Future Mid-Size Tactical Cargo (FMTC)

[Spey_Phantom]

France, Germany and Sweden have agreed to develop a new medium-size tactical transport plane.
this is intended to replace the C-130J in the 2040's and supplement the Airbus A400M

France, Germany, Sweden launch future transport aircraft

France, Germany, and Sweden have agreed development of a new fixed-wing medium-lift transport aircraft, it was announced on 30 June.

www.janes.com

personel note:
i can see multiple other nations signing on to this, Belgium is also looking for a smaller aircraft to supplement the A400M, but this is in the 2029-30 timeframe, but they could enter the program early on in the development.

i can see the FMTC as a smaller, shortened twin-engine version of the Airbus A400M (maybe an Airbus A410M)

 

[alberchico]

I wonder what kind of design they might pursue. Will it be a smaller twin engined prop that borrows a lot of tech from the A400 in order to maintain commonality and lower development costs or a design that uses turbofans like the Embraer KC-390 or the Kawasaki C-2 ? A twin engined A400 derivative with a wide cabin that can handle modern military equipment would be the fastest and cheapest solution.

 

[MadRat]

If its Airbus then probably built for a specific box load and designed around a supercritical high-wing with a twin engine layout. Probably akin to the Transall using two engines from A400M.

Didn't Italy and France both partner on the C-390? Honestly, they could do worse.

 

[H_K]

i can see the FMTC as a smaller, shortened twin-engine version of the Airbus A400M (maybe an Airbus A410M)

This is very unlikely IMHO as an A410M would be an extremely unattractive proposition due to the A400M design heritage as a long range quasi-strategic transport (high structural empty weight, oversized wing and cross section etc).

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

I personally prefer option 1) as 2) overlaps too much with the KC-390 and A400M itself.

Here’s a good snapshot of the current offerings out there:

 

[H_K]

To add to my post above, my hypothesis is that anything bigger than the C-130J is going to be « too big », ie. too similar to the A400M.

So the sweet spot might be something to fill the void between the C-27J and C-130J.

2 options here:
Option 1 is an A410M, basically a shrunk twin-engined A400M, but the large fuselage cross section would add lots of structural weight and the payload-range might not even match the C130J. Not terribly appealing.

Option 2 is to start with a 90-100pax civil turboprop concept, such as Leonardo’s TP90, and derive a military variant (~35 tonnes MTOW, so 1/4 an A400M). That sounds better to me. Although it might have maybe only half the C130’s payload range, it would be perfect for low density loads such as personnel and pallets.

Or something in between like the AN-178.

Here are some speculative charts I’d put together to illustrate… TP90 and A410M vs. CN-235, C295, C-27J, C-130J and A400M. The TP90 is the 4th drawing, the A410M is the 6th.

 

[MadRat]

A410 would be a good way to put a stake into A400.

 

[helmutkohl]

i can see the FMTC as a smaller, shortened twin-engine version of the Airbus A400M (maybe an Airbus A410M)

This is very unlikely IMHO as an A410M would be an extremely unattractive proposition due to the A400M design heritage as a long range quasi-strategic transport (high structural empty weight, oversized wing and cross section etc).

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

I personally prefer option 1) as 2) overlaps too much with the KC-390 and A400M itself.

Here’s a good snapshot of the current offerings out there:

this is a very interesting graph
i didnt realize the KC-390 was as large as the C-130 and Y-9.. and had always thought it would be where the An-178 would be.
Since the C-130 user base is quite large, I am surprised there isnt more KC-390 orders

 

[starviking]

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

Looking at the current military transport of the partner nations, Sweden has 5 C-130s. She also has access to the SAC C-17s in Hungary. With her upcoming accession to NATO, I can see why she might need more tactical transport, for mutual reinforcement.

It’s possible Sweden might want a heavier payload potential, to reinforce the high north. She could just rely on the Herks for that, but they are getting old.

France has a lot of A-400s, quite a few older C-130s, and a lot of C-235s covering the lower end of tactical transport. She could go either way, but many of the C-235s are quite young, so there’s a possibility for a heavier payload being desirable.

Germany has a lot of A-400s, but nothing below that save a couple of C-130s. She might just want a light-payload tactical transport, given how many A-400s she has.

 

[Archibald]

The Transalls in Africa have proven themselves since the Kolwezi, 1978 crisis. That's nearly 45 years of rugged service. The CASA are doing a fine job, but the cargo hold floor is a major limitation (from memory).
More generally, the A400M is a big and expensive aircraft and I'm not surprise they want a C-130 / Transall size complement to it, in the 40 000 pounds payload range. Above the CASA (must be 30 000 pounds) and below the A400M (70 000 pounds or more).

