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.
... 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?
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...
And if the rumours are to be believed the A400M will not have an initial Tac role or be allowed to work NSO TLZs
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.
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 ...
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'
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...
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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
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.........
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.
Linear Mode
