A400 Doomed?

[Bunker Mentality]

Christopher Booker, an occasionally tinfoil-wearing Sunday Torygraph contributor, suggests that the A400 programme is 'on the brink of collapse' here: 'Save the planet' rhetoric soars to crazy new heights - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5177468/Save-the-planet-rhetoric-soars-to-crazy-new-heights.html) (scroll down past the global warming stuff) and that therefore our armed forces 'will soon be incapable of fighting overseas' because C-130 goes out of service in 2012.

[airborne_artist]

because C-130 goes out of service in 2012

Have the RAF been told this? :\

[fallmonk]

Looks like more C-17's will be ordered , and more C-130 J's IF it does get cancelled ,:ugh:

[glad rag]

I do not think that it will be cancelled due to the catastrophic effect that it would have on EADS finances.

[mick2088]

True. Still wonder if anyone will jump ship, however. Binning its A400M order would not have a particularly high financial or job risk to UK Plc as it would to the French or Germans. Most of the UK companies involved would still be working on it irrespective of it being ordered just as it hasn't after Italy decided not to buy it. The UK's need to be involved in the europlane moreorless ended the day BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus. Other than the euroland politics involved, is it what the RAF really wants? Would they be content with more C-130Js and C-17s instead or is the A400M that important to the RAF?

[isaneng]

Surely it's the army that would be most affected by the cancellation, in terms of yet another capability gap? Was not one of the major incentives behind the A400 the larger freight bay to take the latest generation of vehicles with their greater mass and size? Whilst more C130Js would give greater tonnage capacity, would that answer the perceived requirement?

Sorry for calling you Shirley............

[StopStart]

Chaps, this has been done to death on the myriad of other A400 threads on here...

[isaneng]

Sorry Stopstart, but we are all chatting about it now, so come on, let us crack on.... You don't have to read it if you don't want to!

[mightynimbus]

My son is on contract with Airbus in Seville working on the A400, they are all on notice of termination and working from month to month, entirely possible project going belly up!

What effect that will have on EADS, MOD or anyone else is anybodies guess.

[StopStart]

In that case :)....

In answer to the earlier question about capability gaps then - no there won't be one. Ideally this thing goes down the tubes asap, we can stop mincing about and go get more Js and C17s. C17s can move the big stuff and we can carry on with the other stuff.

The army's FRES project for big, wide etc vehicles is more of a terminal basket case than the A400 anyway so is frankly irrelevant.

[airborne_artist]

Was not one of the major incentives behind the A400 the larger freight bay to take the latest generation of vehicles with their greater mass and size?

Though the FRES programme has ballooned both in cost, and weight, so perhaps there won't be many of them, and those we do procure will be too large/heavy to fit in a standard A400? Have to hope that the Antonovs soldier on for a while, and that we stay on the same side as Ivan...

[isaneng]

I heard through T bar gossip that Lockheed had proposed a widebodied C130 (a fat fat albert, or obese albert?). Other than the 1980's proposal, any update on newer evolutions?

[Pontius Navigator]

In April 08 EADS said 'this summer'

Then in September EADS said: first flight is postponed beyond the end of this year, but the impact on the delivery schedule remains unclear.

The “unavailability” of the 10,000shp Europrop TP400-D6, the most powerful turboprop engine developed by the West, is blamed for the new delay.

The program is still waiting for the flying test bed – a C-130 modified by Marshall Airspace with one TP400-D6 under-wing – to get off the ground. That test campaign “should start in the coming weeks”,

OK, it flew on 17 Dec 08, then what?

Booker probably cribbed his article from the Economist - 8 Apr 09:

Airbus's troubled military transport | Heavy going | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13447375)

[BEagle]

The TP400 software is being used as the fall guy. IT NOW WORKS!!

Whilst there might be other issues with the A400M, from what I was told at ARSAG last week, things are nothing like as bad as have been portrayed.

I hasten to emphasise, that's what I was told...

Now, which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?

And don't forget the French. Can you imagine them settling for a non-European future airlifter?

Personally I blame the A380 and A350 programmes for diverting engineering design resources away from the A400M.....

[indie cent]

Just to keep you on your toes Beags...;)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/03/324789/exclusive-france-confirms-interest-in-boeing-c-17.html

[StopStart]

which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?

That'll be the C130J there BEags :ok:

[XV277]

T

Now, which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?



None without infringing the terms of the AirTanker contract if informed voices are to be beleived.

[BEagle]

Which would be a bit of a shame - the FSTA is not proposed for helicopter AAR.

Whereas, from the brief I had - and judging by the way the USMC are currently using the KC-130J in theatre, there isn't much it can't do. Particularly in respect of FARP operations; also Harvest Hawk will soon be turning the bad guys into unwholesome hamburger......:ok:

Now remind me, how many external hardpoints do the UK's 130Js have which are wired and plumbed for AAR........:confused:

[West Coast]

Wow Beag's you're using logic at a point when you usually shoot from the visceral soft underbelly. C'mon, you know you want to.

Template: The A400 would have been a world beater if not for the Yank________

[BEagle]

Hi Westie,

No, credit where credit is due - your USMC chums know what they're doing with the KC-130J. Whereas the version that the RAF has is....well, 'less capable'. Not by design, but by stupid procurement.

The A400M will eventually be a good aeroplane - but the political wrangling and bitch-fighting will be a thing of interest to behold!

By the way, I didn't even get threatened with a single 'latex glove' during my recent trip Stateside; contrary to alarmist reports, the natives were most friendly!

But you can keep Las Vegas.......:yuk:

[West Coast]

I guess one of the casino's took you to the cleaners.

[BEagle]

Not me - I didn't even gamble a quarter in a slot! Not that you can these days though - it's all sickeningly electronic with beeps and bloops instead of the sound of rattling coins.

The A400M chap at the conference seemed to have a pretty quiet time.....:bored: Almost as quiet as the rather lack lustre KC-767 folks did...:rolleyes: Although they did at least have the prettiest girls..:ok:

[StopStart]

I do believe that the UK C130Js are plumbed and wired for two outboard AAR pods. Never happen though.

An ideal scenario however would be the RAF buying, leasing, whatever say about 5 US spec Js that could perhaps come fitted for AAR...... Unfortunately that would require the RAF to be able to see past the ends of their noses....

[Lima Juliet]

There are of course other "slots" that take $20, $50 and $100 bills in certain Las Vegas establishments that are far better value for money :E

No good for GPC though :=

[West Coast]

Unfortunately those types of slots require computing a PCOD.

