USAF asks industry to answer C-130 replacement questions

[t68]

The USAF has released a capabilities request for information to replace the C-130 Hercules, according to the paper they want an aircraft that can lift 190% more payload or the rough equivalent to 38000KG and a new mission set which I have never heard before mounted vertical maneuver. According to the article it list it as “Taking on the MVM mission means dropping off medium-weight armored vehicles — think Bradley’s, not Abrams — in places the enemy does not expect”
Nothing is off the table everything from a new fat Hercules to an optimum speed tilt-rotor or a smaller version of the C-17 Globe master

USAF asks industry to answer C-130 replacement questions - The DEW Line

Boeing awarded patent for Speed Agile stealth transport concept - The DEW Line

Boeing has an interesting design what would papers be part stealth bomber and part C-17, will be interesting what comes of this, do they want to put money into a new design and possible have a large R&D or go with A400M as I said interesting.

 

[John Newman]

The USAF has released a capabilities request for information to replace the C-130 Hercules, according to the paper they want an aircraft that can lift 190% more payload or the rough equivalent to 38000KG and a new mission set which I have never heard before mounted vertical maneuver. According to the article it list it as “Taking on the MVM mission means dropping off medium-weight armored vehicles — think Bradley’s, not Abrams — in places the enemy does not expect”
Nothing is off the table everything from a new fat Hercules to an optimum speed tilt-rotor or a smaller version of the C-17 Globe master

USAF asks industry to answer C-130 replacement questions - The DEW Line

Boeing awarded patent for Speed Agile stealth transport concept - The DEW Line

Boeing has an interesting design what would papers be part stealth bomber and part C-17, will be interesting what comes of this, do they want to put money into a new design and possible have a large R&D or go with A400M as I said interesting.

Well it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, at this stage the scope of the requirement seems to be fairly broad.

Maybe a rework/update of a YC-14 or 15 size aircraft perhaps? The 38,000Kg payload seem to be pretty close to the A400M, according to Wiki it's payload is 37,000Kg.

The MVM mission capability sounds interesting too, I remember seeing an artist impression (can't remember if it was in a mag or the web) a few years ago of a STOVL jet transport with 'tilt' engines, looked like a YC-14 with it's engines above the wing, but also being able to tilt up so it could land vertically.

Or maybe someone could design a real version of my favourite 'fictional' aircraft of all time, Thunderbird 2!

Dare I say..... Thunderbirds are go!!

 

[t68]

Well it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, at this stage the scope of the requirement seems to be fairly broad.

Maybe a rework/update of a YC-14 or 15 size aircraft perhaps? The 38,000Kg payload seem to be pretty close to the A400M, according to Wiki it's payload is 37,000Kg.

The MVM mission capability sounds interesting too, I remember seeing an artist impression (can't remember if it was in a mag or the web) a few years ago of a STOVL jet transport with 'tilt' engines, looked like a YC-14 with it's engines above the wing, but also being able to tilt up so it could land vertically.

Or maybe someone could design a real version of my favourite 'fictional' aircraft of all time, Thunderbird 2!

Dare I say..... Thunderbirds are go!!

Yeah I did check out the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 which was contender back in 1972 under the Advanced Medium STOL Transport Project, but I think because most US programs relating to aircraft are mostly homegrown affairs I would be very surprised they went with A400M but that’s not to say they won’t either like the cancelled C27J which are still being delivered straight Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson what a waste.

New Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs | Fox News



Ah yes Thunderbird 2 and Virgil Tracy the coolest machine out of the lot. There’s an ex politician on the bolt report who I swear is a reincarnation of brains even his mouth moves like the show.

Thunderbird 2 is 250 feet long with a wingspan of 180 feet and a height of 60 feet. A long-range craft, it is capable reaching anywhere in the world without refueling and has a maximum speed of 5000 mph (but cruises at 2000 mph) Not bad specs hey

 

[John Newman]

Yeah I did check out the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 which was contender back in 1972 under the Advanced Medium STOL Transport Project, but I think because most US programs relating to aircraft are mostly homegrown affairs I would be very surprised they went with A400M but that’s not to say they won’t either like the cancelled C27J which are still being delivered straight Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson what a waste.

New Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs | Fox News



Ah yes Thunderbird 2 and Virgil Tracy the coolest machine out of the lot. There’s an ex politician on the bolt report who I swear is a reincarnation of brains even his mouth moves like the show.

Thunderbird 2 is 250 feet long with a wingspan of 180 feet and a height of 60 feet. A long-range craft, it is capable reaching anywhere in the world without refueling and has a maximum speed of 5000 mph (but cruises at 2000 mph) Not bad specs hey

And I thought I was the Thunderbirds nerd, you beat me hands down!

But to be fair, I was born at the end of the 50's, so I did see it as a 'first' run and not one of the many many repeats over the years, it was pretty cool stuff for it's time.

When I was I kid I kept hoping that a 'real' Thunderbird 2 would be built, it just made sense to me at the time.

The ex politician you are talking about is Michael Costa, ex Labor Treasurer and Police Minister.

Anyway, memories .... next thing we will be talking about is Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons!!

 

[t68]

And I thought I was the Thunderbirds nerd, you beat me hands down!


But to be fair, I was born at the end of the 50's, so I did see it as a 'first' run and not one of the many many repeats over the years, it was pretty cool stuff for it's time.

Nah I cheated got it of wiki, was a late bloomer saw the re-runs in the early 70’s, I was very dedicated up at 6am every sat morning. my rug rats don't think much of it.

The ex politician you are talking about is Michael Costa, ex Labor Treasurer and Police Minister..

yep that's the one

Anyway, memories .... next thing we will be talking about is Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons!!

you got me on that one, that's why you most probably have few more grey hairs than me

 

[ngatimozart]

Thunderbirds are cool and my 8 year & 3yr old grandsons as well as the 6yr old granddaughter love them.They also like Stingray and the older two have been introduced to Captain Scarlett which they like.

I think the C130 replacement is going to be quite problematic now. Airbus Military have a running start with the A400 starting to enter service now. The sequestration in the US is going to limit federal R&D funding for the replacement project. Linked to that is the current political landscape in the US with a dysfunctional Congress and Senate because of the ideological conflict within the Republican Party. Possibly a smaller C17 could be the most economical option. If that is a viable option then do you stay with a pure jet engines or can you go with turboprops? Maybe an either or option.

 

[StobieWan]

If they want rough field capability, you're looking at turbo props to avoid FOD concerns I'd have thought. They can get the vertical element with palletised delivery of kit (providing it's not an M1A2!) I dunno, they'd save themselves a packet by not asking for crazy ass specs, and license build A400M.

 

[John Newman]

Thunderbirds are cool and my 8 year & 3yr old grandsons as well as the 6yr old granddaughter love them.They also like Stingray and the older two have been introduced to Captain Scarlett which they like.

I think the C130 replacement is going to be quite problematic now. Airbus Military have a running start with the A400 starting to enter service now. The sequestration in the US is going to limit federal R&D funding for the replacement project. Linked to that is the current political landscape in the US with a dysfunctional Congress and Senate because of the ideological conflict within the Republican Party. Possibly a smaller C17 could be the most economical option. If that is a viable option then do you stay with a pure jet engines or can you go with turboprops? Maybe an either or option.

Interesting point you make about the sequestration issues and impact on R&D funding.

Putting that aside for one minute, I'd say that the potential bidders would be Boeing with a concept, possibly based on YC-14/15 or a scaled down C-17, LM with a 'super super' Herc concept and thirdly maybe Airbus Military partnering up with Northrop Grumman with the A400M, sort of along the lines of EADS/Airbus and N-G for the KC-X competition.

So taking into account what you said about R&D funding issues, how about this for an 'out of left field' solution, maybe either LM or more probably Boeing partner up with Airbus directly and offer a version of the already in service A400M.

Sort of kills two birds with one stone, better chance in the competition for the A400M (compared to the KC-X competition) and you would have to say that the winner would be LM or Boeing anyway.

From a political, and spread the industrial love around point of view, the US Government selects Boeing to build a version of the A400M (by this time the C-17, Super Hornet and Eagle lines are closed) it needs the work! LM has it's hands full with F-35 production and of course Northrop Grumman is a major subcontractor to the winning design (and the F-35 too).

Everybody wins, the three major US aerospace companies have plenty of work to keep them and their employees going, might get the politicians re-elected too!!

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting point you make about the sequestration issues and impact on R&D funding.

Putting that aside for one minute, I'd say that the potential bidders would be Boeing with a concept, possibly based on YC-14/15 or a scaled down C-17, LM with a 'super super' Herc concept and thirdly maybe Airbus Military partnering up with Northrop Grumman with the A400M, sort of along the lines of EADS/Airbus and N-G for the KC-X competition.

So taking into account what you said about R&D funding issues, how about this for an 'out of left field' solution, maybe either LM or more probably Boeing partner up with Airbus directly and offer a version of the already in service A400M.

Sort of kills two birds with one stone, better chance in the competition for the A400M (compared to the KC-X competition) and you would have to say that the winner would be LM or Boeing anyway.

From a political, and spread the industrial love around point of view, the US Government selects Boeing to build a version of the A400M (by this time the C-17, Super Hornet and Eagle lines are closed) it needs the work! LM has it's hands full with F-35 production and of course Northrop Grumman is a major subcontractor to the winning design (and the F-35 too).

Everybody wins, the three major US aerospace companies have plenty of work to keep them and their employees going, might get the politicians re-elected too!!

I don't know if EADS would be keen on another USAF competition. They got very badly burned in the KC-X competition and that was when they were teamed up with Northrop Grumman. If the decison hadn't been overturned in the courts the USAF would've had new tankers rolling off the production line by now cheaper than than Boeing KC46. Pork barrel politics.

In a way I think the US military aviation community has rested on their laurels overly long. They don't have a helicopter around the size of the NH90 - something around the Seaking size. There's nothing between the Blackhawks and the Chooks. Ok they have the Ospreys and they are impressive aircraft but very expensive. With the C130s - nothing concrete to replace them and what 10 years if they seriously start work on it now? Then you have the C27J saga where there is a clearly defined requirement for the aircraft but interservice politics & ego kills the program. Mind you having said that, senior officers from the NZ Army were vigorously stirring the pot during our ACF debacle in 2000 & 2001, which certainly encouraged the govt of the day to make that decision. Point is I think they've taken their eye off the ball.

 

[t68]

If they want rough field capability, you're looking at turbo props to avoid FOD concerns I'd have thought. They can get the vertical element with palletised delivery of kit (providing it's not an M1A2!) I dunno, they'd save themselves a packet by not asking for crazy ass specs, and license build A400M.

I believe the spec were for Bradley sized vehicles, it purposely stated 190% larger payload over the existing Hercules which equates to roughly 38000kg.they would have a rough outline for the future ground combat vehicle which will replace Bradley's.

As ngatimozart stated I think this going to come down to funding of R&D A400M most probably ticks most of the boxes so I'd say Airbus is in the box seat at the moment.

 

[ngatimozart]

If they want rough field capability, you're looking at turbo props to avoid FOD concerns I'd have thought. They can get the vertical element with palletised delivery of kit (providing it's not an M1A2!) I dunno, they'd save themselves a packet by not asking for crazy ass specs, and license build A400M.

I think the engines are far enough of the ground not to suck in material off the ground - however I am not an engineer. Anyway if that was a problem & they wanted to go pure jet they could always mount the engines above the wings. Would require a major study but you don't know until you have a good look at it. I read somewhere that turboprops are cheaper to operate than pure jets anyway and the A400 has a pretty impressive performance so nothing stopping the yanks from building larger turboprop engines.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I thought this might be of help, as it eliminates some of the vagueness of the DEW Line article.
Also, let's remember the CRFI and article are three years old.

