Military Aviation News and Discussion

SolarisKenzo

Active Member

EU Defence Agency ( EDA ) officially announced its involvement in 2 new EU PESCO programs:
- FMTC ( Future Medium-size Tactical Cargo )
- SATOC ( Strategic Air Transport for Outsized Cargo )

FMTC is aimed to replace small/medium tactical airlifters, such as early C130s versions, C295,C27Js,...
SATOC, as reported by EDA, "SATOC aims to fill the critical shortfall for strategic transport for outsized and heavy cargo, a crucial enabler for military missions and operations. SATOC involves a 3-step approach, firstly by identifying a sufficient number of project members, harmonising requirements and finally identifying and agreeing on a common European solution for the transport of outsized cargo. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has also underscored the importance of outsized and heavy cargo transport. The destruction of several Antonov aircrafts, including AN-225 Mriya (the world’s largest cargo aircraft) has further reduced European Armed Forces access to strategic airlift."

Currently France, Germany and Spain, together with other smaller EU member states, are working on the projects.
EDA says that " we are working to define common requirements to have more EU countries involved in the project".
Probably the cargos will be under the control of EATC in a common fleet, just like the A330MRTT

Italy, as reported by Air Force chief of staff, is looking to replace in the future its fleet of c27js and c130js
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group

EU Defence Agency ( EDA ) officially announced its involvement in 2 new EU PESCO programs:
- FMTC ( Future Medium-size Tactical Cargo )
- SATOC ( Strategic Air Transport for Outsized Cargo )

FMTC is aimed to replace small/medium tactical airlifters, such as early C130s versions, C295,C27Js,...
SATOC, as reported by EDA, "SATOC aims to fill the critical shortfall for strategic transport for outsized and heavy cargo, a crucial enabler for military missions and operations. SATOC involves a 3-step approach, firstly by identifying a sufficient number of project members, harmonising requirements and finally identifying and agreeing on a common European solution for the transport of outsized cargo. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has also underscored the importance of outsized and heavy cargo transport. The destruction of several Antonov aircrafts, including AN-225 Mriya (the world’s largest cargo aircraft) has further reduced European Armed Forces access to strategic airlift."

Currently France, Germany and Spain, together with other smaller EU member states, are working on the projects.
EDA says that " we are working to define common requirements to have more EU countries involved in the project".
Probably the cargos will be under the control of EATC in a common fleet, just like the A330MRTT

Italy, as reported by Air Force chief of staff, is looking to replace in the future its fleet of c27js and c130js
Just build some K-390 under license, faster and cheaper than a new design if the goal is a Herc replacement. If stealth is needed, a clean sheet design is the way forward. As for EU heavy lift, good luck considering the A400M saga. An An-124/C-5 replacement would be harder especially as it should employ some stealth capability.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
Just build some K-390 under license, faster and cheaper than a new design if the goal is a Herc replacement. If stealth is needed, a clean sheet design is the way forward. As for EU heavy lift, good luck considering the A400M saga. An An-124/C-5 replacement would be harder especially as it should employ some stealth capability.
I agree, however the entire point of EDA, EDF, PESCO and OCCAR Is stop buying non-european projects.
Actually, after the EU Commission launched the " foreign subsidies regulation" and other measures, any EU country that Is not buying european common projects Is undergoing heavy taxation if not sanctions...
The Commission was really unhappy of US Inflation Reduction Act and in the last defense council ( but also in the previous strategic compass and EDIRPA) the goal Is to become fully Independent from outside the EU.
Of course they're not stupid and they perfectly know that this decade Its impossible to achieve indipendence of any kind.
Look at the F35 program for example, huge success.

Thats why they're basically launching EU programs in every military field.
Hope I explained myself in an understandable way...Its not easy when english not even your second language...
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I agree, however the entire point of EDA, EDF, PESCO and OCCAR Is stop buying non-european projects.
Actually, after the EU Commission launched the " foreign subsidies regulation" and other measures, any EU country that Is not buying european common projects Is undergoing heavy taxation if not sanctions...
The Commission was really unhappy of US Inflation Reduction Act and in the last defense council ( but also in the previous strategic compass and EDIRPA) the goal Is to become fully Independent from outside the EU.
Of course they're not stupid and they perfectly know that this decade Its impossible to achieve indipendence of any kind.
Look at the F35 program for example, huge success.