[Jig Peter]

Beagle, while deferring to your much greater and more recent experience than mine, I strongly feel that the need to "divert engineering resources" was due to decisions (later regretted) taken under the disastrous regime of one politically skilled but industrially inexperienced gentleman, highly compensated on his accelerated retirement, from which Airbus is still recovering. If - and it's a Big IF - things had gone to the usual plan, the A400 would have occupied engineers' minds after the A380 moved into service, to be followed by the A350. But under Mr. F's rule, the unwise decision was taken to retain the original Airbus wide-body fuselage cross-section, which had a Zinc Zeppelin reception from potential customers, ILFC in the forefront. Whence the collision of two programmes, which Airbus had avoided until then, and apparently less than perfect integration of the CASA operation.
You're right, things are being sorted out, both organisationally and on the engineering side, but it's clearly a long haul to recover from inexperience and possibly lack of ability to cooperate with different nationalities' characteristics at the "Top".
Like you, I look forward to hearing that things are getting sorted, and that the enforced delays will be shorter than the pessimists think - perhaps the A400 will actually reach the places where it's needed before our forces finish their work in Afghanistan ... Any penalties could possibly be recovered from what Mr. F was paid on leaving - and which Paris is trying to prise out of him (like the ex-Top Man at RBS in UK).
Incidentally, I noticed an odd remark by Mr. Enders recently, that the A380 engineering virtual mock-up was suffering from "problems with gravity" - could it be that the cable looms are straight lines on the computer screens, but the real life "dangle effect" is (was?) not allowed for?. Bright young engineers might not realise that electricity grid and telephone wires don't go straight from pole/pylon to pole. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Brian Abraham]

From Aviation International News

Crunch time next week for A400M lifter

By: Chris Pocock and Ian Sheppard
June 14, 2009

Defense ministers from the seven A400M partner nations are heading for Seville next week for a crucial meeting with the EADS and Airbus leadership. French Defense Minister Herve Morin urged the airframer to be “transparent and precise” about the extent of delays to the troubled European airlifter.

Meanwhile, at a meeting here in Paris last Thursday, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that a final decision on whether or how to proceed with the troubled European airlifter program would be delayed a further six months.

Speaking to journalists here last Saturday, EADS CEO Louis Gallois expressed confidence that the aircraft would fly “around the end of the year.” By failing to achieve that milestone by April 1, Airbus Military is technically in default of the contract, and liable for its cancellation and the return of the ?5.7 billion already provided by the governments in advance payments.

Gallois said that Airbus had already spent that money, and is now spending a further ?100 million each month on the program. “We have completely reorganized the program...and discussions are constructive on technical matters, delivery schedule, and the contract. We are proposing some amendments,” he said.

Referring to recent reports that the UK was ready to pull out of the program, Gallois said that the British had some specific requests. “We will see if we can accommodate them,” he said.

The UK had just appointed a new defense secretary, Bob Ainsworth, who will attend the meeting next week. An informed source told AIN that, in fact, the UK is still anxious to proceed with the acquisition.

Gallois noted that Spain had already expressed its continued support for the program. Now, he added, “We need at least France and Germany to agree.” Those two countries account for 110 of the 180 aircraft ordered by the partner nations.

[ORAC]

Europe postpones A400M decision 1 month
Reuters, Monday June 22 2009

SEVILLE, Spain, June 22 (Reuters) - European nations have agreed to postpone their decision on the delayed A400M troop transporter by a further month, Spain's junior defence minister Constantino Mendez said on Monday.

The current three-month moratorium on Europe's biggest defence project was due to expire at the end of this month and prevents either customers or Airbus from taking drastic action over the project.

"The ministers' decision is to prolong the moratorium one more month in order to establish the terms of the negotiation," Mendez said after a meeting of the European nations involved in the plane project.

"Once the terms of the negotiation have been established, we are going to enter into a final period which will be called the period of renegotiation of the contract."

Europe's flagship 20 billion euro ($28 billion) defence programme is already more than three years late. Britain is pushing for financial concessions on the project.

Britain still wants to commit to the delayed A400M project but still has to make a lot of progress with Airbus to save the project, a minister said on Monday.

Asked after the meeting whether Britain was still committed to the A400M, British defence procurement minister Quentin Davies said: "We will be if we can be, but we need to make a very great deal of progress with (Airbus) industry in order to save this project."

UK Pushes for Concessions on Aircraft Project (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f0bf9c4-5d33-11de-9d42-00144feabdc0.html)

[NURSE]

How much of the delays are politically inspired and not Technical problems. It is one of the huge problems that Multi-National Programmes generate!
If Airbus was an Independant company would A400M be in service already and how many more delays will there be caused by changes of government in the different partner countires wanting to re-negioate the contract to fit their needs not the needs of their airforces?

[Lima Juliet]

I guess that takes the decision into the MP's Summer Holidays - which means nothing until Sep 09??:confused:

[A2QFI]

It is late, overweight, over budget and hasn't flown yet. There is no way that we aren't going to buy it!

[D-IFF_ident]

Is that the same Christopher Booker who wrote 'the seven basic plots'? I'd put that one down as an 'overcoming the monster'...

[The Curator]

I would bet "Beagles" Pension that it t'aint going to happen........

[safe single]

Call me old fashioned, but didn't we go through all this bi***ing and moaning 10 years ago when the 'J' was the subject of ridicule?

Good to see that we haven't learned from the past.....

[Jig Peter]

For some reason, the team at Europrop says it didn't know that their engine had to meet military certification requirements rather than civil. Although the engine seems to be meeting performance goals - even (nearly) weight - the software (or the paperwork accompanying it) needs to be re-written in a form the civil authorities will accept. And that software is said to be even more complicated than what's in an A380 ...
Although destined for military applications, the aircraft will be certificated to full civil standards (why ?).
I type all this with a big "It says here" bubble over my head, of course, but who am I (or anybody outside the organisation(s) concerned to talk ???
:8
Generic slamming of Airbus Military is just an extension of the old, old "Airbus bad, Boeing good" mantra, which got nobody anywhere - and speaking of the "B" company, worrabaht the latest drama for the 787 then ???

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

Although destined for military applications, the aircraft will be certificated to full civil standards (why ?).



Assuming that the military version (A400M) turns out to be a good aircraft then the stated intention of Airbus is to offer a civil version (A400C) to civil operators.

Presumably the same ones that operate C130s and Freight versions of the Boeing 747.




Aaron O'Dickydido

[Been There...]

Because the way the certification was agreed was the aircraft would achieve a full civil certification and then a military delta would be applied. This was supposed to be quicker than doing a full military clearance as Airbus had experience of dealing with EASA.

However, I know from personal experience, that it was almost getting to the stage in the avionics and human factors certification panels that the delta was getting so large, it would be easier to go for a military certification and then certify the civil delta.

Regards

[ORAC]

Bloomberg: Britain Signals It May Not Pay EADS for Cost Overruns on A400M (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a2fHLcc6602M)

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. signaled it’s reluctant to pay for cost overruns on the A400M military transport plane, saying talks with the European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co. and other nations are in a “difficult” stage.

“This situation is very difficult and we want to be co- operative” with EADS, junior defense minister Quentin Davies, who has responsibility for equipment procurement, said in an interview in London. “But that absolutely cannot be at the expense of our armed forces and the British taxpayer.”

.........“My mind is open,” Davies said. “I would like to find a way of this project being saved but it can’t be at the expense of the taxpayer and the armed forces and we have certain requirements that must be met. Our position is absolutely clear. Our constraints are absolute.” .......

“The U.K. is signaling that it is not willing to make a cash contribution to the overrun,” said Nick Cunningham, an analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd. “It also sounds like the U.K. won’t compromise on the specifications. EADS may be left with the possibility it has to finish the project at great cost. There still may be further overruns and problems.” .........

