A Royal Air Force Atlas transport aircraft has conducted trials in Romania to rapidly deploy NATO weapons capabilities, using a Romanian military HIMARS weapons system.

Th Royal Air Force say that the trials conducted by an Atlas A400M aircraft, crewed by 30 and LXX Squadron personnel, were to test the ability to load and transport the US weapons system currently in service with several NATO allies.

“The trials concluded with the weapons system being loaded, flown, unloaded to then fire a simulated missile strike, before reloading and returning to base.

The HIMARS, standing for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, that was used in the test is operated by the 8th Tactical Operational Missile Brigade of the Romanian Army. The trial was carried out at Mihail Kogălniceanu Airbase, on the Black Sea coast. Also taking part as advisors were personnel from the United States Special Operations Command Europe.”

Flight Sergeant Tom Ellery from the Air Portability Section of the Trials Management Office at the Joint Air Delivery Test and Evaluation Unit, commenting on the trials was quoted as saying:

“The greatest challenge is the initial assessment of any unfamiliar vehicle. Gathering all the data required to clear it, what are its dimensions? Tyre pressures? Weight? Dangerous goods contained within? Then we can ascertain whether the vehicle physically fits, isn’t going to strike any part of the aircraft as it’s loaded, isn’t going to overload the floor capacity or aircraft compartment and can be restrained sufficiently for flight.

Working with any allied forces, always presents subtle differences in the way they work. It can be something as simple as the marshalling signals they use. In this case the US vehicle crew train to load and restrain the vehicle in conjunction with the aircraft loadmaster. We, however, have a designated movements team to conduct the load.”

In a news release, the RAF say that the successful trial “also demonstrated that the RAF Air Mobility Force has the capability to operate at range with NATO allies, to rapidly move unfamiliar equipment from other nations if called upon to do so”.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

44 COMMENTS

  3. Quick question, what advantages would the uks designated movements team have over the US system of planes loadmster being responsible and overseeing the vehicles crew?

    The us system would appear more efficient as the crew would be with the vehicle and not reliant on an external team

    • The USAF do not operate loggie’s for loading aircraft like the remainder of NATO.

      Movers here are trained to operate independently of the aircrew as well as with them.

      Also, specialist drivers for certain vehicles are used by the UK, ie a Warrior driver, will be used to enplane a Warrior. But they are under the control of the Loading Team.

      There are + and – in both approaches.

    • 1AMW always travel with the aircraft when it might be carrying cargo so there is always a team on hand if required. A lot of time they arrive at the aircraft long before the crew to prep the load and make sure all the paperwork is done correctly etc. This allows the crew to focus on doing their jobs and doesn’t steal crew hours for more essential jobs. The AMW team leader is in charge of loading the aircraft (and could do so unsupervised with the herc’s, too many extra loadies on the C17 and A400 sqn’s at the moment so they have nothing better to do) with the loadie making sure they don’t damage the aircraft. The AMW team know how to apply chains/nets etc. to ensure a safe load which would be a nightmare to make sure the vehicle crew was doing correctly without it taking forever.

    • Mike wrote:

      “”Quick question, what advantages would the uks designated movements team have over the US system of planes loadmster being responsible and overseeing the vehicles crew?””

      I’d like to think that this would never happen with the Uk team:
      National Airlines Flight 102 was a cargo flight operated by National Airlines between Camp Bastion in Afghanistan and Al Maktoum Airport in Dubai, with a refuelling stop at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan.

      On 29 April 2013, the Boeing 747-400 operating the flight crashed moments after taking off from Bagram, killing all seven people on board. The subsequent investigation concluded that improperly secured cargo broke free during the take-off and rolled to the back of the cargo hold, crashing through the rear pressure bulkhead and disabling the rear flight control systems. This rendered the aircraft uncontrollable, making recovery from a stall, brought on by the damaged rear flight control systems ending up stuck in a pitch-up attitude, impossible.

      On 2 June 2013, investigators from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Afghanistan confirmed the load shift hypothesis as the starting point: the cargo of five mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (three Cougars and two Oshkosh M-ATV’s), totalling 80 tons of weight, had not been properly secured. At least one armoured vehicle had come loose and rolled backward, crashing through the airplane’s rear bulkhead, damaging it. In the process it crippled key hydraulic systems and severely damaged the horizontal stabilizer components – most notably breaking its jackscrew, which rendered the airplane uncontrollable. Control of the aircraft was therefore lost, with the abnormal pitch-up rotation, stall, and crash to the ground ensuing. The damage made it impossible for the crew to regain control of the aircraft.
       
      The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was “National Airlines’ inadequate procedures for restraining special cargo loads, which resulted in the loadmaster’s improper restraint of the cargo. “

      One of the key recommendations was to mandate training for all loadmasters.

  4. The UK is frequently under appreciated within NATO as an enabler. We have key assets that other NATO countries do not have and would be in huge demand in any conflict. Well done to the RAF for providing heavy lift.
    Only UK and USA have this ability really within NATO. Correct me if I am wrong.

    • No The Luftwaffe, and France Air and Spaceforce use all A400M’s , C130’s, and Transalls’s so do the Belgian ,Spanish, Dutch, etc.

    • Mr B wrote:

      “”The UK is frequently under appreciated within NATO as an enabler.””

