A400M - Yes/No/maybe?

[Abbeville]

This is your starter for 10 points.

Given the somewhat parlous financial state of Alphonse Airboos with the A380 'shennanigins' does the panel think this will have a knock on effect for the A400M?

If so is there hope yet, for a last minute C17 production line reprieve as a short term measure?

A

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Would the A400M not be more a tactical/specialist/multirole type of transport than the C17?

Is there a place for both?

[ORAC]

Germany denies that Airbus' new military plane also faces delays

The German government has denied a Die Welt newspaper report that deliveries of the A400M military transport plane could be delayed by up to two years. "Airbus has up to now convinced us that the project will keep to the planned schedule," a German defence ministry spokesman said Friday.

German daily Die Welt, quoting defence ministry sources, reported on Friday that the German military would only take delivery of the first A400Ms in 2012 instead of the original date of 2010. But the spokesman said the ministry held regular meetings with Airbus and was confident that the first planes would be handed over in 2010......

Airbus chief executive Christian Streiff admitted in an interview on Thursday that the A400M project was under pressure. "The timetable is exactly on the edge," Mr Streiff said. "It is a tense situation with a number of suppliers internally. We are exactly on track but without any reserves."

[mbga9pgf]

Of course not, it simply means we (you) will get the aircraft we don't want or need, later than we would have wanted the alternative and at vastly greater cost. All in the name of European integration and political willy waving.
And in the interim we (we) will be forced to endure a substandard service whenever/wherever we are deployed to be tony's "force for good".
jungly

Personally, having seen a presentation on the A400M, I would far prefer 25 A400M than 5 C-17. The C-17 is just too big a platform for some of the loads we carry, With the herc perhaps at times not carrying enough in a Strat role. The Back end as well as the front as been well thought out with a fully tested, certified airdrop capability as soon as we get it. Sorry,although I would love to bash the Europeans, I actually think that for a change, the European option is the way ahead.

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

That's all very well on paper, but it's a different story when the rivets and steel (or carbon fibre!) start coming together - as the latest delays for the A380 show.

[flipster]

Have also seen many AB presentations. It does seem as if the A400M has been designed about the 'business end' (ie the cargo bay) and its tac role.

However, I remain concerned about the self-protection issues (well covered on Herc thead) but even if it is only half as good as the manufacturers' claims it will be pretty damn impressive and should be more than capable of fullfilling the SF/Tac role. The C17 is ill-suited, too expensive and, in the majority of the Tac/SF sub-roles and it would be too exposed and too poorly defended - not even the USAF use the ac for these tasks.

I am aslo worried that the A400M will come not fully cleared for all air drop, airland and ALARP roles, so wasting wasting valuable time and money getting such clearances. Perhaps Beags could enlighten us?

[mbga9pgf]

.
I am aslo worried that the A400M will come not fully cleared for all air drop, airland and ALARP roles, so wasting wasting valuable time and money getting such clearances. Perhaps Beags could enlighten us?


My understanding was it is coming with full clearances, but using equipment that has been cleared by the european partners, which means, I think, using their chutes etc. As I also understand it, the RAF is the second customer to be supplied, when it comes in we will be able to utilise it in the TAC role almost Straight away. From what I finally understand, we will have nowhere near the same issues gaining clearances that we did on other newer AT assets.

Just dont ask about the Auto setting on the anti ice panel for the A400M!

[TOPBUNKER]

Good grief!
8 messages on an AT theme without the Mighty C130J being directly slagged off.

Timing...

[propulike]

And without a certain bald bird/hunting dog giving a sales pitch on behalf of his company too.

This is PPrune isn't it?

[BEagle]

You're just working out for yourselves what I realised a few years ago!

I don't actually work on the superior European Airlifter of the 21st Century, but chums who do reckon it'll make you lot smile with delight if you're ever privileged enough to fly it.

I'd hoped to have a look at the first A400M bits here at Bremen during the week, but I've been busy working on the upgrade programme for the world's only in-service 21st Century Multi-Role Transport Tanker - the superb A310MRTT!

[nigegilb]

Beags, how are your shares in Airbus doing?

[BEagle]

I don't have any!

I did actually inherit some BWoS shares from a delightful old aunt when she popped her clogs - but had to sell them to retain my self-respect!

One of the best aspects of the A400M 'Bristol Bureaucrat' will be the absence of suspiciously damp patches on the floor in the rear corners of the cockpit.....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/A400M.jpg

[mayorofgander]

So then Beagle;

Will we be getting the freight bay camera???:cool:

MOG

[flipster]

Where do the guys put their SA80, grab bags and bergens?
Is the flight deck armour integral?
What about anti-laser protection as well as RWR/DAS/HFI/JTIDS stuff - or is it all integrated and the RAF are paying to have some of it removed for a majority of our ac?

[ZH875]

Well, at least the Flight Sim geeks will be able to play with the A400M.

Does the M stand for 'MISSING' or 'MIRAGE' or 'MAYBE'

[Letsby Avenue]

The A380 cost £8 billion to develop and the Chinese three gorge project cost £15 billion - TB has blown £12 billion on a dodgy IT project for the NHS:} Money is no object to our political buffoons... You will get the A400M but it will be easily 10 times the price and later than you could ever imagine:uhoh:

[BEagle]

maryofgander, I'm sure the IPT could tell you; I do not know what the UK specification will be.

As for where 'the guys' should stow their grunt kit - well there's acres of space in the aircraft.

As far as I recall, Link 16 (or similar) is to be included; DASS, armoured seats, fuel tank inerting.....ask your IPT.

The main delays to the programme have come from the late German acquisition decision some years ago.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Slagging off the C130s?

OK then...

Will the seats be able to roll right back to allow the pie inhaling C130 crewmembers to access their crew positions?

[BEagle]

Not sure, mate. But there's an optional freight bay rail crane - presumably to lift the Lardmaster on board?

[Shackman]

Link 16?

So at long last Link 16 is somewhere close to being used. I remember our Navy comrades waxing lyrical about Link 16 (and Link 11 and Bellhop - for those that might remember the AEW Gannet) as the new thing coming in soon. And that was on No1 (Shack) AEW course at Kinloss in 1972!

Isn't it wonderful how quickly the procurement system works.

(I might also add that was the best conversion course I ever did - 1 week only where the AEW guys said what they did, and we said what we did, and from that we cobbled together a way of working. Later, we even got an aeroplane to try it on!)

** Pertama **

[flipster]

The pilot's grab bags and weapons need to be easily accessible and 'to hand', should they need to vamoose in a hurry out of the DV window or even the crew door.
Ask anyone who was on XV 206 or 298!

Its part of the tactical mentality to consider the worst case and plan for it. Getting blown up on a tactical strip with the bad guys all around is very feasible (as proved recently) - so, wouldn't you want a gun, ammo and some E and E kit (not to forget, of course, the emergency pie rations!)

Flip

[BEagle]

Presumably,at the very least, you would fly wearing the same tactical survival vests that the FJ mates presumably wear?

Maybe there's a tactical pilot someone out there with sufficient passion to want to work on the A400M programme, so that his/her successors will get what you consider to be so essential?

PM if interested and available.

[flipster]

I hope so and agree wholeheartedly.

Our guys do have some combat survival vests, in which they fly, but they also carry SA80s and a longer term grab bags - because AT crews would not be high on any CSAR priority list and, if we have any CSAR assets, they would take a while to get we go - if they ever get there - remember Bravo 20!

Check your emails!

Flip

[Squirrel 41]

But I understood that A400M was in effect a super-Herc for the 21st century, which whilst welcome, was not designed to do the C-17's strategic job... and that in any case, an A400M couldn't carry an MBT as it wouldn't fit (as well as falling through the floor if you tried).

So presumably A400M / C-17 Mix -- with, pace Tony and Gordon -- enough airframes and a suitable DAS, will work well by about 2012.

S41

[propulike]

Beags,

Thanks for posting the picture of the flight deck. Is there a graphic/picture of the back end you could post as well? I'd like to see that too!

Thanks,

p-u-l

[BEagle]

Have a look at http://www.airbusmilitary.com/ - it may have what you're looking for.

[hobie]

I like this one ...... :ok:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/gallery/a400mdesertland1024.jpg

[mystic_meg]

....to "The Loadmaster - Yes/No/maybe?"

....all will become clear very soon..:ok: (just remember that you read it here first!)

[QFIhawkman]

Ah, we change to a loadmaster slagging thread all of a sudden.....

I'm sure the pie eaters will be along shortly.... (Cue ABIW)

Does the A400M have a pie and pastie heater a la C-17 I wonder?

[mystic_meg]

Ah, we change to a loadmaster slagging thread all of a sudden.....
Not at all...may I suggest you read my post again, perhaps a little more carefully this time?

(Clue: contrast and compare)

[BEagle]

I still think that 'Bristol Bureaucrat' would have been a more apt name!

[philrigger]

;)
Is this what is being aluded to? Loadie performing the GE's job? - Or GE performing the Loadie's job? I know which one my money is on. Apparently it could be one or the other!

If this is what was meant then it has been in the rumour mill for at least 6 months.

'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[Fr8t M8te]

There was quite a bit of blurb in Flight about Airbus and the Power8(?) recovery plan of Louis Gallois for the company.

No mention anywhere of the A400 tho'?

[chippy63]

Nice picture of the flight deck, just wondering where the flight engineer sits?

[mayorofgander]

Nice picture of the flight deck, just wondering where the flight engineer sits?

With the rest of the pax....in the freight bay!!:ok:
Next to the Nav!!

MOG

[GlosMikeP]

Link 16?

So at long last Link 16 is somewhere close to being used.



It's been in service for some time.

Long gestation though. I was at Boeing in the early 90s and was stopped by one of their engineers. "How's JTIDS/Link 16 going?" asked he. "Oh a little time yet" sayeth GMP "Another year or two to go".

"Golly gosh" he retorted (or something similar) "We started on it in 1963.":eek:

[flipster]

JTIDS has been with the UK Hercs for quite a while now. I saw it first in 2003 - very impressive! Talk about improved situational awareness - no matter how many people on the flight deck!

However, it was then a bl00dy big screen in front of the nav with an almost full-sized keyboard. I suspect that something smaller might be more sensible if using a 2-person flight deck in the A400M.....unless of course, the Airbus plan would be to fill the third seat for such missions (ie almost all tac/sf/sorties that matter)?

Beags - just how is JTIDS/L16 planned to be displayed/used?

[highveldtdrifter]

Flip,

The JTIDS or MIDS data will be displayed as an overlay on any of the 6 configurable standard head down displays. Data input will be via the FMS keypad. There will be no standalone unintegrated kit, except possibly the EFB. The first level of cockpit workload trials are now complete, and as expected, it is not likely that a 4th (the LM being the 3rd) crewmember will be required.

At present there are no signs of delays to the program, but there is no flex. However, our hopes that the ac would arrive fully cleared may have been optimistic.

HVD

[matkat]

So then Beagle;

Will we be getting the freight bay camera???:cool:

MOG
I at a point in My career was involved with the development of the A400M and the freight bay camera will be there provided its ticked on the options list however if I rememeber correctly the screen will be in the LMs station in the forward freight bay.

[flipster]

HVD

Thanks - that sounds a whole lot better! However, what was the AB rationale about a third person being carried on some high workload sorties?Beagle I think mentioned this (sometime ago) - perhaps on a different thread?

Will MIDS/JTIDS be fully compatible with all US/UK sensors and platforms as I seem to recall some difficulties with the various Links/Nets etc in the past? In other words, would an A400 on an SF mission, close to/beyond the the FEBA, pick up real-time EW Int from ALL C3I assets about pop-up threats before they get within pinging range of a RF-guided SAM? Not that the Taliban have these things but Iran and N Korea most certainly do and who knows where we will be by the time the A400M comes into service...yikes!

Flip

ps Am worried that the ac will not come into service 'fully cleared' - do you infer that all Air Drop clearances will be after R2S - just like the UK J introduction? If so, I know that our special customers will be really miffed to hear that. That might mean we will have to extend the K....again (unlikely), or expand the very expensive trials on the J to get ALL the esoteric air drop clearances req'd for Chelsea (not cheap but perhaps the better option?)!

Of course, the most worrying aspect of this will be that we will then get a J v K v A400 willy-waving contest on PPrune!! (Aaaarghhhh, not again, please NO!!!!!)

[highveldtdrifter]

Flip,

The MIDS shhould be compatible with anyone on the L16 net. The initial talk of an additional flight deck crew member was assumed by some nations, mainly the larger customers. This is partly because of a lack of knowledge of modern ac (and the benefits of a fully integrated system), and partly down to a job creation scheme from some quarters. The RAF has been through all these arguments with the J, and despite the sceptics, we have proved the 2 pilot Tac AT concept. The A400M takes the level of automation one step further, during a Tac mission the primary mode of operation will be with auto pilot/auto thrust engaged - so both pilots have plenty of spare capacity. From a CRM point of view, the addition of an additional crew member on 5% of sorties would be a nightmare.

As for clearances, it is still unclear, but it is probable that the bulk of the airdrop work will have to be done post delivery. Well we do insist on using different parachutes from the rest of the western world.

And no we are not getting the cargo bay camera.

HVD

[flipster]

Thanks HVD
Yes, the Army's predeliction to use their old chutes/eqpt can be a problem. However, while their 'bits of string and bodge tape' approach is a bit antiquated, it works VERY well for the 'end user' requirements!

That is why it is so important to get the back end of the A400 sorted for the job in hand (Air Drop). In the past, the 'end users' have not accepted a small loss of capability, even as an short-term, interim measure - the users are all-powerful and usually get their way and I can't say I blame them either!!

Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!


BTW, I think you'll find the 'only 2 FD crew needed' is perhaps a myth. Having spoken at length to those 'doing the business' in theatre on the J, there are certainly times when some of them have admitted they would have liked a third pair of hands/eyes/half a brain in the cockpit, not down the back at P-40/20/10! They wouldn't have cared what kind of flavour it was either - WSOp/WSO or even another pilot.

In 95% of sorties the SA of 2 people are fine, it just that when things get difficult, the 'SA bubble' of everyone shrinks, despite all the 'SA enhancers' of modern AT ac. If that wasn't the case, all the 2-person FD pilots would be flying Harriers or in the Red Arrows......but we aren't!

Having flown the best part of 1500 hrs in an all-glass, 2-person cockpit (no HUD and route-queening it, admittedly), I can see the advantages of not having two extra 'talking, walking nav and systems displays' on the FD - when all is ok. However, information overload can be a problem with even the the most up-to-date kit - especially when things start going 'ping'.

Furthermore, there is a propensity for pilots to fiddle with their knobs (ooer) and press buttons. Despite all the best SOP/CRM trg in the world, lookout and SA suffers. Additionally, as the J doesn't yet have RWR/Chaff/FLIR nor JTIDs and 'extra comms', a direct read across from J to the A400 is maybe a bit thin at the moment?

What people should be asking is how would your average Herc/VC10-type truckie/tanker pilot cope with all the demands of today's DAS/JTIDS/C3I/LL in a hostile environment, together with the possibility of formation leading/following AND dealing with 3 radios AND a tech malfunction or 3 (they rarely come in ones)?? This sort of scenaro is no longer the sole domain of SF.

'People' shouldn't be afraid to come clean and admit their wish for a third person - if even in a very small number of sorties. Its just that their bosses/2Gp don't want to be first to alert PMA to even a small undermanning of pilots (c'est la vie).

But to lose a valuable ac, crew and their pax because the crew lost SA due info overload, would be a criminal waste. Are we saving 'pence' only to have the potential to lose 'millions of pounds' of eqpt and men sometime in the future?

I know there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply, harping on about how 2-person FDs are so much better (I am inclined to agree with them for most route/tac ops). But before they engage the Keyboard-Screen-Interface, I ask them to cogitate a little. Imagine the following scenario:

Leading a 2 or 4 ship beyond the FEBA, at LL, at night, to air-drop/air-land in mountainous terrain, bad weather, lowish Millilux, on NVGs. The ALM is down the back, there are multiple radios in use (formation i/p, AWACs/DZ/LZ and secure etc), turbulence is moderate. In the last 48 hrs, you have had little sleep in hot, crappy accommodation, missed lunch, then you planned and replanned for hours to eventually, launch at 0300hrs local with awful in-flight rations. JPA hasn't paid your family this month, PMA want an answer on your exit point decision but you couldn't get through to tell them to 'swivel'. The captain has his own problems and, just to put the icing on the cake, he has just farted 3 times! There is lots of AAA and SA fire about, but thankfully mainly undirected as yet, and now..... you get a small but annoying and repetitive tech or nav systems fault that requires attention very soon and the DZ/LZ/AWACs all call you ate the same time?


Unlikely? Possible? Who knows but is it remotely possible that a third person on the FD may be of help (if only to stop you throttling the captain or shoving his SA80 up his @rse)?

Now add another secure radio input/RWR/chaff/DIRCM pooh-moving warnings or false alarms, JTIDS/HFI/laser warners and possible use of FLIR and/or capt's HUD failures! Maybe you notice a fuel leak, as you have been hit by SA but the wing didn't explode because had ESF/inerting systems!

Thinking of you all......not!

Flip

[Good Mickey]

Flip,

what you've just described is a typical mission from the UK Tac Workload Trials held in Marietta approx 4yrs ago. the results/final report is freely available but in case you didn't get chance to read it, get this...................the plastic heap of sh**e with the big donks passed with flying colours.

HVD,

interesting info re clearances, I think I'll wait a while before considering a move.