[hello1]

Airboos have been telling us for a while how great the A400M is going to be. Unfortunately it is overcost, overweight and unlikely to deliver the capabilty that we need right now even if we hang around for 5 years+ So, as wonderful as it might have been, fundamentally it is not. More C130Js and C17s would be the low risk option; however, I don't suppose the 'library educated' union convener from Coventry would have the first clue about what represents real value for the UK armed forces or the UK taxpayer.

Rant over

[baby-spice]

Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).

[Been There...]

Really?

Be interesting to see where that came from being as there is a whole load of work going on in my area looking at the justification on both sides of the argument and we haven't heard anything!!

[NURSE]

it wouldn't surprise me if it is cancelled unfortunatley A400 has missed the boat most countries need the capability now and won't have the budget in the future to afford it.

may they should have got Bombardier to dust of the plans of the Belfast and put more modern engines on it!

[airsound]

Nurseshould have got Bombardier to dust of the plans of the Belfast and put more modern engines on it!

You mean like the Europrop TP400-600? (Hint - what is it that's holding up the A-400M's long-delayed first flight?)

(Perhaps I should add that I'm a great Belfast fan, having been the Last Flt Cdr Ops on 53.)

But, slightly more seriously - baby-spice - please do enlighten us as to the source of your scoop
Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).

If that were to be true, I believe it would be catastrophic for the British armed forces and any pretensions they might still have to global power projection.

airsound

[NURSE]

If that were to be true, I believe it would be catastrophic for the British armed forces and any pretensions they might still have to global power projection.


why so the RAF seem to be doing a great job with the Herc and the C17 and if it is true then a few more of may be ordered?

[airsound]

Yes they are doing a great job, as ever - but the Herc is too small, and too old (even the J). And the C-17 is too expensive, and even then not as capable in some significant areas as the A-400M will be.

And before anyone jumps down my throat with the fact that the A-400 has all sorts of ongoing development problems, could you stop and ask yourself what modern aircraft in development doesn't? I mean, it's not as if the the A-380, or the 787, or even Dave, is humming sweetly along towards a rosy service life with no drawbacks, is it?

airsound

[GreenKnight121]

The A400M is currently projected (by Airbus) to cost over 3/4 (per aircraft) of what Boeing is charging export customers for a C-17.

The difference is small, and disappearing at an alarming rate.


And it is not the engine, nor the software that is holding up the "first flight"... the documentation of the development of the software was screwed up, and is having to be re-done in order to gain regulatory clearance for flight.

The engine is running just fine in the C-130 test-bed aircraft... including test flights.


The big problem is the admission that the aircraft is overweight, and that the floor needs to be redesigned to meet payload weight/m3 specifications... which means more delay & cost.

[airsound]

Thanks, Equivocator, for that response to the Green Knight. I agree with what you say, and would only add that GK’s statement it is not the engine, nor the software that is holding up the "first flight" seems to be disproved by the 18 June statement of Europrop International technical director Karsten Muehlenfeld. He said that EPI only had a further 300h of ground tests to conduct ahead of the certification of its TP400-D6 turboprop. Six examples had completed more than 3,000h of testing, while a seventh had logged 35 airborne hours on a C-130 testbed. A further 500-600h of engine testing would lead to operational readiness.

The EPI consortium would deliver flight-standard full-authority digital engine control software for the A400M late June for ground testing, and negotiations would continue with Europe's EASA certification agency over permission to fly the A400M in advance of it completing all auditing tasks. "I don't think that anyone has any doubts that the software can fly," says Muehlenfeld.

So it seems clear that what we are waiting for is related to engines and not to airframes.

Finally, I was interested to note that the Green Knight hails from a “Western Co, USA”. Could that be a certain Seattle company?:)

airsound

[Father Jack Hackett]

NURSE,

In a former life I was working as an undergraduate in the design office's of Short's in Belfast. Sometime in 1994 a group of gentlemen from an organisation called "EUROFLAG" (European Future Large Aircraft Group - latterly Airbus Military) came to visit and hoover up every scrap of info on the Belfast. Essentially, without the Belfast (the only large lifter ever built in europe) you wouldn't have the A400M as we now know it. Doesn't seemed to have helped them that much mind you......

[airsound]

More important than all of these comparatively esoteric discussions - please tell us how you came by your bomb-shell of a statement
Project cancelled, expect ministerial announcement sometime in July (prob 17th).
and do you stand by it?

Or are you just fishin? If so, you've caught me.....

airsound

[Bunker Mentality]

2 posts since Apr 2008 - of which his 'bombshell' is the second. Baby-spice? Baby gravy, more like!

[GreenKnight121]

Ummm, Airsound, I know some of you Brits know nothing about US geography, but Boeing has no operations in COLORADO!!!
[hint for the unaware... Co is the standard abbreviation for the US state of Colorado]

Nor have I ever worked for any company associated with them in any capacity.



As for the cost issue... the C-17 cost has gone up ~10% since I last compared the two a few months ago, and the €:$ exchange rate has shifted just a little in favor of the €, so the numbers are just a little further apart than before. That said, here are the most current data I could find:

A400M:
1 year ago:
Estimated unit cost was originally US$90M. The unit cost has since climbed to over US$156M (€100 million).Airlifter Comparisons - Airbus A400M - Airbus Military - EADS A400M - Aerospace Technology - CASR Background - Canadian American Strategic Review - military cargo aircraft - Airlift Capability Project - ACP Strategic - ACP Tactical - military aircraf (http://www.casr.ca/bg-airlift-a400m.htm)

Now:
The current unit price is estimated at EUR 145 million. But EADS wants to renegotiate this price to reflect much higher than anticipated development costs. Some estimates predict an increase of at least thirty per cent in unit price.Op-Ed: The Case Against the A400M (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/106284/op_ed:-uk-should-pull-out-of-a400m.html)

C-17:
$327.9 million -- per unit cost2010 Pentagon Spending Request | National Priorities Project (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/2010_pentagon_spending_request)

C-130J:
$89.8 million -- per unit cost2010 Pentagon Spending Request | National Priorities Project (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/2010_pentagon_spending_request)


A-400M: current unit cost €145 million; EADS wants to raise this, possibly up to ~€180 million.
C-17: current unit cost €234.45 million (exchange rate 6/27/2009 Saturday .71570 EUR)
C-130J: current unit cost €64.2 million

Still a little way to go, but with no certainty that there won't be a further demand for a price increase in the 2 (or more) years before production begins.

A split buy of equal numbers of C-130 & C-17 would cost €298.66 million for 2 aircraft (1 of each), while 2 A-400M would cost at the absolute least €290 million, possibly as much as €360 million.

Also, the C-17/C-130J would be in production 2 years before the A400M... and the RAF is already experiencing problems with airlifter availability, aren't they?

