A400m

[rock_dove]

Evening all,
just wondering if any of you guys out there are involved with/in the know about the state of play regarding the FSTA and the A400m? is the A400m going ahead (rumours of our European cousins backing out of the deal?) and are we any closer to finding out the replacements for our geriatric VC10 fleet?:confused:

[6foottanker]

No, why, do you?

[South Bound]

A400M definitely going ahead. Airbus are a commercial organisation of some renown and have a contract that means it is as expensive to back out of the deal as it is to continue. Look out for it flying in 08/09 and arriving with the RAF in 2010. Give it a chance to find its feet tho!

Ahhh, now FSTA, I understand is still going through lots of rather complex contract negotiations. Nothing formal yet, althought the AirTanker consortium is preferred bidder. This one could run for a while yet.

[matkat]

I worked for Airbus in Bremen writing the maintainability requirements for the A400M though I have since left have heard nothing from My Collegues who are still there that suggests that the programme is being cancelled.

[BEagle]

It is NOT being cancelled!

As for FSTA? Hmmm.......

But at least the RAAF have ordered the A330 MRTT.

[Where R We?]

If it is cancelled, my trips to Toulouse & Ulm would seem to be a waste of time. And the emails I get regarding the certification plans must be a figment of my imagination then...wish they were 'cos they are bl**dy boring!!

[South Bound]

Edited because I was unable to read! Soz!

I will leave this bit tho!

C'mon guys, get with the programme, A400M is coming (they even have tail numbers allocated...) and we can't live without it. Accept it, look forward to the capability it will bring and most importantly give it a chance!

[sense1]

The future for the RAF AT fleet is looking relatively rosy (note: I said AT which doesn't cover the FSTA fiasco which is AAR) - it is going to be equipped with aircraft that are much more capable than what we have had in the past. Glad to see that we will keep our C17s and acquire an additional airframe (although I am of the opinion that several more on top of these 5 are needed).

The A400M is not as capable as the C17 but it is replacing the legacy C130K fleet and is a marked improvement. It will be a welcome addition to the fleet and, based on the lack of any negative coverage in the press of late, the programme must be running relatively smoothly (I know its delayed but hey, what isn't!) Also a few export orders in the bag - nice to see we have something to compete with the C130 on the world stage.
I worked for Airbus in Bremen writing the maintainability requirements for the A400M though I have since left have heard nothing from My Collegues who are still there that suggests that the programme is being cancelled.
Great, that post says to me that things must be going ok as he has heard nothing negative from those in the know! So how did South Bound find reason to write this.....

Matkat, love the logic - you leave a job, none of your old colleagues get in touch, programme must have been cancelled - mmmmm, could be another reason they haven't been in touch!

Thats just silly!:\

[matkat]

Matkat, love the logic - you leave a job, none of your old colleagues get in touch, programme must have been cancelled - mmmmm, could be another reason they haven't been in touch!
I love Pprune, posts like that make me smile all the time.
C'mon guys, get with the programme, A400M is coming (they even have tail numbers allocated...) and we can't live without it. Accept it, look forward to the capability it will bring and most importantly give it a chance!
Sorry for the confusion but what I meant was that at no time whilst conversing or meeting with old Collegues have They even intimated that there is a problem with the programme,I for one am very pleased about that and especially My own input into it.
Hope that clears it up.

[South Bound]

Yep, sorry read that wrong!

[matkat]

No probs and thanks for saying so:ok:

[Prop-Ed]

Reading this thread is a bit like listening to an old people's conversation!


No offence....

[South Bound]

None taken young man, it takes us oldies a while to get the hang of this new-fangled interweb thingy you know...

[Aeronut]

The future for the RAF AT fleet is looking relatively rosy (note: I said AT which doesn't cover the FSTA fiasco which is AAR) - :\


FSTA is not just AAR - It is AT too.

[sense1]

FSTA is not just AAR - It is AT too.
Yep, that is correct. FSTA will be used to carry passengers and/or palletised cargo as well as having its role as an airborne refueller. And thats just for the RAF..... part of the proposed PFI deal (yet to be agreed) is that 'spare' capacity can be leased to third parties when the jets aren't required for RAF duties! :ugh: PFI - what a :mad: :mad: idea! Unfortunately the way the RAF is going in lots of areas :(

[rock_dove]

cheers for that, totally agree about the civvy leasing issue for FSTA, its a ridiculous situation that a civvy operator could potentially put an airframe u/s whilst under their care and render it useless in a time of crisis, but then again we could always ask to borrow some of stelios's mighty orange fleet?!!:rolleyes:

[bayete]

Heard a rumour that FSTA was no going to have a centerline hose. Anyone know if this is true or is being addressed?
Otherwise the SS runs from MPA might be a bit dodgy.

[BEagle]

Last I heard (admittedly some years ago), 'a number' of A330-200 aircraft for the FSTA programme would have a centreline hose, but not all.

The RAAF A330MRTT will have a centreline boom for the Wedgetail and the Pig, amongst others.

[South Bound]

Anyone know how the A400M training PFI solution being proposed for the RAF is going?

[wz662]

What the A400M needs is Airbus to realise that it is meant to be a Tactical transport aircraft for the military and not another replacement for the Routemaster bus. - Yes I have been involved with the project.:ugh:

[Where R We?]

What the A400M needs is Airbus to realise that it is meant to be a Tactical transport aircraft for the military and not another replacement for the Routemaster bus. - Yes I have been involved with the project.:ugh:
I wholeheartedly agree. It is very frustrating to be involved and banging your head against a wall when highlighting issues which would be obvious to be a Tactical Transport Operator. Things are being addressed, but slowly. What is the most annoying is that the working level at Airbus appear to agree with our concerns but the high level management are just looking at the EU symbol and are putting the kai bosh (sp?) on things unless we can prove they have a safety implication.

We are trying our hardest to get things sorted but I will be surprised if things arrive when they are supposed to do. I know that this is a new aircraft and there will be issues but if they are the ones we have highlighted at this stage, it will be criminal if it costs us more money later on to resolve...

[dallas]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1045512/M/

Coming to a Brize Norton near you soon...:)

provided the Aussies are flying it...:hmm:

[South Bound]

WZ662 - absolutely right fella, only problem is getting someone at DPA to jump up and down enough to tell them. Airbus will build the aircraft very, very well to the contract specification as they interpret it. It can only be hoped that DPA will fight to ensure that our interpretation is the same.

IMO Airbus will be missing a trick if they build a compromise solution. There is a market out there to be tapped, especially with the demise of the C17 line and the ridiculous money LM want to improve C130J capability. The RAF will effectively be the lead customer (not the first, but will be looking to use the thing on operations sooner and at greater flying rates than anyone else) and our experiences and feedback will sell the thing around the World. God, I hope we haven't compromised too much as a result of our multin-national contract.

[FormerFlake]

FSTA is not just AAR - It is AT too.

It is not called AAR anymore, its AR too.

[Art Field]

If they do not do something about FSTA soon, AR will not mean anything.

[Set Power]

As with all things in this mans Air Farce, the wheel has turned once more, with many people not being kept in the loop.... AR has actually be tried, tested and abandoned - believe it or not - it is back to AAR.... All this after the Stn Cdr at a secret Oxfordshire airbase had the welcome to the Stn sign altered to read Air Refuelling..... Marvellous...:ugh:

[pikeyeng]

Here's an idea why not have an airbus tanker an airbus airliner an airbus mpa and an airbus tac transport all our grouncrew can be conversant with all types all the spares will be common if we break around the world we can get spares easier the crews will only need a short conversion between types. Hold on a minute am i being logical again- sorry disregard all above what the £$$k do i know i'm just an operator.:=

[FOMere2eternity]

As with all things in this mans Air Farce, the wheel has turned once more, with many people not being kept in the loop.... AR has actually be tried, tested and abandoned - believe it or not - it is back to AAR.... All this after the Stn Cdr at a secret Oxfordshire airbase had the welcome to the Stn sign altered to read Air Refuelling..... Marvellous...

What was wrong with AAR to begin with? Or perhaps I should ask what was wrong with AAR that meant it had to be changed to AR? Presuming AR was trialled at Boscombe, run by the Dress Policy Committee and then released as an AL to everything (including signs), what was the post-trials problem with AR? Moreover, what has been done to AAR to make it apparently good enough to use again? Couldn't we have hired some consultants to come up with ARA or something?

[BEagle]

Having had to change an entire document from AAR to AR and back again to AAR, I wish whichever idiot came up with the 'AR' notion to have his hairy regions infested with plague-ridden fleas!

Still, I did at least get paid to change it all. Twice in fact!

Then there's MRTT. All them Airbus promotional stuff refers to Multi Role Tanker Transport. So that's what my work used - and that's what the OzAF use as well. But not the GAF....someone in the BWB decided "Nein". Because the existing GAF A310 MRT is a multi-role transporter, so the modified aircraft will be a multi-role transport tanker..... So, for the A310 MRTT it's 'Multi Role Transport Tanker' - but for the RAAF A330 MRTT it's 'Multi Role Tanker Transport'....:ugh: More work changing it around again!

You'd be amazed how anal some people get over acronymish....

And for the RAF's FSTA it's.........a deafening silence.

[Taildragger67]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1045512/M/

Coming to a Brize Norton near you soon...:)

provided the Aussies are flying it...:hmm:

Cripes - didn't know the project was THAT advanced!! Must be something wrong with it - it seems to be going smoothly!

No boom fitted yet, though - anyone know if that will be retrofitted or if some of the RAAF airframes will be boom-less?

The demise of the 707 edges ever nearer...

[BEagle]

PR exercise - it's a long way from being a tanker yet! But a lot closer than FSTA!!

The RAAF jets will have an Air Refuelling Boom System and 2 x Wing AAR Pods each.

Also planned to be able to operate in the receiver role. But using the girly boom method, rather than manly jousting.

[rock_dove]

How many A400's are on order and are they going to be slotted into 47/70 sqns as direct replacements for the K's, or are there going to be new Squadron/s formed for them and 47/70 sqns disbanded?:eek:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

PR exercise - it's a long way from being a tanker yet! But a lot closer than FSTA!!

Shame the MRTT mission planning system will be an expensive orphan that won't play properly with the fighter guys MPS. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :=

[Saintsman]

The first two FSTA aircraft are still on course to be converted at the beginning of 2008, with the first one due in service April 2010.

The contractual negotiations are taking their time because its not just about providing a fleet of aircraft. Its a complete package supplying aircraft, aircrew, groundcrew and all the support that goes with it for twenty odd years.

There are also severe penalties if the aircraft are not available. In this case the blame has to be correctly apportioned to the individual companies within the AirTanker consortium. This is one of the reasons the contractual negotiations are taking their time. You have to get these things right.

Leasing the aircraft to civil operators helps subsidise the cost although IMO I think that there will be so much demand from the MOD that they will never be leased out.

[South Bound]

Guys, can you please start a new thread about FSTA. I keep seeing A400M pop to the top and think it might be something interesting about a contracted programme rather than wiffle about where we think we stand with the FSTA contract.

[Art Field]

Starting one now.