Military Aviation News and Discussion

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
At this point, would the GCAP partners want Germany in their program?
Politically it would be hard for Germany to leave FCAS. This is one of those grand projects supposed to cement Franco-German relations. Bailing on the French would cause significant political repercussions, as Spain wouldn't be able to make up even half the financial difference. Without German resources or France putting in an exceptionally large amount of funding, FCAS would have to be scaled back in terms of technological sophistication or numbers, if not both.

More importantly, given GCAP is more advanced organisationally and Japan has that tight delivery schedule, realistically if Germany did want to join it would have to accept a smaller role on the scale of local assembly for its own orders. There simply isn't the time for another country to come in and start negotiating for large manufacturing contracts for its domestic companies, let alone reopening the already agreed management programme.

Germany might have got away with jumping ship at the end of last year or at least reaching out to the UK, Japan and Italy to find out if it could be a sort of second-tier partner without veto rights but some sort of involvement in supply contracts and manufacturing. However, I haven't read any reports that they've tried to do this. I think the door has now closed on Germany becoming a proper GCAP partner.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
At this point, would the GCAP partners want Germany in their program? France’s carrier requirement and Germany’s uncertain export restrictions are a problem for FCAS and of course workshare adds another layer of difficulty.
There are already rumours about this possibility last year, but it is maybe unlikely that Germany would be able to join GCAP at the same level of membership they had within SCAF. Like Musashi already said here above, the GCAP-cake is in fact already devided in three.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #903
C-2 is in the same class as the A400M in terms of weights & cargo box.
It's cargo box is taller than the A400M. The height of the C-2 cargo box is the same as the C-17A. IIRC the A400M cargo box is 3.95m. You can squeeze a NH90 into the A4ooM by removing the rotor shaft and even the there is very little room left. You don't have to do the same with the C-17A; just remove the blades because apparently they don't travel well when folded inside an aircraft. Something to do with vibration and resonance.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The USAF says the C-17 cargo box is 3.76m high, 5.48m wide & 26.8m long. But the centre of the cargo box is reported elsewhere as 3.96m high, & behind the wing as 4.11m. It's almost twice the max T/O weight of an A400M or C-2. Different category.
C-17 Globemaster III

A400M is reported as 3.85 (4.0 behind the wing, & with curved corners at the top) x 4.0 x 17.7, & the C-2 is 4.0 x 4.0 x 15.7m according to the Japanese MoD - Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency : C-2 Cargo Aircraft They all bulge beyond that at the sides, of course but width appears to be consistently floor width.

C-130's in a different class: a metre lower & narrower than any of them. C-390's bigger, but still below 3 metres & 3.5 metres wide. Il-76 is long but relatively slim, same width as & slightly higher than C-390.

The Y-20's said to have at least 4m height the length of the hold, because of the high wing.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Low rate initial production will be started for the B-21. Great news as this is a critical new asset needed asap due to worrisome geopolitical situation.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #906
NHK look at the Italy, Japan, UK Tempest fighter project.


EDIT: Looks like NHK have stopped video being played on 3rd party websites. Just click where it says "Watch on YouTube".
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Few days old, but Thai AF seems want to procure either F-16V or Gripen E. Either way aiming either both means Thai want to upgrade on their existing models. Half Billion dollars more likely they can get batch of 6-8 fighter.

Personally better they go with Grippen E, as complement their existing Gripen and also FA-50. Also keeping Gripen fleet is going to be more updated on tech wise, as most of Thai's F-16 coming from A/B OCU from 90's, including some ex RSAF. Yes some of those A/B already has MLU, but still converging their Fleet with Gripen and FA-50 I believe more preferable for Thai conditions.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
China is showcasing the Z-10ME for the first time abroad, at the Singapore Airshow 2024.

Compared to the original/standard Z-10, there are several modifications. One of these major modifications is the helicopter's engine air intakes, which have been modified to better suit sandy and dusty operating conditions typically found in hot climates. This is achieved with air intake filters designed specifically for the Z-10ME.

In addition to this, the Z-10ME has been modified to reduce its vulnerability to manportable surface-to-air missiles. This is primarily achieved by redirecting exhaust gases from its engines upwards, instead of sideways, and the incorporation of missile warning sensors and countermeasure systems.