[merlinxx]

I bed to differ with regard to Boeing & Co. I do believe that Jeppesen is a Boeing Company :E:ok:

[Jig Peter]

A touch off-thread-ish perhaps, but in today's SeattlePi is a report that Wall Street analysts reckon that, as Boeing's software did not predict the recent damage to the 787's wing-body junction, the FAA may require their whole CADCAM kit to be re-proved - i.e., going by the TP700 delay (my interpretation, not Morgan Stanley's), 787 first flight may be delayed until December, or even into 2010, and the flight test process could possibly not meet the "accelerated schedule" originally planned ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

(Mods, please feel free (as they say) to re-assign this post ...)

[airsound]

Oops :uhoh: - apologies Green Knight. I (foolishly) assumed your 'Co' was the British English abbreviation for 'company' - and didn't think of the US English abbreviation for Colorado. I should have known better - the lovely Mrs Airsound comes from Ca.

As to all your costing figures - I might have to get back to you on those later....

airsound
from Gloucs, or even Glos (Gloucestershire)

[ORAC]

There is, of course, an additional factor to add into that cost equation, and that is the additional cost of operating a third aircraft type.

Many moons ago the discussions around C130/A400M/C17 revolved, in part, about only being able to afford two types in service. In those days it was used as reason to explain why we didn't need/couldn't afford the C17 and why the A400M needed it's cruise speed performance etc.

Well, we now have the c17, and I don't think anyone thinks we are going to get rid of it, and in probability we'll end up with 2-3 more and it will form a core force for decades to come. Similarly we now have the C130J.

the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more.

If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.

It just seems extraordinary that, in explaining why, year after year, we have retired so may FJ types, using the mantra over the additional savings of retiring a type over a squadron, we should even be contemplating adding another AT type.....

[NURSE]

or maybe with the reviewed armed forces only 2 sqns of c130's and 1 of C17 will be required?

[Gainesy]

Bloody Hell.
ORAC can't spell if he don't C & P.:)

[ORAC]

I gotta couple of minutes, my mind's a lot faster than my fingers (hey! I was a controller not a pilot). if I make a typo - f8ck it, drive on!!..... ;);)

[GreenKnight121]

merlinxx...
Who or what is "Jeppesen", and where is it when its at home?

[Modern Elmo]

... the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more. If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.

The drawback to the C130 is that its cargo cabin is too small for the L.A.V. III/ Stryker and for many of the Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers already in use, at least by US armed forces. After a while, the British Army will probably want to operate some of these wheeled vehicles too, especially if the proposed FRES ( Were FRESes to be tracked ? ) set of vehicles remains cancelled.

The A400 and the C-17 are big enough for these vehicles, the C-130 isn't. The C-17 can also load a Main Battle Tank. The A400 is to small for that, even if current A400 problems are resolved.

An enlarged follow-on to the C-130 doesn't seem likely to happen. Boeing is shopping around a C-17B with more thrust, more flaps, and a third nosewheel. A C-17B might be able to match the A400's advertised slow flight and short field performance.

The USAF is going to get some C-27's. There probably will also be an improved V-22.

The next all new and big military transport American military transport project will probably be either a four engine tilt rotor or a big big helicopter, bigger than H-53K or MiL-26. Don't hold your breath waiting for one of those.

A worthwhile proposal for C130's and C17's is to fit some of them with electro optics pods and underwing weapons racks, while retaining cargo carrying ability. Maybe that is a good idea for the RAF also, mais non?

[Been There...]

The A400 and the C-17 are big enough for these vehicles, the C-130 isn't. The C-17 can also load a Main Battle Tank. The A400 is to small for that, even if current A400 problems are resolved.
Can I ask why you would need to move a MBT by air?

Even if you could and wanted to, the logistics chain behind a MBT is massive and therefore it is uneconomical to move it this way as such. There are also plenty of papers out there which say the MBT in its role as an MBT is dead...

I am involved in a programme where I am trying to inform land guys why you can't really move a 30T AFV by air even though they have plucked the 30T figure from the air...find out what the vehicle needs to do, "design it" and see how much it weighs then work towards that, not start with a weight and go from there...

Regards

[NURSE]

but the A400 may not have the short field capability projected it hasn't had any trials yet so far its just computer models ie projected not proven.

[Blighter Pilot]

And if the rumours are to be believed the A400M will not have an initial Tac role or be allowed to work NSO TLZs:mad:

[Been There...]

And if the rumours are to be believed the A400M will not have an initial Tac role or be allowed to work NSO TLZshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif
They are not rumours about the Tac role but not sure about the NSO work...the milestones do not allow this and neither did the C-130J, the C-17 or any new aircraft when they arrived.

[Modern Elmo]

Good morning.

I sincerely hope the A400 project runs out all right. Boeing and Lockheed need the competition.

Question: why doesn't A400 mgmt. publish some artwork showing a gunship version of the A400, or the A400 unloading [ conveniently sized ] combat vehicles in a melodramatic, wartime scene?

Not politique correctment goodthink to do so, Elmo suspects. Goodthinking EUlanders want the A400 to be used for humanitarian missions or civilized peacekeeping efforts. Actual war? Quel horreur ...

[OFBSLF]

Can I ask why you would need to move a MBT by air?
Weren't the Canadian tanks in Afghanistan brought in by air?

[Blighter Pilot]

They are not rumours about the Tac role but not sure about the NSO work...the milestones do not allow this and neither did the C-130J, the C-17 or any new aircraft when they arrived.


So does that mean no Tac role for the A400M? If not then why are we buying it?

I appreciate that previous aircraft types didn't have the ability to fulfil all roles when they arrived but I thought the A400M procurement process was meant to bypass the majority of endless, in-service trials.

Again, if not, how long are we going to have to wait for full mission, all-role, capability. We don't need it in 5 years, we need it now.

If the news is anything to go by today perhaps the A400M will join the nuclear deterrent, the carriers and most of JSF in the 'too expensive and not required bin'

:mad:

[Been There...]

There are milestones for the Tac role but not on initial arrival.

The problem with getting the Tac clearances done by Airbus is that this is a 6-nation project with differing requirements/loads. The work share allows a basic clearance to be completed and this was agreed by the 6-nations but it does not include every load in every configuration; to expect Airbus to provide that would be overly optimistic and also very expensive and time consuming.

The procurement process was supposed to certify a civil aircraft and then apply a military delta to that civil certification. However, there have been problems because the delta is larger than expected because


We, the nations, didn't write the requirements explicitly enough, and,
Airbus mis-understood the complexity of aerial delivery operations and the risks that were entailed.If it arrives, it will arrive, but not soon enough...

[moosemaster]

Can I ask why you would need to move a MBT by air?


After working on the UK C17MBT trials, I was given this answer to the same question. As to it's accuracy I cannot vouch, however it seemed logical to me at the time.

Because MBT operate in a formation, like A/C. If 1 of the formation becomes u/s, the entire formation is withdrawn.

Therefore, there could be a need to replace the u/s MBT in toto, rather than a simple repair job. To do so by traditional methods (Sea or over-land) could take up to 6 weeks. To do so by air would probably take less than 48 hours, meaning the formation could be returned to the front line much, much sooner.

The need to carry an MBT is not for initial deployment, but rather for the purpose which mostly everyone forgets the AT fleet do day , day out, the continual re-supply role.

