authoritarian leaders. The US needs negotiators doing the boring tedious job of solving things issue by issue. Trump was right that the US needed to address Chinese behavior, but totally ineffective at appointing negotiators to do the hard work. He thought it all could be done by (his) fiat.

A little reminder: This thread is about the "Future Medium Tactical Cargo aircraft" (FMTC), a European project. It's not about large tilt rotors, it's not about China and not about the USA.

RJMAZ wrote:

Europes FMTC program as a tactical transport will be shaped based on how cargo is delivered in Ukraine and how it would be delivered to Taiwan. A C-27J, C-160 or C-130J style fixed wing aircraft just doesn't work in a modern near peer conflict. Runways are too vulnerable and are much easier to hit compared to 30 years ago.

This looks like a weak excuse to reintroduce the thread topic into the derailed discussion. I don't think that FMTC has a lot to do with Ukraine and Taiwan. It's more about French overseas territories and small Islands with small airfields that span the globe and must be easily accessible to the French Air Force. A cost-effective aircraft is needed to serve these wide areas, not the latest super-duper vertical-takeoff thingy.

To avoid the closure of this thread, here's a post on the subject:

The French Parliament is debating the 2024 - 2030 military planning bill (loi de programmation militaire). According to the current version, the "Avion de transport d'assaut du segment médian" (ATASM, French for Future Medium Tactical Cargo aircraft FMTC) is supposed be in service around 2035 alongside the 4 C-130Js already procured. The FMTC replaces France's existing C-130Hs, the number of C-130Js remains the same.
Search for "ATASM" on this page to find the table with an overview of current and future equipment of the French forces. The CN-235, that is also to be replaced by the ATASM, is not included there.

So now it can also take the FASETT name (Future Air System for European Tactical Transportation).

Few things, capabilities and configuration needs are being assessed and target is the replacement market kicking in next decade.

“Many of these aircraft are coming toward the end of their lifespan and there is a question of what the 20-ton-class of transport aircraft looks like in the next decade or so,” Schoellhorn said.

Key aims of the Fasett study will be to find a configuration with the payload and volume capacity to accommodate new-generation vehicles used by European militaries, as many have introduced systems that do not fit on platforms such as the C-130.

[...]

“The Fasett feasibility study aims to carry out a cooperative analysis of the transport aircraft replacement needs of EU Member States on the 2030-40 horizon and to identify European development opportunities to address strategic gaps,” the documents state.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/airbus-leading-consortium-study-future-medium-airlifter

CN-295 - 23.2t MTOW 4,354kw 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

It does not seem as it is a 130J replacement/KC-390 competitor, but more a C-27J/C295 at twice the size, when looking into the finer print. It is strange if it only targets the legacy 130 and not the J from a market perspective, as many smaller users today have their military logistics centered around that size. If we go by any other measurement, then everything has obesity tendencies, and that includes military gear, so targeting say 60t-65 MTOW would be strange to compete w the 130J/390, but on the other hand keep cost down, so they can compete with the C-27/295 in price and running costs? Is that the French plan? That is likely why Airbus will conduct a market study, cause how big should this be? If they make it too Frence-centered, they will not sell many, so Airbus has a different interest from the French MoD. They would likely like public funding for a plane that can become a commercial success. But replacing and competing with the 295/27 will not be popular in Spain or Italy unless they get a piece of the action. It depends on if an airframe with say 55-65 MTOW can be made as cheap as the CN-295 and C27-J and with the same running cost.
This will not be a tiltrotor nor a smaller version of the A400M, as they said it should be cheap. It could still be made with some of the same systems and overall concepts. The ones that are cheap enough and so it does have some commonality with the A400M for both pilots and mechanics - but much simpler and with fewer features, and likely also propeller-driven for rough landings.

The 390 was targeted as a 130J replacement with the obesity factor built-in, so a 130 replacement. This seems to be a 55-65t MTOW, so trying to replace the low end with the obesity factor included. The key will be if procurement and running costs can be kept low enough to the C-295/27.

RJMAZ wrote:

I watch wildfires every year and see helicopters dropping small amounts of water multiple times per hour and large fixed wing aircraft dropping large volumes of water once per hour if they are lucky. A large tilt rotor could drop at the frequency of a helcopter with water volumes of a larged fixed wing aircraft.

I'm not sure why my posts were deleted. I always quote my old posts when predictions come true. This helps give my future posts higher credibility. It would be silly for this European tactical aircraft not to be a tilt rotor.

The Maui crisis highlights yet again highlights why fixed wing tactical transport aircraft have limitations that don't belong in the 21st century military. Being able to hover and not require a runway is extremely valuable.

The post above me discussed the weights of hypothetical fixed wing aircraft. I'm not sure why I can't discuss a hypothetical tilt rotor aircraft.