Thats why they're basically launching EU programs in every military field.
Hope I explained myself in an understandable way...Its not easy when english not even your second language...
Understood. From my vantage point the biggest obstacle is likely workshare. The other issue quantity. Depends on the type and complexity of the kit. The EU’s next gen fighter project is an example. On the positive side, naval projects by France and Italy seem to be ok. Haven’t heard much lately about the Gen Three tank project by Germany and France. Given the Ukraine situation I would have thought it might have been accelerated.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
Understood. From my vantage point the biggest obstacle is likely workshare. The other issue quantity. Depends on the type and complexity of the kit. The EU’s next gen fighter project is an example. On the positive side, naval projects by France and Italy seem to be ok. Haven’t heard much lately about the Gen Three tank project by Germany and France. Given the Ukraine situation I would have thought it might have been accelerated.
Actually havent heard any news about the MGCS ( Eurotank ) lately.
I'll try to see if theres any news, but I suppose the program Is in some sort of limbo...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Understood. From my vantage point the biggest obstacle is likely workshare. The other issue quantity. Depends on the type and complexity of the kit. The EU’s next gen fighter project is an example. On the positive side, naval projects by France and Italy seem to be ok. Haven’t heard much lately about the Gen Three tank project by Germany and France. Given the Ukraine situation I would have thought it might have been accelerated.
"The EU's next gen fighter project" doesn't really exist. There's a Franco-German-Spanish project, but it's not "the EU project". Most EU members aren't taking part, e.g. Italy's in another project, which Sweden is interested in, & I think six countries have nailed their flags to the F-35 mast with no interest in any other project for now.

Re the tank, Rheinmetall is pushing the KF51, of course, with its new 130mm gun.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Just build some K-390 under license, faster and cheaper than a new design if the goal is a Herc replacement. If stealth is needed, a clean sheet design is the way forward. As for EU heavy lift, good luck considering the A400M saga. An An-124/C-5 replacement would be harder especially as it should employ some stealth capability.
The manufacturer calls it C-390 - Portal Embraer
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
"The EU's next gen fighter project" doesn't really exist. There's a Franco-German-Spanish project, but it's not "the EU project". Most EU members aren't taking part, e.g. Italy's in another project, which Sweden is interested in, & I think six countries have nailed their flags to the F-35 mast with no interest in any other project for now.

Re the tank, Rheinmetall is pushing the KF51, of course, with its new 130mm gun.
Yeah, fragmentation Is a real weakness.
The two different fighter programs are in my opinion impossible to understand, but the latest words from OCCAR president, Italian defense Chief of Staff, Airbus Defense, and many others regarding the " not only possibility, but necessity to merge the programs " make me Hope for the best.
But I'm still quite pessimist, tbh.
 

SolarisKenzo

Active Member
Airbus launched the ENGRT program, funded by the EU under the EDF.
The program sees Airbus as the coordinator Company, working together with Leonardo, Hensoldt, Saab, Avio, Elettronica, Indra, Fokker and Thales to develop, build and deliver a Next-Gen Rotorcraft that aims to replace European countries helicopter fleet with a common platform, that must be ITAR-free and developed at EU level.
Horizon Is 2030.

 

Attachments

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
DARPA will be working with two companies to develop fullscale demonstrators for the Liberty lifter program. Hopefully something actually goes into production. A ground effect aircraft that can land in sea state 4 or 5 conditions with the capacity of a C-17, very useful for the vast Pacific region.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #754
DARPA will be working with two companies to develop fullscale demonstrators for the Liberty lifter program. Hopefully something actually goes into production. A ground effect aircraft that can land in sea state 4 or 5 conditions with the capacity of a C-17, very useful for the vast Pacific region.

That's quite interesting. Shades of the Caspian sea monster / Ekranoplan.