Back on topic though;

The A400 is statistically important in other ways.
The J, although capable in many ways, cannot physically carry a lot of modern vehicles that the Army currently possess, or wish to possess, that much is agreed by virtually everyone.

Yes, the C17 can carry virtually all of these, but it was deemed preferrable on it's introduction that it would be used for hub and spoke operations.
If Albert is replaced by A400Ms, this hub and spoke can continue, hence keeping the "valuable" asset safer.

If, god forbid, we did lose another A/C in theatre, would it be financially better to lose an A400M load, or a C17 load? Please remember the MoD is no longer in charge of it's own procurement, it is politicians, statisticians and accountants.

[Green Flash]

Weren't the Canadian tanks in Afghanistan brought in by air?

So buy some AN-124's, then?!

Or Galaxy's!

[spanish no fly]

The MoD was offered An124's some years ago with new cockpit, RR engines and 3 man flt deck. Turned them down. Not sure whether they were offered the An70.

[flown-it]

GK121 (post60)
merlinxx...
Who or what is "Jeppesen", and where is it when its at home?

It's only the company that researches, prints and publishes all the approach plates that the US airline, corporate and private pilots use. I believe most ICAO countries also use them. Boeing bought the company from Mr. J some years ago

[GreenKnight121]

Thanks for that... now I've got to figure out where they are... as I'd never heard of them before.

Hmmm... Google says the Colorado headquarters is in Centennial... only a little over 250 miles through the Rocky Mountains to the east of me.

[West Coast]

No Jepp's= you're walking.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I make tea for a living and I have heard of them.....:eek:

[isaneng]

SFFP - that's a blatant lie.........

[Green Flash]

as I'd never heard of them before

What DON'T (http://www.jeppesen.com/index.jsp) they do!

[ORAC]

Hmmm, you have to wonder whether it will be EADS who might look for a way to walk away.....

EVIAN, France (AP) — The leaders of France and Britain pushed Monday for ambitious targets for tackling climate change and cracking down on uncooperative tax havens, ahead of upcoming meetings with other heads of state this week and in September.

The two leaders showed little sign of headway, however, on a stalled European military cargo plane project or defusing tensions over illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel from France to Britain...........

Neither leader said much about their talks on Europe's long-delayed and loss-making A400M military transport plane.

In a joint statement released later, the two leaders said they are "committed to finding a positive outcome for the renegotiation of the A400M program."

Airbus and parent company EADS, which are developing the aircraft, must "bear the consequences of the program delays and contribute to compensating for the resulting capability deficit," according to the statement.........

[andrewn]

In my opinion the real point here is not whether one particular project is “doomed” but rather the wider fundamentals that underpin the procurement process and specifically the complex relationship and interdependencies that exist between government and industry – in this case the defence manufacturing sector.

1. Procurement
I’d assume that a basic military need must exist in all cases to allow the procurement process to commence, and I’d then imagine that an initial spec would get ‘pulled around’ by a whole host of people (hopefully SMEs) in the MoD with input from the relevant armed service(s), all of which should take place prior to any submissions to industry (RFI, RFP/ITT, etc).
What we know from past experience is that those competing interests rarely settle their differences at this stage and that these arguments and subsequent spec revisions continue long after any submissions to industry, and we also know this “disagreement process” is lengthened inexorably in the case of multi-nation projects, in part due to politics (more of which later). In other words I think it’s quite normal for that basic military need to have taken so long to become a firm design spec, and to have changed so much, that it becomes almost unrecognizable from that initial spec, with the result being that the end product suits no-one and costs many, many times as much as first envisaged (remember change = money).

2. Relationships and Interdependencies with Defence Manufacturing Sector
In the most extreme case we’ve now gone from a basic military need that has morphed into some kind of multi-national “white elephant” which no-one really knows what to with but, upon which, many thousands of jobs in a number of countries now depend. And that is the key dilemma for Government, to determine whether the most important factor is actually defence need or plain economics. All too often I believe Government prioritizes economics (in the widest possible sense!) against actual defence need, which means that any sensible defence based argument or viewpoint is automatically overridden by the threat to employment in Scottish shipyards or Hull or wherever.

A further complicating factor is the sheer size and scale of these contracts awarded, meaning that when things go wrong the government really has no recourse against those companies involved; witness the Nimrod MRA4 fiasco where the government has continued pumping money into a project that was grossly mismanaged, for fear of effectively bankrupting its major defence systems supplier!

Not sure if the above points make any sense, just my own thoughts in my capacity as both a taxpayer and firm believer in maintaining credible armed forces.

Regards, Nick.

[positive climb gear]

AndrewN

Goes a bit like this:

Before the beancounters will approve a project you have to go for initial funding before precise costs have been calculated. You effectively 'guess' to how much money you need....

In my department, our costs were deemed too expensive, so you bid for what you thought you could get (in my particular case we had only 40% of the budget we knew we needed.......)

No surprises then, when the actual budget went well over the initial costings!

Tail wagging dog.:ugh:

[Modern Elmo]

This is a good idea:


Air Force Copies Marines’ “Bolt-On” Gunship Plan
Sunday July 05th 2009, 10:58 pm
Filed under: Up in the Air, David Axe

061013-f-9999w-001.jpg

by DAVID AXE

The Marines have always envied the Air Force’s two dozen AC-130 gunships — which, with their accurate guns and long loiter times, count as some of the deadliest weapons in U.S. wars. This spring, the Marines decided to buy nine kits for their KC-130J tanker-transports, each kit comprising Hellfire and Viper Strike missiles and bolt-on sensors — with a door gun, optional. The result, code-named Harvest Hawk, turns a tanker into a gunship, in just four hours, on the cheap.

Now the twist: the Air Force has struggled for years to build a new gunship to replace the AC-130s, which average more than 20 years old. The AC-X gunship concept went nowhere. The AC-XX “gunship lite” program, meant to turn the twin-engine C-27J transport into a small gunship, apparently died this year, when the Pentagon cut the C-27J program in half. So now the Air Force is borrowing the Harvest Hawk idea, adding “sensors, communication systems, precision guided munitions and a single medium-caliber gun” to eight MC-130W infiltration transports, pictured, according to budget documents. ...

War Is Boring (http://warisboring.com/?p=2360)

[Modern Elmo]

Release the Gunships! Part Two
Tuesday October 02nd 2007, 9:33 pm
Filed under: Up in the Air, Other Side of the COIN

The Air Force is struggling to adapt its Cold War airplanes and attitudes to new counter-insurgency fights. On Monday I introduced Major Robert Seifert, an AC-130 pilot who, in an excellent article, proposed putting the sensor-laden, heavily-armed gunships at the front of a new COIN strategy.

...

Q: So if you were in charge, what would you do to improve Air Force COIN capability?