      That’s a very interesting observation which highlights how the Uk (unlike a lot of European countries) is willing to set aside nationalistic ideals and work for the greater good for all. Now before somebody pans me for the use of the above adjective ,
      Germany will always put German interests first, as does France, Spain, Sweden, Norway Italy, Romania and others. There is nothing wrong with that , but when that mindset takes precedence over the greater good such as:
      During the Falkland’s war, Belgium, halted delivery of ammunition to Britain and continued to supply military equipment to Argentina. Italy and Ireland did all they could to help Argentina and hinder Britain.
      That was when the Uk was in the EC, now the EU and our neighbours (looks at France and Spain) have no issues with sticking the knife in. But it gets worse, in 1991 when the Uk joined others from the Un to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, Belgium refused to sell the Uk , 155mm ammunition it required.
      Tom King the UK Defence Secretary, at the time revealed 9 years later that Belgium was so concerned by media outrage sparked by its refusal to sell Britain the ammunition wanted Mr King to send them a telegram, for disclosure to the media, thanking them for sending the ammunition before any had been delivered, But the Defence Secretary was not ”born yesterday” and refused and the ammunition never arrived.
      We saw something of a similar mindset in Jan when Boris shipped over 2000 NLAWs over to Ukraine before the balloon went up a month later. At the time both the French and German leaders berated the Uk for doing so, but and a big but, the UK read the lay of the land correctly, realised that Moscow was going to invade and did something. Those NLAWs were pivotal in blunting the Russian spearhead. There’s loads more anecdotes where European countries have put country before union first and yet, the Uk is the one which gets berated for nationalism and standoffish.

  5. Could this be an indication the U.K. is thinking about buying HIMARS and wanted practical experience of air-lifting one using the A400?

      • A mixed force would be better Daniele, the Light gun range would fit into the minimum range envelope of the M31 round most commonly used at the moment. Plus the LG has a higher rate of fire if you include re-load times for the HIMARS.
        cheers
        Ian

        • Hi Ian, thanks, so the more the merrier.

          What about overall range and shoot and scoot times for supporting a mechanized force?

          I see the LGs usefulness for 3 Cdo and 16 AA Bdes, but not so much for a wheeled light mechanized formation that used to have AS90s until cuts forced the LG into its place as there was nothing else.
          Would they employ a mixed regiment? They did for MLRS and it did not last long.
          I cannot see 2 regiments supporting the brigade.

          The reports I’m hearing have the army in favour of a tracked solution for FMFP to replace AS90, and the DRSB has the 2 planned regs of MLRS too for an all tracked force supporting the heavy brigades, which is why my thinking was leaning on HIMARS for the wheeled element.

          Cheers.

          • Hi Daniele,
            “Shoot and scoot” times really depend on where the reload point (pods) are, obviously nowhere near the firing point. Time to offload a spent pod and reload with new is circa 3 mins for a 2 man effort, similar for the M270. Overall range for the M31 is c. 85km max with a little increase in CEP. Min range is c. 8-10 Km if I recall correctly (it’s been 8 years since I last worked on MLRS.) In my view a mix of Caesar / Archer 155mm and M142 would provide real punch.
            cheers

          • If only indeed mate. It would be a fantastic addition, and something I’m sure that could be loaded onto a MAN truck (unless cost prohibitive) it seems like a no brainier. It e would be relatively easy to achieve from a training, interoperability perspective with already well established users and with a much more agile logistic tail, and I’m sure doctrinally, with a tweak here and there, fit in quite rapidly. Just manpower may hold things up a bit maybe..?
            Having something that can be fired from ships in the littoral and further out at sea if needed would surely be cheaper than a land attack option being the only option we had.
            Clearly it would not be instead of tracked MLRS but a great way to increase lethality to Expeditionary forces and as you mentioned light forces etc. I do so hope all the money doesn’t just go into one platform that will only solve one issue that we have🙏
            I’m sure that with a bit of R&D the system could also be adapted to all kinds of missile solutions..I’m a huge fan of Brimstone and it’s capabilities and would love to see something along those lines being adapted/modified etc, but I think we have a fair bit on our plate as it is ensuring we get ‘some’ of these ideas & options into service at the moment. But who knows..

      • Light can be moved underslung by helicopter in jungle environments and other areas where fixed wing aircraft and wheels cannot operate

        • Yes, thus why it’s with 16AA and 3 Cdo.
          Light forces.

          To my mind the Light mechanized brigade is not light with its vehicle complement, and the LG is what they’re equipped with. They did have AS90 as 7th Armoured.

          2 AS90 regiments have lost their guns and been replaced with LG. The other with MLRS.

          Purely cuts, despite as you say LGs underslung usefulness.

    • I can pretty much to the same conclusion also! If not HIMARS, then perhaps something very similar in size etc.
      There is after all a budget line for new artillery systems for the army, perhaps we are seeing the first moves in procuring new systems?

      • I think the A400 could handle a M270, too, but they’re no-longer manufactured.
        Or the RAF could be anticipating helping to fly more HIMARS to Poland. But given most are coming from the USA, then they’ll be coming over in C17s so that seems unlikely.

        I would hope if the U.K. was planning to buy HIMARS then we would first conduct a practical test like this to ensure we could air-transport it.

    • Be nice wouldn’t it and a decade ago we nearly had our own version on a uk chassis just like the Poles are doing now. That vehicle it was to utilise has just been updated so in an ideal World it could still happen, if there were the will but don’t see it at all remotely likely. Quite a queue for US versions mind these days but be nice to get a few wheeled versions as Ukraine has found in modern Europe it can do almost as much and as efficiently as the tracked more expensive version.

    • Nahhhh, they are blinded by the £’s they’ll save. Or think they save, time will tell if running a400’s into the ground on jobs the herc could do will be cheaper.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here