via LATribune.fr
Every day that passes, we learn a little more about the trials of the A400M , the aircraft developed military transport and manufactured by Airbus Group. For the Delegate General for Armaments, Laurent Collet-Billon, we must now forget the refueling mission in the helicopter flight yet planned A400M in the specifications. Too dangerous for helicopters, which are by definition unstable devices he said, because of the cyclical propeller turbulence of the A400M, a copy of which will be on display next week at the Aero India show in Bangalore India.The airplane won't be able to refuel helicopters in flight?
Another disappointment for this device, which is, however, "well born" and offers excellent transport capacity, said Monday the head of the Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) during the presentation of the 2014 assessment of his house. An asset that remains valuable in view of deploying French troops in Africa. Provided he also mentioned another difficulty for this device: the mission of parachute through the side doors is still not satisfactory, he said.According to "Der Spiegel" , the German army has identified "875 breaches" , including missing insulation jackets on some electric cables. In fact, it would be 1,300 breaches.
And its being touted as a replacement for the KC-130?
This airplane is almost as big a disappointment as the F-35.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe flying gas tank mission is always dangerous. But helicopters refuel from C-130s on a routine basis. The key is getting the fuel hoses into stable air instead of in the choppy engine turbulence. I guarantee you that there is a nice stable portion behind the A400M in the main drag zone.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is whether or not gassing up whirlybirds is worth the cost of developing a fuel system for the A400M platform.
Back in the day the C-17 had to adjust glide paths to be steeper and precisely timed for dropping off Army paratroopers over the drop zone so turbulence wouldn't cause parachute malfunctions. Static lines had to get an extension so the parachute would open up further from the aircraft. Obviously not the same thing as gassing up a chopper in flight, but still the same process of modifying equipment that worked well on a C-130 to work with the bigger bird.
The only thing that counts-
DeleteComparative Cargo Bay/Door Areas
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Airbus-A400M-Atlas-Airborne-Cargo-Bay-Dimensions.png
Largest singlepiece composite airframe component on the planet, 23X13ft
http://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/resources/images/cdn/cms/0507HPC_IM_A400M_Step_10.jpg
We need the ability to intervene in far places at minimum time delay with an Airlanded Mechanized force composed of 20-30 ton protected vehicles and 5-10 ton robotic escorts, enmasse (company strength + ten day independent operations sustainment...).
We can't get that with a DHS freighter 747 which is how we do the majority of our logistics resupply anyway.
We also cannot do it with a C-130 which has a 10ft wide door aperture and a realistic (intra theater, shortfield only) upper payload weight limit of 34,000lbs.
We have trapped ourselves behind the bowwave of change with idiot programs like the F-35 and F/A-18E/F sucking the life out of our aerospace industry and thus not developed the followon _utility airlift_ and _new rotary wing_ applications which will form the majority of the need for our expeditionary forces and those of our clients, around the world.
France has taken those slots with relatively cheap, simple, systems that occupy intermediate capability niches between the massively overexpensive C-17 and the unreliable An-70 via the All Composite A400M and Eurocopter EC130/135 which are stealing market segment on operations costs and new-car sensitivity, simply because the alternatives were designed in the 1950s (C-130 first flew in 1954) and the 1960s (LOH competition Bell 206).
If the Marines want to pretend that flying in KC-130W tankers to land bases to support helicopters off carriers is realistic in an A2AD environment, fine! Let them buy a topoff order of Harvest Hawks and a boatload of spares to take them out to 2040 with another 'we make do', refurb of an ancient history design.
Let them also see how relevant they are in 2025.
And let them pay for the operations costs to keep those birds in service out of their yearly budget.
Despite Marine beliefs to the contrary, the major threats are not all within 100nm of a coastline and we will not risk turbofan jets to do forced entry highway landings (though the A400M is quite a dust kicker itself). Which means that, to intervene in Asia is to have the ability to put intermediate mechanized forces on the ground with a STOL capacity to get the job done on a minimum total sortie:risk commitment of say 10 aircraft.
C-130 would need a staircase of KC-46 to get there from here (even if 'here' was Al Udeid or Shindand) and it would do it at under 300 knots, right in the heart of the weather band with inefficient pressurization and poor noise dampening, making the entire trip a misery. But what would make it all but useless would be that, _when it got there_, with 15 ton M113 derived vehicles like the Buford, they would not be survivable on the ground for ten minutes.
DeleteWe need to rationalize our acquisition processes. Accept that not every problem is going to have an optimal outcome and detune the spec sheets from an 'all singing, all dancing' to a 'common fleet logistics' basis of solution.
Shrink AMC by half if you need to and reassign the majority of strategic logistics airlift to civil carriers (90%+). Combat orient a special mission force (SOLL capable) to get that emergency response team into play from regional depots where equipment awaits mate up with CONUS users. And where specific missions need unique capabilities, either pay for the existing solution with a budget penalty (how bad do you want it) or adopt alternatives (V-22 tanker = 17,000lb offload).
C-jets exist for one reason: To low-load heavy weight pallets, shelters and vehicles that are too outsized and/or massy for any other method. Define how many of those missions you face vs. what you can do (commercial sealift in a protected, secure, container) as an alternative to (say) getting busted equipment back home.
But don't saddle the entire armed forces with the dated and non-performing C-130 just to keep this image-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/US_Navy_030130-M-0000X-001_Two_U.S._Marine_Corps_CH-53E_Super_Stallion_helicopters_assigned_to_Marine_Heavy_Helicopter_Squadron-772_(HMM-772)_receive_fuel_from_a_KC-130_Hercules.jpg
In circulation.
Because as another poster said, this also happens-
CH-53 Chases Panty, Chops Of Dong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRQEPXUMvg
"The airplane won't be able to refuel helicopters in flight?"
ReplyDeleteThey may be what he USAF refuels with its C-130, to the lesser extant the Navy and Marines who also refuel fixed wing aircraft.The users in the EU are looking for a fast jet refueler. Honestly when was the last time any of our NATO allies used a C-130 to refuel a helicopter? Most of the European large helo's don't even have a boom to refuel with.
The German CH-53G/GA do not even have a provision for a probe. Nor do the UKs Chinook HCx fleet.
Mr Laurent Collet-Billon is the french "Delegate General for Armaments" the French military procurement cabinet minister (he has no military experience I could find). The French EC725 is about the only rotorcraft I could find that routinely practices air to air refueling. This might be an Frech exclusive requirement, or we would hear more from the other users.
I road an HH-60 behind a C-130 once, would not want to try something the size of the A400 or a C-17.
ReplyDelete