Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
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!!
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!
should 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
Quote:
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.
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?
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?
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.
Regardless of your incorrect pricing analysis, the availability of C17 and C130J to UK (as a buyer) is apparently not as good as the headlines suggest, which kind of defeats the object....
C17 is a busted flush in this argument; it's great but it isn't what we need more of. Even if we got more, the ability to use it how we use C130J/K is massively limited by finance, safety cases et al.
As to your last statement, you adopt a classic Daily Mail tactic designed for simpletons. Yes the ac is overweight, as was the C17, C130 (inc J) and a bunch of other large ac that I can't even be bothered to list. It's what seems to inevitably happen during the design stage. The weight doesn't really matter as long as the ac meets it's performance guarantees; and these include a whole load of parametrics, not just payload/range.
Your point on the floor is just plain wrong from a UK perspective.
The A400M isn't brilliant, there are a load of issues that need to get ironed out before it flies and gets delivered. I would have personally favoured acquiring 35 more C130J ac and 3 more C17, but that decision wasn't taken 10 years ago. Given where we are the C17 and J model are not viable either financially or temporally. I'm not a huge fan of the political decision making that enforced A400M on us, but that is sadly history.
Don't know where your sources are, but you may want to re-visit....
Thanks, Equivocator, for that response to the Green Knight. I agree with what you say, and would only add that GK’s statement
Quote:
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?
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......
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:
Quote:
Estimated unit cost was originally US$90M. The unit cost has since climbed to over US$156M (€100 million).
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.
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?
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 ...
(Mods, please feel free (as they say) to re-assign this post ...)
Oops - 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)
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.....
Last edited by ORAC : 29th June 2009 at 23:26.
Reason: sp
Revising software
- 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.
Linear Mode