Seifert: If I were King, I’d have several irregular-warfare wings, but I’d break them down between [Close Air Support] and transport wings. I found no synergy from being part of a wing that had transports and CAS aircraft. For example, I’d have an irregular wing of A-10s, AC-130s, an OV-10-type aircraft — and I think the small gunship is an awesome idea. Not necessarily for operating out of small airstrips, but for the ability to buy enough of them so they’re not hoarded and so they don’t cause the Air Force to only have two dozen like they do the present gunships. A small gunship with one or two 30-mm cannons and a crew of about four would be awesome. I also would put the wings in ACC versus AFSOC, as I found AFSOC deep in their heart only wants to support “special ops” ground forces, whereas I have found ACC wants to kill bad guys for whoever was nice enough to point them out. The transport irregular warfare wing would obviously have some C-130s, CV-22s and a small transport. And both wings though would have a … squadron for training friendly forces on how to operate the various wing aircraft.

...

War Is Boring (http://warisboring.com/?p=649)

[HectorusRex]

Commentary by Celestine Bohlen

Airbus Needs U.S. Help to Dispose of Elephant: Celestine Bohlen - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aKM9OZmTX9PY#)

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Can elephants fly?

That’s one way of looking at the Airbus A400M military- transport plane, which a group of mostly European nations has been trying to get off the ground since 2003.
It’s time to get real. Time and money are running out, and the four-engine turboprop plane designed to ferry troops and equipment still hasn’t even had a test flight.
After a delay of almost four years, and cost overruns that are digging into profits, the European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. should pull the plug on this 20 billion-euro ($28 billion) project, and let its customers buy American.
With 6,000 jobs at stake, this would cause economic pain and howls of political protests. European pride would be wounded, and the reputation of the region’s defense industry would be badly damaged.
There may be a solution: If the Europeans swallow their pride, and buy American military-transport planes, then maybe the U.S. Air Force could stifle its own protectionist urges and award a much-disputed $40 billion contract for aerial-refueling tankers to EADS and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.
The Europeans have a refueling tanker -- the A330-200 -- which is already up and flying. The Americans have well-tested military-transport planes. Why reinvent the wheel when there is one already on the shelf?
Surely, burden sharing is what the trans-Atlantic alliance is all about. Why should the U.S. and Europe be duking it out for orders when in another 20 years, they will both be desperate to save their defense industries from being cannibalized by China and India?
Camel-Like
The point isn’t to chip away at one aerospace industry at the expense of the other, but rather to save them both. Letting politics dictate business decisions -- or tying down political projects with commercial contracts -- isn’t the way to go. The A400M is one example.
Politics have plagued the project from the start. Early on, EADS was forced to pick a group of European companies, including Rolls-Royce Group Plc to make the plane’s engine, instead of Pratt & Whitney, whose price was better.
The project has become a kind of Christmas tree, with the different governments trying to add on special features, such as low-flying or all-weather capability. The result is a product that looks more like a camel than a racehorse, according to Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament who sits on the House of Commons defense committee.
“We should dump it,” he said. “It was always a political airplane.”
Capability Gap
EADS has already had to book 2.3 billion euros in charges for the A400M, denting its profits. Its customers -- France, Germany, the U.K., Luxembourg, Spain, Belgium and Turkey -- have twice pushed back a deadline for contract renegotiations, with the latest set for this month.
As they wait for the plane, now due in 2013, France and Germany, with contracts for 50 and 60 planes respectively, have had to check out alternatives to fill their capability gap. These include Boeing Co.’s C-17, the Lockheed Martin C-130J or even the Antonov 124, built in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the U.K., which seems to be trying to wriggle out of its order for 25 planes, is leasing six C-17s for the Royal Air Force. All three countries badly need military- transport planes for their operations in Afghanistan.
No wonder people talk about the A400M as a nightmare.
Looming Catastrophe
Nick Witney, a former director of the European Defense Agency, calls it a disaster. “If it doesn’t proceed to producing an aircraft, it will be a catastrophe,” he said. “The stakes are huge.”
From its inception, the A400M -- which began life as the Future Large Aircraft -- has been plagued by bad decisions, hubris and the problems that come from design-by-committee, particularly when the committee is made up of Air Force generals, each with their own demands.
For EADS and its Airbus unit, the main concern is the original 2003 contract, which it is now trying to renegotiate so that the customers shoulder some of the burden of the cost overruns. Naturally, no government wants to be presented with that kind of bill -- especially for a plane that has yet to fly -- in the middle of a recession.
‘Plane That Works’
With hindsight, everybody agrees the project’s original timeframe was unrealistic. As a report issued this spring by a French Senate Committee concluded, EADS “underestimated the size of the challenge,” which itself is an understatement.
Europe and the U.S. have a healthy competition going between Airbus and Boeing. That has spurred both airline companies to keep costs down and improve their products.
But in the military sphere, this competition is getting in the way of delivery. If Europe is to have a credible defense capability, it needs to be able to move its troops, tanks and equipment around.
Before they start throwing more good money after bad, the governments involved should think about their priorities. As a top adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy said this week: “All we want is a plane that works.”
(Celestine Bohlen is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

[BEagle]

Celestine Bohlen is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.

And they're utter bolleaux!

Now run along and worry about knitting and kittens, there's a good dear.....

[moosemaster]

Those opinions would be more credible if the basic facts were correct.

Meanwhile, the U.K., ....., is leasing six C-17s for the Royal Air Force.

The original "lease" was for 4 aircraft, which have subsequently been bought outright, as have the 2 additional frames.

It's not difficult to get things correct, but if the basic stuff is wrong, then all credibility goes out the window.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the A400 will fill a capability gap that neither Albert nor the 17 can fill.

One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't.

[LowObservable]

That is one awesome load of undiluted codswallop.

If the Europeans swallow their pride, and buy American military-transport planes, then maybe the U.S. Air Force could stifle its own protectionist urges and award a much-disputed $40 billion contract for aerial-refueling tankers to EADS and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.

Errrm... the USAF already did that.

No wonder people talk about the A400M as a nightmare. Nick Witney, a former director of the European Defense Agency, calls it a disaster.

Strong words. The trouble is that it's the opposite of what he said.

“If it doesn’t proceed to producing an aircraft, it will be a catastrophe,” he said.

[Modern Elmo]

One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't

Oooh, one chair is too big, and that other chair is too small! said Goldilocks. And that porridge is much too hot, and this porridge is much too cool, but this bowl of porridge is just right for me! ... and so Goldilocks' story goes on ...

[Re-Heat]

One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't.
Yes, but once one goes down the road of trying to procure the best piece of kit for the job, the cost per unit goes through the roof as there tends to be no broader market for the asset than the original customer. You do caveat your remark with "viable" - I must add to that "viable and affordable".

That is not an excuse for procuring the wrong kit if it is all that is available, but it is the main reason why money should not be pumped into a development that fails to achieve what it set out to do for a reasonable cost.

Yes, the A400M would do a huge range of tasks that are unfulfilled by either the C17 or C130 alone at present, but together they manage, and both are available to purchase at a lower cost to the Exchequer (under the assumption that an A400M bailout is required). Do you want one piece of kit to do everything (much capability of which is unused day-to-day), or two pieces of kit that specialise in the tasks required, each having different strengths and weaknesses. It is of course nice to be able to do anything, anytime with the one piece of kit, but if unused in the vast majority of ocassions, it is wasted.