GM

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Top post Frozzo, apart from the Ashes thing which you lot have no hope of regaining as they will be coming home with us again this winter:OK:

It does not matter how many times you tell some folk something the likes of Flip etc will never really get it:rolleyes:

Despite having no time on type and probably never even been up the flight deck steps of a J let alone flown on a TAC trip/mission they presume they can tell those with several years and 1000hrs plus of J experience what is best for them......it's all rather embarrassing really:O

Even when K guys from the strat/tac and SF worlds who have made the transition to the J disagree with them they still fail to listen:rolleyes: I am never sure what emotion it is that makes them, in the face of so much informed opinion, wish to appear so foolish but foolish they are:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[flipster]

Boys,

"......there will be a few posters who will willy-wave and bluster in reply....."


Yours is so much bigger than mine, you must be sooooo superior!


You are quite right, I have not flown a J in the tac role, so I have no right to tell people what's what. That is why (if you re-read the post more thoroughly) I was asking, in light of conversations I have had over the years, if others also believed that a third person on the FD might be of use - on occasion. I was not thinking solely of the J anyway (mindful to avoid a JvK vitriol session) - I was looking to all 2-person flight decks - both now and in the future.

Never mind, thank you for your help in this matter - your views to the contrary are duly noted (if a little predictable). However, more considered replies would be appreciated.

Flip

ps The references to heat stress/fatigue/long crew duty at anti-social hours/distractions/bad weather/turbukence etc are all well-known pre-determinents to a loss in SA and CRM. So is your 'gung-ho' and 'never-mind-that-its for-cissies' attitude. It may be worth reflecting upon that?

By the way, the Ashes will always reamain where they rightly belong...........at Lords!!


Good Mickey - i have always had niggling doubts about the tac workload trials - if only because the people who did it were exceptional pilots, very experienced operators (mostly ex SF) and products of a different training system. I'm sure they tried very hard to minimise any undue influence but human nature decrees that it was always highly unlikely that the trial would be failure, thereby doing the trialists out of a future job. I dont think a copy is available in 'unclassified' form so I cannot comment further.

[Good Mickey]

Flip,

an outrageous suggestion that the trial was never going to fail. Take it from me, there were lots of personnel involved with the trial (uniform and non uniform) that made it their mission to prove a 2 person FD was not feasible!! Thankfully they were proved woefully wrong.
Sensible comments only please if you don't mind flipster - theres a good chap!

GM

[flipster]

GM

It wasn't a suggestion, just a niggling doubt (and I'm sure you can see why such doubts might occur to those people who were not involved the trial). But thank you for putting us straight on that issue. I really didn't know that there were so many people involved in the trial who were actually determined to see the 2 person Tac FD fail.

That really does underline the exceptional quality of those pilots who flew the ac in the trial.

Not withstanding the trial, I am surprised that no-one can imagine a time or scenario when an average 2-person AT FD gets overloaded. Even if a scenario similiar to the one I suggested is 'bread and butter' to J/C17/A400 crews, I would be interested to hear at what stage crews might envisage themselves falling foul of 'information overload' or losing SA, if even for a short-time?

[Been There...]

That is why it is so important to get the back end of the A400 sorted for the job in hand (Air Drop). In the past, the 'end users' have not accepted a small loss of capability, even as an short-term, interim measure - the users are all-powerful and usually get their way and I can't say I blame them either!!

Either the A400 comes with all the clearnces for the esoteric jobs or we will have a re-run of J AD clerance delays (money mainly the prob). As a result we will have another shambles! You heard it here first!Handle Change from Which Are We...?

Flip, the problem is that this is a 6 nation clearance and that all the nations have to decide what will be cleared. When the contract was signed, that clearance was to be one stores type drop, one LL para type drop, one high SL & one high FF para type drop, one parawedge type drop and thats about it. These are the ones which will be qualified.

We will be working with some of the other nations to get combined airdrop testing done but Airbus are only contracted to provide the above information. They have to prove that the rest of the equipment is safe ie certified but not necessarily qualified ie fit for purpose. This is something that the UK IPT are fully aware of and are doing their best to fit it into the programme.

The big issue with any new platform is that you cannot expect it to arrive on the front-line with all the clearances in place from day 1. There needs to be, and will continue to be, a staged 'arrival' process. Most people now realise that when the A400M arrives in the UK (not necessarily the same as arriving on the sqn), it will not be cleared to do everything that is in the sales brochure.

People cite the C-17 as being an example of how things should be done, but that wasn't a new aircraft when it arrived in the RAF. The problem with the J was the misconception that this was a C-130K with a glass cockpit and different engines and any clearances for the K could be read straight across. How wrong was that?!

Those at Boscombe who are involved in the certification and qualification programme do not want another repeat of the problems which shadowed the J's arrival and are trying our damnest to stop a repeat.