A-400M vs C-130J

[Slater]

Evidently there's some desire on the part of some to keep a few C-130's around:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/05/02/busy-c-130j-fleet-renews-questions-over-out-of-service-date/26699725/

[fatalbert]

I hope so,my job depends on it :-/

[JohnT]

With an apology for showing my ignorance but on reading the article it seems clear in some quarters that for special forces work the C130 J is preferred as being smaller than the A400M. The Herc isn't exactly falling into the "mini" category though so I am a wondering what the thinking is there. Must be a reason but dumb civi don't know

[Dave Fleming]

John, it's ££££s. Keeping three types in service costs a lot more than just two types. So C-17 to do the big, strategic jobs and A400M to do the sub-strategic/tactical stuff. Problem is, it;s a bit too big for some of those.

I think it was the last CAS that said he wanted no more than two of any type - so two fast jets, two transport types, two support helicopters (A330 counts as a tanker rather than transport)

[JohnT]

Thanks Dave

Funny - never matters what the question is the answer is always the dosh!!!!

[tonyot]

Will the new Airbus thingy be used by the RAF for dropping paratroopers and if so have they done any trials or started training for this role yet?

The Herk has of course been used for this role since the 60`s and if the RAF want to retain the Airbus thing for route work and keep it nice and clean like the C-17 then a number of Herks should be retained for the Airborne & Special Forces roles too.

Personally I think that the RAF should order more Herks,.....at least another 12 or so.

Cheers

Tony

[thomastmcc]

Will the new Airbus thingy be used by the RAF for dropping paratroopers and if so have they done any trials or started training for this role yet?

The Herk has of course been used for this role since the 60`s and if the RAF want to retain the Airbus thing for route work and keep it nice and clean like the C-17 then a number of Herks should be retained for the Airborne & Special Forces roles too.

Personally I think that the RAF should order more Herks,.....at least another 12 or so.

Cheers

Tony

yes ..

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/atlas.cfm

[Aeronut]

The Herk is an old design (1940's airframe technology) and although the J is still in production is just a case of dressing your Granny in the latest (Poundland) fashions. The Herk is useful for SF tasks but as the SF 'toys' have got bigger and bigger the Herk is prooving to be too small. The cargo floor of the Atlas has more in common with the C-17 than the Herk (I based my input on the A400M cargo hold spec on that of the C-17).

The problem with the RAF's transport fleet is its too small and there should be more Atlas's and C-17 with a handful of Herks

[Ascoteer]

A400M is the wrong aircraft at the wrong price and for the wrong job. In fact it doesn't really know what it is despite trying to be all things to all men.

It is less capable in the Strategic role than C17, less capable in the Tactical role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tactical role than C130.

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Sadly we bought into the Airbus white elephant and are stuck with it, especially since C17 production has now been wound up.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Ascoteer

[tonyot]

yes ..

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/atlas.cfm

They are not paratroopers and it isn`t the RAF,......it is a few skydivers jumping out of a company prototype!

It is one thing to jump out of an aircraft really high up with nothing but a helmet and a lycra suit on to land like a feather as if you`ve just stepped off a kerb,........it is another to jump at 600ft carrying over 100lb of equipment into a sky full of (in my day anyway) over 1,000 blokes all vying for the same piece of sky and then hitting the ground really hard like a sack of sh 1 t,.....because that is what paratroopers do!

I know that Airbus have done some company trials with paratroopers but I don`t know if the RAF & 16 Air Assault Brigade have cleared the type to drop British paratroopers or no,...or even if they intend to use the type for the Airborne role!

Cheers

Tony

Edit- just seen the above and I totally agree!

Edited May 4, 2015 by tonyot

[thomastmcc]

A400M is the wrong aircraft at the wrong price and for the wrong job. In fact it doesn't really know what it is despite trying to be all things to all men.

It is less capable in the Strategic role than C17, less capable in the Tactical role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tactical role than C130.

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Sadly we bought into the Airbus white elephant and are stuck with it, especially since C17 production has now been wound up.

there is still about 10 up for grabs...

[Ascoteer]

I believe all the C17s are accounted for.

If not, and it was up to me, I'd bin A400 off, buy that 10 and probably another 20-30 Hercs.

[Graham Boak]

It's a hell of a job being an aircraft manufacturer. You spend years working on a design closely tailored to meet the Services requirements whilst retaining some development stretch, and when it appears there's always someone who knows better than you willing to badmouth it. The A400M is bigger than a C-130 because the RAF (and other air forces) wanted to carry vehicles that will not fit into a C-130. Buying more C130s is not a realistic proposition, for much the same reasons buying more C-47s isn't. Very successful in their time, very popular in use, but this is the 21st century and at present levels of defence spending it may be nearer the 22nd before any other large transport appears. And that will probably be Chinese.

[Troffa]

Parachute drops- I take it that's just for the D-Day and Arnhem commemorations then.

I don't think we need to select an aircraft on the basis of a role (SF excepted) that has absolutely no place in modern warfare.

[thomastmcc]

I believe all the C17s are accounted for.

If not, and it was up to me, I'd bin A400 off, buy that 10 and probably another 20-30 Hercs.

according to afm recently there was still about 10 available

[PLC1966]

Funnily enough, it doesn't seem so long ago when it was said (probably by the Nav Mafia) that we would have to retain the C-130K because the J couldn't do SF roles.

And the world continued to turn. I would guess as SF get most of what they require money will be found to keep some J's going.

However, I guess the counter argument to that is that if it is well understand that we only kept J's for SF purposes, there is little chance of them being anonymous when they turn up in the bad guys back yard.