If there was further demand for it (among NATO/Western-allied countries that is), the market would produce it. If the A400M cannot attract further orders, and costs per unit continue to inflate, it should be cancelled.

That surely is the lesson of the Nimrod 2000, or did we not take that one onboard?

[NURSE]

its not actually the USAF that is protectionist its the Democratic Government.

[NURSE]

Its a shame that the A400m may bite the dust as compition would force Beoing and Lockheed to produce an improved product range instead of being able to sit back and rake in the cash.

[ORAC]

Davies hints at A400M cancellation (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=10034)
Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Divisions are growing within the MoD and government over what to do with the troubled A400M programme, after a defence minister made comments yesterday which were in sharp contrast to the ones made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown just a day earlier in regards to the A400M.

Minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies told reporters yesterday that Britain "may not" be part of a renegotiated contract for the A400M. Just a day earlier, Brown had told a press conference that he wanted to see the A400M produced.

Davies has become an outspoken critic of the programme in recent months in a sign that he is likely resisting proposals by other partnering nations to carry ahead with a programme four years late and already a billion euros over budget.

"I have to say that we have very little time left and it would be quite irresponsible to express undue optimism about the prospects of a successful renegotiation involving the U.K.," Davies said in an interview in Glasgow. "Other countries may take a different view, of course."

While avoiding direct criticism of the manufacturer EADS, Davies reiterated that Britain has made its requirements clear for a new contract and if they are not met, Britain will walk away.

So far according to Davies, the Britain's terms are not being met. Aerospace officials speculate that the main "terms" put forth by Britain are for EADS to shoulder most of the additional costs. Engine troubles and design flaws have caused the delays and cost overruns. EADS has claimed it could go bankrupt if it has to pay all of the cost increases.

If Britain walks away from the programme it will most likely have to buy additional C-130Js and C-17s.

[ORAC]

And now, the differences between the JSF and the A400M (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/07/08/and-now-the-differences-between-the-jsf-and-the-a400m/) :E:E

This Bloomberg article on the seemingly intractable problems with the Airbus A400M military transporter is a reminder of the risks of reality suspension in defence projects world wide.

The A400M has the potential to destroy government funds on a European scale, in terms of cancellation and total loss of investment.

But the JSF, which is looking tragically short of capabilities to destroy enemy aircraft and targets, has the capability of destroying western defence budgets world wide.

Europe needs to try harder.

[LowObservable]

Good point, ORAC.

In fact, our lad Quentin should consider that while an overrun on 25 A400Ms may be painful, his operation is (so far) unhesitatingly committed to 75-140 JSFs which are two years behind the 2004 schedule, have no fixed price and are overweight to the point where they may need to perform risky SRVLs.

And he has no vote at all on a decision which will saddle him with a monopoly supplier for an engine which has already delayed the program and already costs too much, and which faces a large and undisclosed bill for a thrust increase to restore performance.

[glad rag]

Re ORAC post jsf ........???? http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/380723-first-aussie-super-hornet.html

[glad rag]

Bourse - Airbus A400 Million Govts Agree to Extend Moratorium Through End '09 (http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/actualite/EADS/NL0000235190-25/Airbus-A400-Million-Govts-Agree-to-Extend-Moratorium-Through-End-09-707623)

[Bunker Mentality]

Airbus A400 Million

I always thought the 'M' in A400M stood for military. Now we now better!

[ORAC]

The Half-Full, Half-Empty A400M Glass (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8797/)

Comment by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MILTECH) 09:16 GMT, July 27, 2009

With so many exceedingly important factors, interests and considerations being involved in the A400M saga, and with quite a few of them being in contradiction with each other, it was arguably unavoidable that even the most prudent and logical decision being taken in trying to identify a way forward for the programme would leave a bittersweet taste in one’s mouth.

The member countries have now decided on a further “grace period” until the end of the year, which comes on top of the previous three-month extension granted in April. This implies that at least for the time being, the member countries do not intend to cancel the programme, nor do they want to punish EADS by imposing the financial penalties they are entitled to. Rather, the months ahead will be used to try and define a new overall structure for the programme that would necessarily require a complete renegotiation of technical goals, time schedules and costs.

In itself, the decision to carry on with the A400M makes eminent sense. The European Air Forces do need a new transport aircraft for both tactical and strategic roles, and there is plenty of political and industrial reasons to argue for this to be a European-designed and –manufactured plane. No matter the very strong reservations one might have about the appalling mixture of incompetence and arrogance EADS displayed in handling the project, it remains that at this point in time for the member countries to completely cancel the programme would come dangerously close to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. The money that could be extracted from EADS as penalties and compensations, and the malignant satisfaction of “teaching ‘em a lesson”, would be a very meagre counterbalance to the unmitigated disaster of a cancellation.

Yet, one cannot avoid being disturbed by certain aspects and implications of the decision as announced in Le Castelet.

First of all, there is nothing in the wording of the communiqué to sternly indicate the end of the year as the absolute final deadline for the programme to be brought back on track. Unfortunately, past experience is only too clear a pointer to the dangers of leaving industry in the comfortable perception that as a monopolistic supplier, they are virtually guaranteed against any conceivable harsh move. What is supposed to happen, should 31 December 2009 fail to bring about real and tangible results? Another farcical six-month extension, perhaps? And so on and so on?

Even more significantly and indeed alarmingly, there is nothing in either the official communiqué or the accompanying commentaries to suggest that the lessons of the past mistakes have been duly understood, and steps will be implemented to avoid repeating them.

The programme will be renegotiated, which in clear terms will unavoidably mean giving EADS more time and more money to design and produce an aircraft, substantially below the original performance and specifications. And so be it. But there is not the slightest hint at the programme being also revised as regards its management and overall structure. EADS has finally been able to correct some long-standing weaknesses in the organisation of Airbus Military (to be honest to them, these weaknesses were not EADS’ own fault and rather stemmed from political interference), but it is still too early to assess whether this move will really have a positive impact on the A400M programme. And on the other side of the fence, the governments quite clearly have not the slightest intention to give OCCAR, which is formally in charge of managing the programme on their behalf, the level of authority and responsibility it would need.

This is not a good omen.

[ORAC]

Russia, Ukraine Revive Plan to Build An-70
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE - 19 Aug 2009

MOSCOW - Russia and Ukraine have agreed to revive long-standing plans to produce the An-70 military transport plane, the head of the design bureau at Ukrainian aerospace company Antonov said Aug. 19.

"I am sure that we will manage this with Russia until its completion and this aircraft will be part of the Russian and Ukrainian air forces," Dmytro Kiva said at the Maks-2009 air show outside Moscow, news agencies reported. Kiva said the project could be completed as early as 2010.

In a statement, the Russian defence ministry confirmed the report and said the agreement was signed by Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Ukrainian Defence Minister Valery Ivashchenko during the air show.

Russia and Ukraine signed agreements on the An-70 in 1993 and 1999 but Moscow warned in 2003 that the aircraft was not safe and in 2006 it formally pulled out of the project as relations with Ukraine deteriorated.

Ukraine has taken an increasingly pro-Western stance since the coming to power of President Viktor Yushchenko following the Orange Revolution protests of 2004. Its bid for NATO membership has particularly angered Russia.

