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?

 

[ytz]

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.

The Atlas can do tactical lift though. And really so can a C-17. The advantage of a Herc is actually rather small.

And a big part of why the Atlas and even the C-390 are growing in popularity is the realization that we don't do as much hard tactical lift (to short unprepared airstrips) as we think. Even in Afghanistan many operators just ended up flying C-17s right to the country. Given that threats grow with near peer, nothing large will be flown this close again.

I think we're reaching the point that there's only 1-2 theaters (Pacific and Africa) where the edge of the C-130 over the A400 or C17 in rough field ops truly matters. In every other place? You're better off having the larger cargo box, speed and range of the Atlas or the full strat lift capability of the C-17. So it's a question of how much do we truly see ourselves doing rough field ops in those places. Keep in mind that you can always just drop without landing (LAPES drops). And the coming future vertical lift ideas will provide that long range personnel lift anyway.

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

Bigger doesn't necessarily translate into more efficient.

This would matter if paratroop drops was a major part of their employment. It's not. And we're not really reconstituting an airborne brigade anytime soon either. It's mostly SOF that does regular jumps these days. And they don't really care what the airplane is, nor do they need the numbers. They just need an airplane with a ramp and the reach.

 

[ytz]

Do we ever make use of the c130 rough field capability?

Not as much as people imagine. First because we aren't doing the island hopping thing the Americans are doing. And next, because it's going to be rare to get a commander who will risk a Herc the same way they'd risk a Chinook. Might as well recognize reality and go to a platform that gets more utility.

Now, if the American FVL Heavy comes closer to replacing a Herc than a Chinook (as some speculate), then maybe we'll have different arguments....

 

[daftandbarmy]

This would matter if paratroop drops was a major part of their employment. It's not. And we're not really reconstituting an airborne brigade anytime soon either. It's mostly SOF that does regular jumps these days. And they don't really care what the airplane is, nor do they need the numbers. They just need an airplane with a ramp and the reach.

And we don't 'do LAPES' anymore either, so we might as well just get a squadron of refurbished 737s with the gravel airfield kits added as required

Gravel Kits: How Boeing 737s Could Land On Dirt Runways

Gravel kits are required when traveling to isolated towns or villages in places like Alaska and Northern Canada.

simpleflying.com

 

[Good2Golf]

Atlas is a prudent move. Canada can only dream of new C5Ms, so more C-17s as ‘canstrat’ and A400M as new ‘cantacstrat’ and make the best use of the existing Jerks as possible in the tac-only role.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Atlas is a prudent move. Canada can only dream of new C5Ms, so more C-17s as ‘canstrat’ and A400M as new ‘cantacstrat’ and make the best use of the existing Jerks as possible in the tac-only role.

Hercs be like...