Future Medium-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC) (C-130 replacement) project launched by France, Germany & Sweden

C-130 is fine, it doesn't need a replacement. This on the other hand: "Strategic Air Transport for Outsized Cargo (SATOC) fills a critical shortfall by developing a European solution for the transport of outsized and heavy cargo using a gradual approach" sounds like it could be a C-17 replacement, which is a need since the C-17 line was allowed to go dark out of yet more short-sighted idiocy.

Though I don't know what "using a gradual appraoch" means. It certainly doesn't sound encouraging.
 

FUTURE MEDIUM-SIZE TACTICAL CARGO (FMTC)​

The objective of this project is to increase the air mobility capabilities of the armed forces of EU Member States with the new Future Mid-size Tactical Cargo (FMTC). It seeks to complement the missions of the A400M, including on narrow and short unprepared strips, to face collectively and efficiently the upcoming transport challenges in military operations or crisis response situations

 
Last edited:
There are likely to be a number of "new" requirements being posted around the world in the coming months. Now that the aerospace development communities are global (not just US/Russia/Europe), maintaining a level of national capability within the post WW2 world leading states is likely to be a security issue. Not only is there external competition now on the global market, there is huge internal competition for the scarce engineers with the explosion of the EVTOL and commercial space arenas. Also non-purposed engineers are not the types to sit around and wait, nor are the investors happy to continue to pay them.

Since there are more fighter programs out there than fingers and toes can count, I suspect they looked at a less saturated market.

My opinion only of course.
 
I do think there is room for exploration. I am firmly convinced that long straight airfields are the Maginot Line of the 21st Century. They don't move and are some of the best documented pieces of landscape on the planet. Given the ever increasing range of indirect fire systems these known pieces of concrete are exceedingly vulnerable. A vast majority of the worlds combat and logistics airplanes are reliant on them to operate. Looking for ways to put meaningful troops concentrations and supplies into operations regardless of the status of the known landing locations seems to me to be an imperative.
 
Yes, runways are vulnerable but they've been vulnerable for over a century now, it's not a new phenomena for the 21st century. Tactical transports are all well and good but I don't think the strategic airlifter has run out of history quite yet.
 
I think we should split this thread. One for the FMTC and one for the strategic transport.
 
To think the A400M was once to replace Transalls... so far we have (French Air force): old C-130s, new C-130s, CASAs, and now this new one.
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Yes, runways are vulnerable but they've been vulnerable for over a century now, it's not a new phenomena for the 21st century. Tactical transports are all well and good but I don't think the strategic airlifter has run out of history quite yet.
Click to expand...
So as not to hijack this thread; I agree that it is not a new phenomena. However tactical and operational fires (rockets and missiles) now have the range to attack very deep into the opponents territory with impressive accuracy, making the likelihood of airfield interdiction more probable. I agree that strat-lift remains a critical component of military operations that will not disappear any time soon. My point is that if someone is going to look at how to retain its viability in an increasingly hazardous operational environment it might be worth considering ways to allow them to operate away from massive airfields.

Alaskan bush plane tires and landing gear for a start? :cool:
 
yasotay said:
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Yes, runways are vulnerable but they've been vulnerable for over a century now, it's not a new phenomena for the 21st century. Tactical transports are all well and good but I don't think the strategic airlifter has run out of history quite yet.
Click to expand...
So as not to hijack this thread; I agree that it is not a new phenomena. However tactical and operational fires (rockets and missiles) now have the range to attack very deep into the opponents territory with impressive accuracy, making the likelihood of airfield interdiction more probable. I agree that strat-lift remains a critical component of military operations that will not disappear any time soon. My point is that if someone is going to look at how to retain its viability in an increasingly hazardous operational environment it might be worth considering ways to allow them to operate away from massive airfields.

Alaskan bush plane tires and landing gear for a start? :cool:
Click to expand...
Tundra tires are a comparatively easy retrofit to existing transports. They allow landing on any long farmer's field, even if it it si soggy (see recent flooding near Vancouver). The disadvantage is that tundra tires are too big to retract into existing wheel wells. Ergo, they stick out and create considerable air drag, reducing cruising speeds and range. Larger, better equipped air forces will split their loads by using conventional or commercial cargo planes to deliver cargo to a forward strategic logistics base - just beyond rocket range form bad guys - then break bulk to tundra-tired C-130s that will fly the last leg into the battle/flood zone.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom