A-400M vs C-130J

[Aeronut]

Tony, My role was the A&AEE civilian Trials Officer although I would be wearing a flying suit. My role during the drop was to operate the cameras and observe and then analysis and write the results up when the trials are over. My memory of those drops is moving from front to back of the cabin by walking along the top of the centre seats and watching the drops from the rear centre support/ladder whilst operating the triggers for events and the cameras in the air deflectors and cargo door area.

My other memory is helping the loadie clear up after the drop and noting the various liquids you guys managed to fill motion sickness bags with.

[tonyot]

That sounds like a fabulous job and really interesting. While posted to Brize a lot of my mates were at JATE and they used to show me around the hangar and also took me up on trials when I could,......I remember being on a heavy drop when 2 x MSP`s loaded with Landies went out and I`m glad that I wasn`t snagged on one as they go out like express trains right in front of your nose! It was having the A&AEE Harvard formating right behind the tail gate too,.....almost close enough to jump onto,......did you ever get to fly in that while filming trial drops?

I don`t remember filling any bags on those particular jumps but I wasn`t averse to it during the low level trips down the Welsh valleys and to be honest you were lucky that everybody made it into the bags as the floor was usually slippy,...one starts honking and it spreads like wildfire, especially when it sloshes about on the floor! As for other fluids,.....I`ve seen that too but was never guilty,.....mind you those `NO SLOPS' heads on the bulkhead are impossible to get to wearing a parachute when the aircraft is so full and as you know the cosy little toilet on the tailgate isn`t fitted.

During a Sim 45 the only way to get up and down the fuselage was to walk on the blokes legs as we had to put each leg in between the legs of the blokes sat opposite.

It was nice to chat and also nice to know that we shared a few flights together,

Cheers

Tony

[Latinbear]

Please could we have an explanation of the term "Sim 45 para wedge", "Sim 32 para wedge" etc. Thank you.

[Aeronut]

Sim 45 = a stick of 45 paratroops out of each para door simultaneously (actually you want a stagger the exits ie left, right, left etc rather than both together).

Wedge refers to a wedge shaped structure mounted on the closed ramp that permits a heavy stores (1 ton net containers) to be dropped before the troops through the gap left by just opening the cargo door. You cannot jump out of the paradoors with the ramp lowered without damaging (destroying) every paras parachute.

Tony is correct about the paras having to interleave their legs in the Herc which brings this thread back into line. The A400M cargo hold is wide enough that it should be possible to walk between the paras sat along the side wall and those on the centreline seats. The C17 is so wide that you could possibly drive a car between the rows of Paras (I might be exaggerating there, but only slightly)

[Slater]

C-130J upgrade testing underway:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2015/05/11/uk-heads-for-c-130j-upgrade-test-flight/27122055/

[Latinbear]

Very helpful - thank you Aeronut. I now feel that I can follow the thread with greater understanding.

[Dave Spencer]

It sounds like the USAF are going to buy the A400M. Not bad for a white elephant.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/airbus-to-decide-on-a380-revamp-this-year/articleshow/47640772.cms

[Max Headroom]

That is only Airbus' opinion unfortunately. Boeing (spellcheck suggested Boring!) would go ape, Congress would block it on the 'not made here' argument both on job and security grounds. There is minimal American content as the airframe and engine are both totally European. Also US defence procurement seems to be a battleground at the best of times, so as much as I would like to see it, I don't see it happening.

Trevor

[XV107]

Airbus's confidence has been enhanced by a more-favourable-than-they-expected response to this:

Joint Force Quarterly 75-Theater Airlift Modernization:Options for closing the gap.

Which is itself based on a wider study which was supported to varying degrees by a number of bodies including the USAF and Airbus (I think that a US manufacturer also provided support [i.e. cash for research trips, etc] but can't recall which) - the key point, though, is that Airbus's support for research was done on a strict 'You must not expect this support to lead to the report reading as you want it - if you can take that risk...' basis. Airbus was sufficiently punchy enough to say 'Yep, fine, we're confident that you'll conclude that one of the US services will want the Atlas' (the author's details, by the by, don't mention that before he went into academia he was a USAF Colonel and, if memory serves, an air transport chap, so it's not quite the usual 'academic pontificates' scenario).

I think Mr Enders may be a little over-confident, but as the article explains, the US doesn't have anything quite like the A400M. Since Airbus was quite willing to open a production facility in the US for the abortive KC-45 and would love to sell the US the A400M, the prospect of A400s with a lot of US content and built largely in the US isn't entirely impossible; but as I say, I suspect that they may be drawing just a little too much confidence from this report, unless there've been other signals coming out of the US (which seems a little unlikely).

[Calum]

To my layman eyes the A400 sits nicely between the C-17 and C-130J in load carrying capability, particularly in the physical size of loads it can carry. It can carry things that the C-130J can't, like medium helicopters (NH-90) and smaller armoured vehicles.

That said, I can't see why and Airforce with C-17's would be interested in the A400. I know whay the RAF has both, but I bet if they had both to choose from now they'd choose one or the oter

I think the A400 would be a good choice for those air forces who don't have C-17's but want a strategic airlifter.

And anyway, with only 5 free C-17's left, I can see a few more A400 orders in the future from countries wanting something bigger than a C-130J

[Slater]

I'm sure the USAF could find use for the A-400M, but considering the number of C-17's they own (220-something) and large numbers of C-130's, would a purchase even make sense?

[Dave Fleming]

I'm sure the USAF could find use for the A-400M, but considering the number of C-17's they own (220-something) and large numbers of C-130's, would a purchase even make sense?

The C-130 is too narrow for many of their existing and planned armoured vehicles

[Max Headroom]

No one's mentioned the C-5M (I think). The politicos would still have a hissy if a fourth type was to be added.

Just look at the fuss and rigmarole re USAF had to go through to get the KC-46 approved for replacing the KC-135. They would have to drop one of the others and there would be all sorts of political bun fights. Look at the C-27J fiasco. The Army wanted it, the Air Force took more than half of the total then abandoned it, so leaving it for the Coast Guard!

Senators are very parochial when it comes to the closure of a base or deletion of a type from their particular state. Add to that mix the perception of the Atlas being foreign and the USAF relying on someone other than a U.S. manufactoror supplying a strategic/tactical type, even though it could be manufactured or assembled there, I remain convinced that it's a non starter and that Congress would rather spend far more on a clean slate type to enter service 10-15 years down the line, rather than buy off the shelf.

Sorry it isn't happening

Trevor

[Slater]

Only if Jack Bauer from "24" was seen piloting one.

[GMK]

The C-130 is too narrow for many of their existing and planned armoured vehicles

The overwhelming proportion of armoured vehicles are moved by sea, road and rail. Moving a single armoured vehicle isn't particularly useful - they're employed in multiples & require logistic support. Air is almost a last resort in most cases - in which case the USAF has C-17 & C-5.