1675418945209.png
Figure 1. General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Selects Two Teams for Liberty Lifter X-Plane Program - Naval News

1675419577932.png
Figure 2. General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Responds on “Liberty Lifter” Seaplane - Naval News

The General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc., concept design in Figure 1 appears to present some size limitations for bulky cargo. My next point is the ten engines in a pusher configuration, which Fig 2 amply illustrates. That's a lot of complexity that can go wrong and what happens when enemy fire knocks out one or more of those props. Definitely would make the crews life interesting.

1675418995591.png
Figure 3. Aurora Flight Sciences Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Selects Two Teams for Liberty Lifter X-Plane Program - Naval News

The Aurora Flight Sciences concept in Fig 3., is more conventional, but I would thing that placing the engines above the wing rather than hung underneath, would be more practical. Turbofans aren't terribly keen on ingested seawater; tends to be deleterious to their health. Eight engines is still a considerable number and I think a maximum of four in an overwing configuration would be better.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
That's quite interesting. Shades of the Caspian sea monster / Ekranoplan.

View attachment 50046
Figure 1. General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Selects Two Teams for Liberty Lifter X-Plane Program - Naval News

View attachment 50048
Figure 2. General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Responds on “Liberty Lifter” Seaplane - Naval News

The General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc., concept design in Figure 1 appears to present some size limitations for bulky cargo. My next point is the ten engines in a pusher configuration, which Fig 2 amply illustrates. That's a lot of complexity that can go wrong and what happens when enemy fire knocks out one or more of those props. Definitely would make the crews life interesting.

View attachment 50047
Figure 3. Aurora Flight Sciences Liberty Lifter concept. Source: DARPA Selects Two Teams for Liberty Lifter X-Plane Program - Naval News

The Aurora Flight Sciences concept in Fig 3., is more conventional, but I would thing that placing the engines above the wing rather than hung underneath, would be more practical. Turbofans aren't terribly keen on ingested seawater; tends to be deleterious to their health. Eight engines is still a considerable number and I think a maximum of four in an overwing configuration would be better.
The Aurora concept is similar to Boeing’s Pelican concept which had four turbofans sort of blended into the wing instead of below. Truly a concept as there are no four turbofans that could lift a plane with a planned cargo capacity of 1,700 tons! Probably envisaged by the KC-46 design team.;)
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems concept makes me think of two Convair Tradewinds akin to a Twin Mustang.
Tough it's rather low wings seem like they would be a concern. If they're operating at sea state 4 they fuselages crashing through the waves are likely to add to the amount of water being thrown into the air and impacting the wings, especially the center span.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #757
The General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems concept makes me think of two Convair Tradewinds akin to a Twin Mustang.
Tough it's rather low wings seem like they would be a concern. If they're operating at sea state 4 they fuselages crashing through the waves are likely to add to the amount of water being thrown into the air and impacting the wings, especially the center span.
The ShinMaywa U2 is capable of operating in Sea State 4 and the lower end of Sea State 5. By Land, Sea, or Air US-2 If engineered properly the vehicle should be able to handle it.
 

the concerned

Active Member
Hope you don't mind me asking this question on here but if a aircraft travelling at supersonic speed lobbed a bomb how far could it travel.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hope you don't mind me asking this question on here but if a aircraft travelling at supersonic speed lobbed a bomb how far could it travel.
I am not sure that it would be even possible as to get the maximum range you would have to be climbing at quite an angle, around 45 degrees would be optimal. I would think that at least 20 to 30 degrees would be needed to achieve a worthwhile result. the question now would be are there any aircraft that can fly supersonic in that sort of climb with either an external load or an open bomb bay, both which would significantly increase drag. the other question would be the drag coefficient of the weapon being lobbed. I have not heard of any information in regard to either of these questions. Non supersonic lob bombing was practiced in the past, but mainly with the idea of using nuclear weapons to keep the aircraft out of the defence perimeter. There are many other factors to be calculated into the equation including altitude, atmospheric pressure and thigs that I don't know about. So I doubt that it is currently possible and if it is I think that the answer is very variable.
Sorry but not a clear answer.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As per above, lots of issues wrt lobbying a bomb at supersonic speeds. Missiles are an extremely attractive alternative.
 
Top