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.
Plans to convert old commercial aircraft into military transporters are being considered by the Ministry of Defence as it grapples with a severe lack of air transport capability. The MoD is understood to be considering a number of options to fill a gap that has been created by the near four-year delay to the Airbus A400M, which will perform the bulk of the Royal Air Force’s transport missions when it is eventually introduced.
One option under review is to convert old BAe146 aircraft into military transporters. They can be bought or leased for as little as $2 million (£1.2 million) each, which is an attractive proposition for defence chiefs facing future possible budget cuts. The four-engined 146 is unusual among commercial aircraft because it is capable of steep ascent and descent, which is necessary for military missions. It is used at airports such as London City, which requires a steep descent, as well as countries including India where regional airports often have runways that are too short for larger commercial jets.
The 146, also called the Avro RJ in some variations, was developed by British Aerospace in the late 1970s. It came into service in 1983 and 387 of them were sold, making it the most successful British commercial aircraft. However, production was stopped in 2002 because BAE Systems was losing money on the project. Several hundred aircraft are still in service, many owned by BAE’s Asset Management division, which leases them to customers such as Lufthansa and Swiss International.
The older aircraft are being retired from commercial service and turned into freighters. BAE has identified the RAF as a potential new customer and the 146 has been offered to the MoD as an option to increase the RAF’s airlift capacity until the A400M enters service. The MoD is also considering buying or leasing C130Js built by Lockheed Martin and Boeing’s C17.
The MoD is understood to favour a combination of these purpose-built military aircraft but they are both expensive options. The C130J costs between $60 million and $90 million and the C17 Globemaster III costs up to $250 million. These aircraft can carry considerably more cargo than the 146, which has a payload of about 12.5 tonnes. The C130 can carry nearly 20 tonnes and the C17 up to 77 tonnes.
BAE believes that cost could be the decisive factor for the MoD. A company spokesman said: “We believe that the 146 will offer cost-effective additional airlift capabilities for an interim or long-term requirement, particularly at a time when defence budgets are under strain.”
The RAF’s existing fleet of C130K Hercules transport aircraft was introduced in 1966 and the planes are being retired having reached the end of their working lives. The RAF has ordered 25 A400Ms for about £2.6 billion to replace the Hercules and had expected to receive the first aircraft next year. Technical difficulties have meant that Airbus still has not flown the aircraft and deliveries have been pushed back until 2012 or 2013.
Airbus has written off €2.4 billion on the A400M project and is losing money at a rate of about €1 billion a year on it. Despite the delays, the launch customers, including Britain, have agreed to continue with the project and a new contract will be signed later this year.
The MoD said it was considering all options to fill the capability shortfall created by the A400M delay, but declined to comment on specific aircraft.
How robust is the 146 and are there huge differences between the types that are going surplus in the civvy world and those currently operated by the RAF?
I assume that the MoD is looking at the cargo aircraft with the roller floor and the big main deck cargo doors.
This is a robust aircraft by civil standards and quite up to taking some of the non tactical workload from the C130 fleet.
What I am not happy with is the military getting yet another ex-airline aircraft that is fast aproaching its sell by date, but at the end of the day as long as it is a stop gap and not an excuse to cancel the A400 or more C17's it will be welcome.
Didn't BAE tout a military version of the 146 a few years back? Did it have any rough field capability?
Yes, that was the 146STA, which was based on the QT (Quiet Trader) Freighter, which has a roller floor and a side cargo door. Some colleagues of mine helped with a static display of it at Farnborough way back when.
Payload was about 10 tons, on IIRC 5 of the pallets you normally find in the back of a C130 (although capacity to stack them as high/wide would be limited by the size of the 146 fuselage).
Quote:
Did it have any rough field capability?
I believe at least one private operator in the Middle East does fly them from gravel. The main trailing link landing gear is well known for it's ability to cushion the most robust of arrivals.
Then of course, it's little engines share the same ancestry as those on the Chinook, ie, a tank!
Im going to guess it would be a pretty short spoke if it had a 10t payload on board. There would then be the question of fuselage shape which im guessing would be restrictive, even compared to a T*. You would need a hell of a lot of "spoke" flights to cover the one "hub" flight. IMO this would be a bit of a non-starter from an efficiency point of view but im sure BWOS will take any opportunity they can to try and screw some more from the defence budget
IIRC the predecessor to the 146 was being developed as a replacement for the Argosy. I was cancelled with the TSR 2 etc, and along came the Hercules. The British engines had been cancelled as well so the 146 we know now had to wait for US designed engines.
Hey i saw a 146 at Bastion this week!! This sounds like a fairly good idea to me. If aircraft are available and waiting to be used, a couple of months to fit defence aids, thats already proven on the RAF fleet.
There must be a dozen or so qualified 146 crews knocking about the AT fleet that wouldnt cost the earth re-qualify.
They are a proven, agreed in civil life, and fairly reliable compared to our creaking C-130 fleet. Surely they could be up and running in 6 months on a cheep rolling 6 month lease
Just a couple of these trundling about the major stan hubs would surely take some strain away from the C-130 fleet even if they just took pax.
I know.. pan space is required... Another supply chain... Who will service them etc etc but for such a cheep option i can see the attraction
Of course if PJHQ just put Kandibar pax on aircraft bound to Kandibar, and Bastion pax on aircraft bound for Bastion, half the problem would be solved!!!
I love 'em - and spending as much time as I do, sleeping in Docklands, I appreciate their low noise levels. Another small consideration that might work in their favour maybe.
A worthy note to finish off the 'career' of a brilliant little aeroplane.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 15,974
Have they fixed the BAe-146 organophosphate poisoning issue yet?
Smelly little things - that sweaty socks / labrador sick smell is due to contamination in the cabin conditioning system. BWoS allege that it's no problem, but several pilots apparently suffered long-term ill-health after flying the 146 for a few years.......
In the RJ85 version used by Lufthansa Cityline, there's a high pitched whistle in the front cabin somewhere over Row 1 which is maddening - but it isn't present in the old 146 used by Lufthansa Eurowings.
The only technical delays I've had in several hundred flights with Lufthansa have been on the BAe146 / RJ85.
It may be, but the question is would they be better than nothing?
This government (and the one that follows it) is hardly likely to announce a procurement program for new aircraft any time soon, rather they'll keep chipping away as much as they can.
Whilst many are critical of the Tristars they have performed many years of valued service even though they were brought as a stop-gap.
Yes it'd be great to have an order placed for something perfect and brand-new but as I said, its not going to happen, no matter how much you and I argue the point on here.
So the question is, if the MoD could purchase them as a 'stop gap', would they be better than nothing?
The 146, also called the Avro RJ in some variations, was developed by British Aerospace in the late 1970s. It came into service in 1983 and 387 of them were sold, making it the most successful British commercial aircraft. However, production was stopped in 2002 because BAE Systems was losing money on the project. Several hundred aircraft are still in service
We only sold 387, how can several hundred aircraft still be in service, what a load of bollokcs?
Linear Mode