France however has just bought a handful of C-130J. The present C-130H were bought in the late 1980's so they are as old as my little self: four decades.

 

[Hood]

Just buying KC-390s would seem to be the most optimal solution, but the talk of replacing C-130 and CN-235 implies a smaller airframe. Something like C-27J but slightly bigger perhaps.
I would assume Airbus would want to make MPA and AEW&C variants too to replace its C-295 platform variants so that would mean a relatively smaller airframe too for an economical conversion.

As A400M has rather taken the C-130's mantle in Europe in terms of STOL load lugging I feel it will be a Super-C27J/C-27J sized airframe. But it does feel like salami slicing the market.

 

[TomcatViP]

As A400M has rather taken the C-130's mantle in Europe in terms of STOL load lugging I feel it will be a Super-C27J/C-27J sized airframe. But it does feel like salami slicing the market.

Because the A400M has proven so well in Afghanistan... Unable to evacuate to the country next door more than a ridiculous fraction of what C-17 did in the same time and conditions but across an entire continent.

Whatever they build, European logistics can't afford it to be dysfunctional.

It is also dubious that there is a need for something not transformative in that segment today. You have to wonder why this program is pushed forward.

 

[Hood]

Because the A400M has proven so well in Afghanistan... Unable to evacuate to the country next door more than a ridiculous fraction of what C-17 did in the same time and conditions but across an entire continent.

Same with Ukraine support flights in terms of C-17 media exposure - it's been like an international C-17 shuttle bus service!
I honestly think if Boeing re-opened the C-17 they would pick up orders in no time.

You have to wonder why this program is pushed forward.

The cynic in me sees this as Airbus's lead programme in return for Dassault leading SCAF... (unless Leonardo has anything to say to say about it).

I can't honestly see a market for Transall 2.0, the smaller C-27J at nearly 90 airframes is hardly busting world production records and yet over 200 CN-295s have been sold. It does seem that airliner-based fuselage airflifters do much better on the market with smaller air forces and prove better adapted to other roles. A classic wide-fuselage load lugger is only optimised to be a load lugger.

A crazy idea - but an A220 airframe in terms of payload/weight would hit smack bang in that C-160/An-178/An-12 spot on the graph above...
A high-wing layout A220 technology derivative perhaps with rear ramp?

 

[H_K]

Because the A400M has proven so well in Afghanistan... Unable to evacuate to the country next door more than a ridiculous fraction of what C-17 did in the same time and conditions

I don’t understand this statement. The Kabul airlift was a very similar scenario to what was envisioned in the A400M’s core design requirements, and from what I’ve read the A400M passed the test with flying colors.

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a400m-kabul-airlift/

 

[renatohm]

i can see the FMTC as a smaller, shortened twin-engine version of the Airbus A400M (maybe an Airbus A410M)

This is very unlikely IMHO as an A410M would be an extremely unattractive proposition due to the A400M design heritage as a long range quasi-strategic transport (high structural empty weight, oversized wing and cross section etc).

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

I personally prefer option 1) as 2) overlaps too much with the KC-390 and A400M itself.

Here’s a good snapshot of the current offerings out there:

this is a very interesting graph
i didnt realize the KC-390 was as large as the C-130 and Y-9.. and had always thought it would be where the An-178 would be.
Since the C-130 user base is quite large, I am surprised there isnt more KC-390 orders

Still in IOC, but we already got orders from 3 NATO members (Portugal, Hungary and now Netherlands).
KC-390 has two big rivals:

• Used C-130
• FMS

There are many old C-130 around, especially of H and older vintages, some of which are being replaced with C-130J. Uruguay recently got some old C-130H from Spain. UK will ditch some nice C-130J with not many hours flown, and these will surely eat up KC-390 orders.

That said, KC-390 has a bigger payload than the graph shows (23 tons for regular use, 26 ton for emergency use), payload-range is comparable to C-130J (if not better, especially with higher weights), plus its cruise speed is way higher.

Another data point may surprise you - stall speed of KC-390 is almost the same as C-130! We will use KC-390 to refuel our helos here in Brazil!!

There's still some work to do in testing and integration, but things are going smoothly. FAB (Brazilian Air Force) is very pleased with the KC-390, they worked a lot during the pandemics, including with transport of liquid oxygen, something you don't see often.
https://aeromagazine.uol.com.br/amp...vos-tanques-de-oxigenio-para-manaus_6184.html (Portuguese only, online translation is your BFF).

Oxygen is being taken from Guarulhos to Manaus. The approximate distance between the cities is 2700 km.

The KC-390 can carry 23 ton and takes about 3 hours for this flight.