From which i understand Pakistan had three Z-10 under evaluation, but besides this there are no export orders yet.
The Z-10ME was earlier already present at the 2018 and 2021 China Airshow.

 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

This is already about week old article, talk on Euro Defence Fund provide funding for FMTC (Future Mid-size Tactical Cargo), which seems basically aim to fill the position above C-295 to C-130.

This raise some speculation on Airbus using existing tech and capacity to build smaller A400M with basically similar configuration, using same propulsion, but only two instead four TP400. Personally twin engine TP400 should be what Airbus propose to fill the position of 16-20ton tactical Cargo market, and also increase population of TP400 user.

Some rendering online on this potential cargo lifter dubbed A200M.
A200M-1.jpg
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

This is already about week old article, talk on Euro Defence Fund provide funding for FMTC (Future Mid-size Tactical Cargo), which seems basically aim to fill the position above C-295 to C-130.

This raise some speculation on Airbus using existing tech and capacity to build smaller A400M with basically similar configuration, using same propulsion, but only two instead four TP400. Personally twin engine TP400 should be what Airbus propose to fill the position of 16-20ton tactical Cargo market, and also increase population of TP400 user.

Some rendering online on this potential cargo lifter dubbed A200M.
View attachment 51241
Given the TP400 history and 16-20 ton load I think the C-390 is a better option and a A200M price is unlikely to have a significant price advantage.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
the TP400 history and 16-20 ton load I think the C-390 is a better option and a A200M price is unlikely to have a significant price advantage.
Embrear actually have good package with C390, with civilian base engine. Make they can piggy back on civilian part and services chain to support C390.

Still Airbus also using some of its civilian airliner support chain for A400M, and can continue doing so to this FMTC. TP400 reliability according some report already improving. Question seems will be if the market going to see this FMTC/A200M can be good alternative to replace legacies C130. The market for replacing legacies C130 is huge, and with C390, they begin to see alternative on replacing it asside C130J.

Perhaps Airbus and EDF thinking they can slice the market with this FMTC. There's always those who prefer Turboprop then Turbofan for Tactical Lifter.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Some users will favour turboprop over turbo fan. IMHO a proposed A200M just doesn’t seem to be a significant advantage for the latest C-130J unless its kinematic performance is much better. Even then, what is the cost of supporting two TP400s versus four RR turboprops? The huge well established supply chain for Hercules and its RR engines is hard to beat. Basically Airbus is proposing a tactical lifter that has to compete with two excellent albeit somewhat different tactical cargo planes. Worse still, potential customers are just as likely to opt for Russian or Chinese alternatives that will certainly be less expensive. In summary this A200 seems like high risk and R&D money should be directed at the commercial market to take advantage of Boeing’s current vulnerabilities.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Given the TP400 history and 16-20 ton load I think the C-390 is a better option and a A200M price is unlikely to have a significant price advantage.
Sometimes it’s not about being efficient. If that was the case they would be Shopping one of the existing platforms. Sometimes it’s about the program.

Some users will favour turboprop over turbo fan. IMHO a proposed A200M just doesn’t seem to be a significant advantage for the latest C-130J unless its kinematic performance is much better. Even then, what is the cost of supporting two TP400s versus four RR turboprops? The huge well established supply chain for Hercules and its RR engines is hard to beat. Basically Airbus is proposing a tactical lifter that has to compete with two excellent albeit somewhat different tactical cargo planes. Worse still, potential customers are just as likely to opt for Russian or Chinese alternatives that will certainly be less expensive. In summary this A200 seems like high risk and R&D money should be directed at the commercial market to take advantage of Boeing’s current vulnerabilities.
At this point I am not sure the Prop vs fan should even be an issue.
2 engines does tend to simplify maintenance and repair it’s also more fuel efficient in general. but really this is I suspect more about European military industrial independence and age.
Well the C130J has the established supply chain it’s not European. The engines may be RR and that maybe “European” but not EU or rather as EU as Euroturboprop and The airframe is American.
That’s likely to rub some the wrong way. Farther at this point C130J is going on 30 years old. Its development program started in 94 based on an already at that point 40 year old product C130 dating to 1954. I mean we pick on the 737MAX for its age for but the first 737 dates from 67.
so we are talking about an 70 year old base design.The USAF has been shopping a future C130 replacement off and on for the last 20 years at this point. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that Europe wants one.
Particularly France whom has a habit of wanting to Euro centralize defense programs & Airbus whom is the primary potential beneficiary here. As they can use the A400M as the stepping stone to its little sister.

