Canada's strategic airlift capability megathread (CC177, CC130J, A400M?)

[daftandbarmy]

Here are a few of the most significant ones:

A400M max payload in 37 tonnes, vs 20 for the C130J.
A400M cruise speed is 780 km/h, vs 643 km/h for the C130J.
A400M Service Ceiling is 40,000 ft (12,200 m), vs 28,000 ft for the C130J
A400M Cargo Box Width is 4.0 meters (13.1 ft), vs 3.12 meters (10.2 ft) for the C130J
Range with max payloads is about the smae, at ~3300 kms

Um… that sounds a lot better

 

[dapaterson]

Um… that sounds a lot better

Is there a source for real world (not manufacturer pamphlet) takeoff / landing distances? That may be another consideration.

 

[ytz]

If C-130 sized aircraft are still relevant, but we want more speed, does the C-390 make sense, particularly alongside the C-17?

It's not just speed. The C130 is increasingly constrained on dimensions and payload weight. Given that reality, if the C130 fleet isn't replaced, there's a bunch of short haul and intra theater lift where you might just have to use C-17s. So maybe just increase the C-17 fleet to 20 frames if we don't want to swap the Herc for the bigger Atlas?

 

[Kirkhill]

It's not just speed. The C130 is increasingly constrained on dimensions and payload weight. Given that reality, if the C130 fleet isn't replaced, there's a bunch of short haul and intra theater lift where you might just have to use C-17s. So maybe just increase the C-17 fleet to 20 frames if we don't want to swap the Herc for the bigger Atlas?

I am not a fan of continually making things bigger and heavier.

I like the idea of constraining designs to the CH-47 / CC-130 standards. In Iraq the US Army wanted the smaller C27 because the needed to move small packages over short distances frequently and the USAF wouldn't commit even C130s to on-demand flights. They wanted to consolidate loads and fly their aircraft economically.

Keeping the smaller aircraft makes sense. Especially when we are talking about shunting missiles, munitions and UxVs around dispersed locations.

By keeping vehicles and loads constrained by the smaller aircraft then the bigger aircraft can carry more loads between hubs but the loads can be distributed rapidly down the spokes in the smaller aircraft.

The C130 is perfectly fine for moving ISVs, Bv206s, Ukrainian SKIFs (M113 rebuilds), CAVS, HIMARS, UGVs and pallets of whatever you like. Not to mention troops hanging from chutes.

The C130J30 can drop 92 troopers
The A400M drops 116
The C17 drops 102.

Bigger doesn't necessarily translate into more efficient.

 

[FJAG]

Any advantages to the A400M over the Herc?

Here are the basic specs - in addition to what's listed by the replies above is the range.

Airbus A400M Atlas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lockheed C-130 Hercules - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I favour the A400 over the C130 for strategic lift (mostly because we can't get more C-17s). I think we have, and should keep, enough C-130s for tactical lift.

 

[Nvlgzr]

I’m not sure the C-390 can fill a lot of roles the C-130 excels at.
Rough field capability and STOL.

Do we ever make use of the c130 rough field capability? On the KC390 side; is its longer field length requirement limiting possible airports?