The C-130 can carry 13 ton and takes about 5 hours for this flight.*

Considering that the volume is sufficient to carry 300 ton of materials, it would be necessary:

23 KC-130 flights x 5h = 115 hours
13 KC-390 flights x 3h = 39h

That is, the KC-390 could accomplish the mission taking only 1/3 of the time!
* our C-130H are non-stretch, therefore they're limited in regards to weights.

If we're talking about volume...
C-130 - 127 m³
KC-390 - 169 m³

Considering the same route,
C-130 - 25.4 m³/hour
KC-390 - ~56.3 m³/hour

That is, KC-390 is more than twice as effective as a non-stretch C-130H. If we compare to C-130 stretch (eg C-130H-30):
C-130H-30 - 169 m³ - 33.8 m³/hour

KC-390 still delivers 67% more.

"But muh Super Hercules". Alright, I got you covered.
C-130J (and C-130J-30) cruise speed is 657 km/h (sorry folks, I think better in metric; 355 knots for you).
Considering 2700 km (~1460 nm), one-way trip, and using the same metrics (carrying 300 tons considering gross out only, no max out; max normal load taken from https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/):
C-130J - 127 m³, ~4h, 31.75 m³/hour, max load 15.4 ton, 20 flights, 80 hours
C-130J-30 - 169 m³, ~4h, 42.25 m³/hour, max load 16.3 ton, 19 flights, 76 hours
KC-390 - 169 m³, ~3h, ~56.3 m³/hour, max load 23 ton, 14 flights (or 12+1 with extra 1 ton load, still well within limits) 42 hours (39 w/ extra load)

That is, KC-390 does the same job in about half the time as C-130J (1 flight with extra cargo)!
If we're talking about carrying volume, using C-130J as base
C-130J: 1x
C-130J-30: ~1.33x
KC-390: ~1.77x

We're very proud of our new "fat boy" ("airplane" in Portuguese is a he)!

 

[publiusr]

Handsome airframe—-then too, I resemble it.

 

[renatohm]

Handsome airframe—-then too, I resemble it.

Me too!

 

[Prophet141]

I have to say that the KC-390 is indeed a very nice looking aircraft - it's both squidgy looking and practical.

 

[Scott Kenny]

i can see the FMTC as a smaller, shortened twin-engine version of the Airbus A400M (maybe an Airbus A410M)

This is very unlikely IMHO as an A410M would be an extremely unattractive proposition due to the A400M design heritage as a long range quasi-strategic transport (high structural empty weight, oversized wing and cross section etc).

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

I personally prefer option 1) as 2) overlaps too much with the KC-390 and A400M itself.

Here’s a good snapshot of the current offerings out there:

(Graph deleted for space)

this is a very interesting graph
i didnt realize the KC-390 was as large as the C-130 and Y-9.. and had always thought it would be where the An-178 would be.
Since the C-130 user base is quite large, I am surprised there isnt more KC-390 orders

Still in IOC, but we already got orders from 3 NATO members (Portugal, Hungary and now Netherlands).
KC-390 has two big rivals:

• Used C-130
• FMS

There are many old C-130 around, especially of H and older vintages, some of which are being replaced with C-130J. Uruguay recently got some old C-130H from Spain. UK will ditch some nice C-130J with not many hours flown, and these will surely eat up KC-390 orders.

That said, KC-390 has a bigger payload than the graph shows (23 tons for regular use, 26 ton for emergency use), payload-range is comparable to C-130J (if not better, especially with higher weights), plus its cruise speed is way higher.

Another data point may surprise you - stall speed of KC-390 is almost the same as C-130! We will use KC-390 to refuel our helos here in Brazil!!

There's still some work to do in testing and integration, but things are going smoothly. FAB (Brazilian Air Force) is very pleased with the KC-390, they worked a lot during the pandemics, including with transport of liquid oxygen, something you don't see often.
https://aeromagazine.uol.com.br/amp...vos-tanques-de-oxigenio-para-manaus_6184.html (Portuguese only, online translation is your BFF).

Oxygen is being taken from Guarulhos to Manaus. The approximate distance between the cities is 2700 km.

The KC-390 can carry 23 ton and takes about 3 hours for this flight.

The C-130 can carry 13 ton and takes about 5 hours for this flight.*

Considering that the volume is sufficient to carry 300 ton of materials, it would be necessary:

23 KC-130 flights x 5h = 115 hours
13 KC-390 flights x 3h = 39h

That is, the KC-390 could accomplish the mission taking only 1/3 of the time!
* our C-130H are non-stretch, therefore they're limited in regards to weights.