But let’s for a moment consider the alternatives. Or rather Alternative. C390 is a great choice I feel that if anyone in the free world including the United States was to look at buying a C130 replacement C390 should be top of the list. yet it’s very much a new world product.
The Engines are American. Well half American a quarter Japanese and a quarter German also they are old engines. The family dates to the 1980s.
The Airframe is a consortium of Latin American companies and Boeing. Now Embraer has shown a happiness in joint venture and licensing so maybe that could be done but that doesn’t exactly mean that it’s a European product anymore.
The only other existing in about the right size class would have been the AN178 but Ukraine… Perhap post war Antonov might be able to bounce back but that’s a huge If. Even the engines are in question now as they were Ukrainian too.
Every other plane in the class is either Russian, Chinese or the wrong size. The A400M and the Kawasaki C2 are the same size in the 30+ ton payload and this is supposed to sit under them.
The C27J/G222, C295, Cn235 too small.

Of course this program isn’t aimed to crank something out today but in the mid term future of the next decade. That’s plenty of time for new ideas.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Sometimes it’s not about being efficient. If that was the case they would be Shopping one of the existing platforms. Sometimes it’s about the program.


At this point I am not sure the Prop vs fan should even be an issue.
2 engines does tend to simplify maintenance and repair it’s also more fuel efficient in general. but really this is I suspect more about European military industrial independence and age.
Well the C130J has the established supply chain it’s not European. The engines may be RR and that maybe “European” but not EU or rather as EU as Euroturboprop and The airframe is American.
That’s likely to rub some the wrong way. Farther at this point C130J is going on 30 years old. Its development program started in 94 based on an already at that point 40 year old product C130 dating to 1954. I mean we pick on the 737MAX for its age for but the first 737 dates from 67.
so we are talking about an 70 year old base design.The USAF has been shopping a future C130 replacement off and on for the last 20 years at this point. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that Europe wants one.
Particularly France whom has a habit of wanting to Euro centralize defense programs & Airbus whom is the primary potential beneficiary here. As they can use the A400M as the stepping stone to its little sister.

But let’s for a moment consider the alternatives. Or rather Alternative. C390 is a great choice I feel that if anyone in the free world including the United States was to look at buying a C130 replacement C390 should be top of the list. yet it’s very much a new world product.
The Engines are American. Well half American a quarter Japanese and a quarter German also they are old engines. The family dates to the 1980s.
The Airframe is a consortium of Latin American companies and Boeing. Now Embraer has shown a happiness in joint venture and licensing so maybe that could be done but that doesn’t exactly mean that it’s a European product anymore.
The only other existing in about the right size class would have been the AN178 but Ukraine… Perhap post war Antonov might be able to bounce back but that’s a huge If. Even the engines are in question now as they were Ukrainian too.
Every other plane in the class is either Russian, Chinese or the wrong size. The A400M and the Kawasaki C2 are the same size in the 30+ ton payload and this is supposed to sit under them.
The C27J/G222, C295, Cn235 too small.

Of course this program isn’t aimed to crank something out today but in the mid term future of the next decade. That’s plenty of time for new ideas.
The first attempt at replacing the Herc, come in 1970 with the Advanced Medium STOL Transport(AMST), between Boeing with the YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15. The program was cancelled in 1979 after both companies had built 2 prototypes. The YC-15 formed the basis of what became the C-17, so in a different timeline we may have ended up with McDonnell Douglas/Boeing end up building both the Herc replacement and the C-17.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article discusses the NGAP which will provide engines for the NGAD fighter. The new engine prototypes, XA102 (GE) and XA103 (P&W) utilize technology derived from the AETP program. These new prototype engines will be smaller than the AETP XA100 and XA101 which were intended for the F-35A.

 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
For me this is quite a surprising news, but Serbia plans to procure the Rafale. The potential sale of Rafale fighters is estimated to cost around 3 billion euros (USD 3,3 billion).
 
Top