[Parabat]

Parachute drops- I take it that's just for the D-Day and Arnhem commemorations then.

I don't think we need to select an aircraft on the basis of a role (SF excepted) that has absolutely no place in modern warfare.

Ahem... I think the recent combat drops by 2REP in Libya(7April 2015) and Mali(28 Jan 2013) invalidate that argument, as does the recent JFE (Joint Forcible Entry) exercise at Ft Bragg which had British Paras dropping in with the 82nd to seize an airfield.

Paratroopers are still a viable method of inserting your force behind enemy lines at a time and place of your choosing.

[Ascoteer]

Graham, I am an ex-Truckie. I have spent an awful lot of my professional life operating in the Tactical and Semi-Strategic role, so I would suggest I have a reserve of professional knowledge on the subject far greater than do you. Comparing C130 to C47 is (at best) facile in the extreme and (at worst) bloody stupid!

A400 is the wrong aircraft because it can not do what C17 does and it is late and way over budget. It carries far less than C17 and brings no capability to the table that C17 doesn't already have. We only bought in to A400 because it was supposed to be cheap and supposed to be delivered 10 years ago; we accepted its limitations over C17 at the time but found that Airbus could not deliver and we had to acquire C17s anyway.

If we use it primarily in the Strat role (like we have with C130) we will break it (just like we did with C130 and for the same reasons).

With regards to the Tac role, A400 is too big, too unwieldy and too much of a precious asset (given the small number we are buying) to be used. Furthermore it doesn't have the strip capability that C130 does. And before you blather on about the increased size of the Army's vehicles, how often do you actually think we have delivered vehicles in the Tactical Role?

Furthermore, while A400 is significantly bigger than C130, having a freight bay twice as wide, said freight bay is not significantly longer than Albert’s. Indeed much of the extra fuselage length is taken up with attaching the empennage!

Given the size of A400 I am bloody glad I never had to fly it into a hot LZ such as we did in Sarajevo and Somalia.

PLC1966:

Funnily enough, it doesn't seem so long ago when it was said (probably by the Nav Mafia) that we would have to retain the C-130K because the J couldn't do SF roles.

The limitation on C130J in the airdrop role was down to the nature of the prop-wash effects from the 6-bladed props making it too dangerous to deploy from both para doors simultaneously. This is something A400 will have in spades! People who have actually been Paras will understand what I mean. AFAIK this limitation still exists such that deployment is from the ramp which is limiting, but less so for SF.

Parabat:

Ahem... I think the recent combat drops by 2REP in Libya(7April 2015) and Mali(28 Jan 2013) invalidate that argument, as does the recent JFE (Joint Forcible Entry).

Quite.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Ascoteer

[Graham Boak]

I spent all of my career in the aircraft industry doing mainly performance/operational analysis on fast jets. Though I did end on larger types including the FSTA project, it didn't include heavy lifters apart from some brief work on the initial C-17 buy and an even briefer exposure to the A400M. This however did include the requirements for carriage, and why a larger hold than the C-130 was needed. I don't know how many times the RAF have delivered the Army's vehicles (or their own) in the past, but it was required for the future (now present). What I have seen time and again on different types in different roles is what I described in my first two sentences. Whatever the new aircraft, there's always comment that the old one was better, that the new one won't do what the old one could (yet it inevitably always does). I think I first encountered this at University, when on a visit to Yeovilton I was given a briefing on the forthcoming Phantom, which basically boiled down to "Don't believe all the publicity, this aircraft can't do all these things at once". Whilst true, that the then-current fighter the Sea Vixen couldn't actually do any of them at any time didn't seem to matter. Despite your experience, my comments still all stand based on mine.

What doesn't help, of course, is that the guys who wrote - and insisted upon - all the requirements have moved on (as they do every two years) and the newcomers are all out to make their names by showing what's really needed now, and (surprise surprise) it is always different. I guess you don't make your mark by just saying that your predecessor got it right.

[tonyot]

I still stand by the fact that in my own opinion the Airbus and C-17 are too big for tactical operations into a front line area! They are fine for follow up stuff to bring in larger vehicles and things but not for places where the baddies are shooting at you! The Herk made a large enough target for baddies with machine guns and rifles, never mind man pack missiles and larger SAM`s but the Airbus and C-17 are just large sitting targets and that is why we need to retain a smaller tactical airlifter like the Hercules in our arsenal,.......if arsenal is the right word nowadays?

Cheers

Tony

[Slater]

Embraer's new KC-390 is still unknown quantity at this point, but has potential for considerable sales:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390

[Aeronut]

The limitation on C130J in the airdrop role was down to the nature of the prop-wash effects from the 6-bladed props making it too dangerous to deploy from both para doors simultaneously.

I'm glad I didn't know that when I carried out the Sim stick Para Wedge trials on the Mk4. The big problem with the J and the Atlas is the drop speed has increased which lengthens the DZ needed. For mass airborne drops theses days you're better off with the troops in Chinooks and the Heavy kit coming by fixed wing. Although whilst watching one drop the 7km spread between the wedge load and the last para out did make me think that the Assault glider could make a come back.

[Paul Bradley]

Time to buy a few Skyvans, perchance?

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/manufacture/wamore/wamore5.html

[Xenol]

Whatever you say about the A400m, it did a good display at RIAT XD Not as good as the C-27J though. What are your views on the Spartan then?

[Rob P]

Embraer's new KC-390 is still unknown quantity at this point, but has potential for considerable sales:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390

Looks like the illegitimate love child of a C-17 and BAe146...?