If we're talking about volume...
C-130 - 127 m³
KC-390 - 169 m³

Considering the same route,
C-130 - 25.4 m³/hour
KC-390 - ~56.3 m³/hour

That is, KC-390 is more than twice as effective as a non-stretch C-130H. If we compare to C-130 stretch (eg C-130H-30):
C-130H-30 - 169 m³ - 33.8 m³/hour

KC-390 still delivers 67% more.

"But muh Super Hercules". Alright, I got you covered.
C-130J (and C-130J-30) cruise speed is 657 km/h (sorry folks, I think better in metric; 355 knots for you).
Considering 2700 km (~1460 nm), one-way trip, and using the same metrics (carrying 300 tons considering gross out only, no max out; max normal load taken from https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/):
C-130J - 127 m³, ~4h, 31.75 m³/hour, max load 15.4 ton, 20 flights, 80 hours
C-130J-30 - 169 m³, ~4h, 42.25 m³/hour, max load 16.3 ton, 19 flights, 76 hours
KC-390 - 169 m³, ~3h, ~56.3 m³/hour, max load 23 ton, 14 flights (or 12+1 with extra 1 ton load, still well within limits) 42 hours (39 w/ extra load)

That is, KC-390 does the same job in about half the time as C-130J (1 flight with extra cargo)!
If we're talking about carrying volume, using C-130J as base
C-130J: 1x
C-130J-30: ~1.33x
KC-390: ~1.77x

We're very proud of our new "fat boy" ("airplane" in Portuguese is a he)!

The Brazilians do make some very nice planes... If the Herk didn't have 60 years of prior service lead on you, even the US might want to buy that KC390!

 

[Silencer1]

This diagramm isn't representative today, IMHO. KC-390 wasn't a project anymore, but series-built aircraft, operating by 3 countries. An-178 and An-70 remains the prototypes, without possibility to be built in any quantity. Antonov An-132, which has been planned for further development, also abandoned. Sad to say, but Antonov design bureau today isn't in "big league" of cargo aircraft' producers.

 

[TomcatViP]

Given the money that will be poored on Ukraine for reconstruction, it will be a good investment to take that opportunity to also rebuild Antonov.

 

[aonestudio]

Airbus Leading Consortium To Study Future Medium Airlifter | Aviation Week Network

Airbus is to lead a consortium of 33 companies to study the potential development of a future European airlifter to operate alongside the A400M.

aviationweek.com

 

[WatcherZero]

Given the money that will be poored on Ukraine for reconstruction, it will be a good investment to take that opportunity to also rebuild Antonov.

In parallel to the EU program to develop a new tactical transport theres a program to develop a new strategic transport to replace the C-17 and AN-124 in the military/civilian strategic and oversize transport segment (even before the war it was a struggle to keep the AN-124 flying, mainly by cannibalising each other/poaching engines from the AN-225). They are looking to a possible joint project with Antonov as part of the efforts to rebuild Ukraines economy post-conflict.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Don't know why I didn't make these comments earlier...

This is very unlikely IMHO as an A410M would be an extremely unattractive proposition due to the A400M design heritage as a long range quasi-strategic transport (high structural empty weight, oversized wing and cross section etc).

The real question is which C130 mission(s) this FMTC is replacing.

1) Is it meant to be exclusively a short-ranged intra-theater tactical transport for mostly passengers, pallets and light vehicles? (Basically a Transall replacement more than a C-130J)

2) Or does it need to carry heavy payloads such as light armored vehicles? What about outsize payloads such as helicopters? And how much range does it need, e.g. for inter-theatre missions? In which case it needs to be « bigger and better » than the C-130J…

I personally prefer option 1) as 2) overlaps too much with the KC-390 and A400M itself.

Another possible "light lifter" role might require significant STOL capabilities. 1000m or less runways, possibly dirt roads or grass fields.

Here’s a good snapshot of the current offerings out there:

That's a very useful graph, it shows you roughly where the effective sizes end up.

I do not see a new cargo plane successfully competing against the C-130J and KC390, so that payload class (~25ton) is out. (Obviously, the top end of the graph is out, too, because that's the A400M's playground.)

So now we're looking at something in the C-27J or Transall/An-12 load classes: ~10 tons or ~18 tons payload.

Since the C-130 user base is quite large, I am surprised there isnt more KC-390 orders

I think the KC390 had one major oops: they didn't get the plane flying and certified before the C-130J. I'd be willing to bet that the US would have strongly looked at the KC390 if it had beaten the Herc-J to certification.

 

[helmutkohl]

I think the KC390 had one major oops: they didn't get the plane flying and certified before the C-130J. I'd be willing to bet that the US would have strongly looked at the KC390 if it had beaten the Herc-J to certification.

Since the time I posted that, the C-390 fortunately secured a bit more orders, all within the last 2 years!