[tonker]

Its amazing how quickly and cheaply things can be done, when your boss is x KGB and people go missing if they get it wrong and not rewarded with bonuses!

[LowObservable]

Kiva said the project could be completed as early as 2010.

If that was what he really said, the F-35 team will snap him up in no time flat.

[Jig Peter]

In all this hoo-ha about the A400M programme, I'm surprised and worried that no news is even seeping out about "progress" with the engine control software. Nobody talks about how the engine programme is/was managed, and EADS is blamed for every delay, while airframes sit in Spain waiting for the engine side to come up with what they are contracted to provide.
I assume that EADS "accepts" this situation, as programme overall manager, but the silence about remedial action (if needed ?) in the engine programme is like waiting for the second shoe to drop. EADS may be trying to get that side sorted behind the scenes, without public spats about the clear failure to provide an airworthy power plant which would "upset" sensitive (but apparently not very competent) partners.
The story of the engine's development might provide good material for real investigative journalists or even conspiracy-seekers in the film industry, but surely it's well past time for some "authority" on the engine side to come out from EADS' shadow and provide something more than Soviet-style platitudes about "the programme is proceeding well according to schedule".
Once the engines are working properly will be the time to blog about the airframe's performance - and if they don't get the software sorted, the programme's failure would be clearly seen to have been caused by incompetence outside the direct control of EADS/Airbus Military ...

[glad rag]

FYI JP they are taking on at Seville :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Jig Peter]

@ glad rag ...
Nice to know they're "taking on" at Seville, which is a ("small" ?) sign of progress - nicer still would be "taking off", with an engine whose hard- and soft-ware work as required by the certification authority ... (Why on earth "they" decided that an aircraft destined for military use should be certificated under civil rules is a question to which, again, no satisfactory (ie, non-Sir Humphrey) answer has been given and which has been also accused of being responsible for weight above original spec).
Europrop seems to be an unusually uncommunicative outfit, and EADS seems to accept that, possibly because of military restrictions within partner governments.
Although the "respite" recently granted to the programme is far from expiring, it would seem appropriate for news of progress in the engine department to be announced (if any).

PS. For the suspicious minds, I am N O T a journalist, but I shall still be disappointed if there's a reply on the lines of "if you need to know, you know already". In any case, the state of play will be known in the end, whatever rushing for shelter from the draught from the proverbial fan may be under way ... :E

[Blighter Pilot]

Great rumours doing the rounds that the MOD have finally accepted the A400M delay and the associated airlift gap:

Option 1: Extend the C130K until 2017 for £325M

Option 2: Purchase 6 x ex-RSAF C130Es

Option 3: Purchase more C130J and C17

No doubt we will go for the cheapest option and that is not the preferred buy of C130J and C17

Ex-RSAF C130Es:mad:

[TwoStep]

'S' for Saudi?

[Blighter Pilot]

Believe so!:ok:

[Squirrel 41]

Well, that means that they've probably mean maintained on a cost-no-object basis by Lock-Mart contractors, and aren't likely to have been flogged to death (things do get flogged in Saudi, but I can't see the Herc fleet being one of them).

But another mini-fleet? Option C for common sense...... please..... (6 to 12 more C-17s and another dozen Js would be a good start!)

S41

[collbar]

I also heard a rummer last week that 5 c-130 J's had been purchased straight from the production line to replace the K's. However the Herk bloke i heard it from said it might take upto 2 years for the Gucci, easy to use floor, to be cleared for use!!!!:ok:

[VinRouge]

Why dont they just sign it off using the US clearances a la C-17? Surely most of the kit we throw out the back is American spec anyway?

[120class]

Why dont they just sign it off using the US clearances a la C-17? Surely most of the kit we throw out the back is American spec anyway?


If only that were the case for Tac AT. The Type V was a good case in point.

[Blighter Pilot]

Will these 5 C130Js with the US spec freight bay be able to drop all the boats that the C130K/C130J can at present?

[TwoStep]

Does the C-130K life extension involve the Delaware wings, seems mighty expensive if so?

[VinRouge]

If only that were the case for Tac AT. The Type V was a good case in point.

You mean before or after they bastardised the floor with the dash 4, ripped out the underfloor winch an flip floor and then decided to use quinetiq to complete the trials clearance as opposed to taking on face value the trials the US had, fully signed up?

Want to hazard a guess as to how many American spec chutes the UK could have bought with the savings found by not pushing the J through Qinetiq trials and took the aircraft with US clearances?

[Blighter Pilot]

Does the C-130K life extension involve the Delaware wings, seems mighty expensive if so?


Not sure, but believed to include new avionics upgrade as well as wing replacement for all 9 remaining C130K Mk1/3Aa.:ok:

[hello1]

Type V was a good case in point.

Probably still cheaper than replacing all 16 Bde's vehicles with American vehicles that are designed to take the landing shock that an American platorm will deliver.

But agree that we ruined a good cargo compartment for no sensible reason.

[billynospares]

Actually vin if you did indeed know your stuff you would be aware that the 4a was a retro fit as the air force ordered the j with just a flat floor and wanted to adapt the old skydel which turned out to be far too difficult and time consuming. You can knock qinetiq all you like but they werent even around when the floor got cleared for most things and if you want to take lockgreeds word for anything you are a fool :ugh:

[StopStart]

wanted to adapt the old skydel
Which just demonstrates the utter ludditery that plagues the AT fleet.

Not sure, but believed to include new avionics upgrade as well as wing replacement for all 9 remaining C130K Mk1/3Aa
And if that were true, it too would also demonstrate how far the RAF AT world had managed to get it's head up it's own arse :rolleyes:

If they really were worried about a gap in AT capability (this is INTRA-theatre AT we're talking about here, not big, Brize stuff) then they couldn't go far wrong binning the bulk of the K fleet that's left and tipping the resources and manpower freed up in generating more Js onto the flightline every day. The amount of time, effort and resources that are poured into keeping the K fleet going is wholly disproportionate to the airlift effect that is returned.

That said, this is Lyneham we're talking about and nothing makes much sense here anyway :ok:

[TwoStep]

Haven't some K's recieved some sort of recent cockpit upgrade anyway, fully glassified?

[VinRouge]

Haven't some K's recieved some sort of recent cockpit upgrade anyway, fully glassified?
Well, most of the crew have Iphones if that counts....

Unless you define "glassify" as the clinking of Kio brandy bottles on the way back from AKI.... :E


ou can knock qinetiq all you like but they werent even around when the floor got cleared for most things and if you want to take lockgreeds word for anything you are a fool

Sorry, not knocking anyone . I just think it ludicrous that we think we can do better time and time again, instead of just going fully COTS trials clearances and all. Why was a full flight test regime necessary to re-clear an aircraft that already had US clearances? Not knocking of ANY of those involved in the tests, I just think in a world that is focussed on delivering a product that functions in a cost-efficient manner. I don't see how a full flight test regime is compatible with cost-effectiveness.

[TwoStep]

Must be the i-HUD (http://www.i-hud.com/) app then...:}