Worth mentioning is how this program shares capabilities with the US Army's Future Vertical Lift (FVL)/ Joint Multi-Role (JMR) - JMR-Ultra configuration "New ultra-sized version for vertical lift aircraft with performance similar to fixed-wing tactical transport aircraft, such as the C-130J Super Hercules and the Airbus A400M Atlas; introduction planned for 2025."
US Army reveals details of Joint Multi-Role fleet vision

From the CRFI
JFTL Capability Trade Space
Alternative Categories of Interest:
* Fixed & Tilting Wing Aircraft, Rotorcraft, Airship Vehicles
* New Developments or Modified Existing Systems

Airlift a variety of payloads to strategic, operationally and tactically significant depths:
* Medium Weight Vehicles (such as the Stryker Family of Vehicles), as well as palletized cargo, combat troops & aero-medical evacuation
* Payload: 20 - 36 tons internal (and/or external, if applicable)
* Internal cargo bay and ramp is desired (see Annex for description)
* Self deployable to theater from CONUS (2,400 nm)
* Mission radius with payload: 250 nm - 1,000 nm
Seems that the goal is not to move anything like a Bradley

Achieve runway independence for precision delivery & distributed sustainment:
* Routine operations on complex, austere, unimproved/unprepared landing areas with payload retained & mission radius of military utility
* Ambient Environment Conditions: Sea Level Standard Day up to 6,000 ft pressure altitude/95°F
* Desired Mid Mission Takeoff & Landing Area Operations (over 50 ft obstacle): 0 ft Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) - 1,500 ft Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) (concepts with 1,500 ft - 3,000 ft capability are also of interest)
This would appear to rule the A400M out

Provide battle space access and responsiveness of action:
* Operate in adverse weather, civil and military airspace, in times of day and night
* Cruise speed/altitude expectations: C-130J Stretch performance or better
* Fuel efficiency comparable to C-130J Stretch
* Implement survivability techniques for operations in low to medium threat environments (2024+)

 

[t68]

I think the engines are far enough of the ground not to suck in material off the ground - however I am not an engineer. Anyway if that was a problem & they wanted to go pure jet they could always mount the engines above the wings. Would require a major study but you don't know until you have a good look at it. I read somewhere that turboprops are cheaper to operate than pure jets anyway and the A400 has a pretty impressive performance so nothing stopping the yanks from building larger turboprop engines.

Well according to this article about the Embraer's KC-390 which use the same engines as the Airbus A320 and they are stating or spinning whichever way you want to look at it and I quote,

“The evolution of high bypass turbofans means the turbines at their core are better protected from flying debris”, said Gastão, a former test flight engineer with Brazil's Air Force.

Like you ngatimozart I am not an engineer, but there would have to be a reason why the Airbus went to great expense to use the latest turboprop technologies.

Insight - Embraer's Herculean task: Brazilian jet takes on Lockheed | Reuters

But the C-17 has a rough field capability which is used from time to time, but I remember reading somewhere that they prefer not to do it because of the level of damage done to the aircraft from debris hitting the engines.

 

[Shanesworld]

Well according to this article about the Embraer's KC-390 which use the same engines as the Airbus A320 and they are stating or spinning whichever way you want to look at it and I quote,

“The evolution of high bypass turbofans means the turbines at their core are better protected from flying debris”, said Gastão, a former test flight engineer with Brazil's Air Force.

Like you ngatimozart I am not an engineer, but there would have to be a reason why the Airbus went to great expense to use the latest turboprop technologies.

Insight - Embraer's Herculean task: Brazilian jet takes on Lockheed | Reuters

But the C-17 has a rough field capability which is used from time to time, but I remember reading somewhere that they prefer not to do it because of the level of damage done to the aircraft from debris hitting the engines.

IL-76 has been used in rough field applications if I remember correctly but to be honest turbo props are more resilient in that environment and would be what I would lean to. Some turbines are remarkably tough but they are still complicated to tear down to service and more so to balance and put back together.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't know if EADS would be keen on another USAF competition. They got very badly burned in the KC-X competition and that was when they were teamed up with Northrop Grumman. If the decison hadn't been overturned in the courts the USAF would've had new tankers rolling off the production line by now cheaper than than Boeing KC46. Pork barrel politics.

In a way I think the US military aviation community has rested on their laurels overly long. They don't have a helicopter around the size of the NH90 - something around the Seaking size. There's nothing between the Blackhawks and the Chooks. Ok they have the Ospreys and they are impressive aircraft but very expensive. With the C130s - nothing concrete to replace them and what 10 years if they seriously start work on it now? Then you have the C27J saga where there is a clearly defined requirement for the aircraft but interservice politics & ego kills the program. Mind you having said that, senior officers from the NZ Army were vigorously stirring the pot during our ACF debacle in 2000 & 2001, which certainly encouraged the govt of the day to make that decision. Point is I think they've taken their eye off the ball.

Going a bit off topic but what happened to the RNZAF ACF is the reason why most air forces ensure that they excel in staff work and PR. They are, even after around a hundred years, two world wars and numerous other conflicts still seen as the new kids and in need of being put in their place. Unfortunately very few seem to get the concept of jointness, i.e. you need elements of all services, especially an ACF.

 

[ngatimozart]

Going a bit off topic but what happened to the RNZAF ACF is the reason why most air forces ensure that they excel in staff work and PR. They are, even after around a hundred years, two world wars and numerous other conflicts still seen as the new kids and in need of being put in their place. Unfortunately very few seem to get the concept of jointness, i.e. you need elements of all services, especially an ACF.

Yes, very true. However a confluence of negative influences and political philosophies created a situation that the RNZAF couldn't weather and the NZ Army, Helen Clark and the Labour Party came out on top. To this day there are those in NZDF and the NZG who do not understand Air Power Doctrine and what damage the lack of an ACF has done to NZs perception overseas, its restriction on its diplomatic options and its ability to project force.

 

[KiwiRob]

To this day there are those in NZDF and the NZG who do not understand Air Power Doctrine and what damage the lack of an ACF has done to NZs perception overseas, its restriction on its diplomatic options and its ability to project force.

Playing devils advocate here, name me one operation where NZ would have been in a position to offer it's ACF which would have made one jot of a difference to the outcome. When it was canned I was shocked and dismayed like many others, yet now I really don't see it as a significant issue at all.

 

[ngatimozart]

Playing devils advocate here, name me one operation where NZ would have been in a position to offer it's ACF which would have made one jot of a difference to the outcome. When it was canned I was shocked and dismayed like many others, yet now I really don't see it as a significant issue at all.

Desert Storm 1 1991. All the A4s at that stage had the Kahu upgrade and they would've played havoc against Husseins tank and armies in general. Instead the NZG decided to send some medics who upon return learned a hard lesson about keeping their mouths shut around a lot of service personnel who were highly pi**ed off at not going.

East Timor 1999. 2 Sqn could've positioned for maritime strike against Indonesia Naval Units that tried to interfere and 75 Sqn could've down CAS for ground troops and backed up 2 Sqn. Both were opportunities lost.

In both counts it would've cost money. You also have to plan for the days when you may / will need to have the ACF capability.

 

[t68]

Playing devils advocate here, name me one operation where NZ would have been in a position to offer it's ACF which would have made one jot of a difference to the outcome. When it was canned I was shocked and dismayed like many others, yet now I really don't see it as a significant issue at all.

Whilst to the best of my knowledge the Kiwi A-4 were given notice for a possible deployment to Darwin for Interfet in 1999, if on the other hand NZ went ahead with the F16 lease deal have to wonder how different the force planning would have been between RAAF/RNZAF I think you would have had a lot more say on fast jet force planning.

The Death of New Zealand’s ‘Flying Falcon’—The Final F-16 Decision


Since the end of the vietnam war the RAAF besides the standing up of forces to Interfet have only been used once in combat in 2003 when 14 Hornets deployed to Iraq, does that mean because the RAAF have only used them once for their intended purpose that fast jet fixed wing should be axed from the RAAF orbat?

 

[ngatimozart]

The Death of New Zealand’s ‘Flying Falcon’—The Final F-16 Decision

Timing is Everything - By Peter Greener. A very interesting read that. He has a wonderful quote in there where he says senior army officers acted like traitors in their lobbying of the NZG to axe the ACF. This book is an excellent read and a must have when dealing with NZ acquisition policies during the 1990's and early 2000's It can be downloaded from the Australian National University for free: http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/strategic-and-defence-studies-centre-sdsc-2/timing_citation in pdf or epub format. If you want a hard copy then it costs AU$19.95.