A400M will not make 2009

[Navaleye]

From The Thunderer:
EADS admits hitch
Louis Gallois, the new sole chief executive of EADS, has admitted that the aerospace group is unlikely to meet its 2009 target for delivery of the A400M military transport aircraft, which is to replace the C-130 Hercules for Europe’s Nato members. He becomes EADS’s sole chief today after sharing the job with Thomas Enders, now Airbus’s chief executive. (Nick Hasell)
Surely its time to kill this turkey and stick with the Herc and more C-17s.

[passpartout]

It's not about what is good for the Armed Forces, it's about what is good for European integration and European industry.:ugh:

[MarkD]

Does anyone know:

1. How much A400M is now costing per unit compared with C-130J and C-17
2. Whether Airbus customers such as UK have the option of killing their contracted order for non-delivery? Perhaps HM's ministers could move her Airbus deposit into something that might see the light of day, like owned rather than leased A330Ks...

[West Coast]

Waiting for Beagle to weigh in.

[ORAC]

Surely its time to kill this turkey and stick with the Herc and more C-17s. It's the C-130 which is now the turkey. As I've posted and linked sveral times, the C-130 is too small to carry the next generation of vehicles for either the UK armed forces or US armed forces. The A400M can manage it. Since we can't afford a fleet of just C-17s the A400M is the only way ahead, even if it does arrive late.

[aero junkie]

MarkD,

C-17 = $220m
C-130J = $90m
A400M = $155m
Those prices are in Aussie dollars

[tucumseh]

“As I've posted and linked several times, the C-130 is too small to carry the next generation of vehicles for either the UK armed forces or US armed forces”.


ORAC is spot on. This is inextricably linked to FRES. If FRES is delayed (which it is), the pressure on A400 is seen to ease, in certain quarters. Any delay does not necessarily mean problems with the project. It is normal practice to deliberately introduce what people think of as “slippage”, but is in fact sensible realignment. I’m not saying this is the case, but it’s common practice.

Those of you who can, read the FRES URD and see where the airborne dependencies are, and read the assumptions on aircraft availability.

Of course, this does not solve the immediate lift problems and perfectly illustrates the lack of cohesion and stovepiping in the MoD. There will be those who, having “realigned” A400 and FRES, will now simply walk away for a few years thinking “I can relax now” and have absolutely no regard for current operational requirements. And the C130 IPT will certainly view this as “slippage” as presumably they’ll have to find funds to extend life. They’ll probably find out about this by reading pprune!

[BEagle]

The current delay to the A400M first flight was caused by modification to certain engine components.

That may well have knocked on to the first delivery date - to the FAF.

The gap between 'first flight' and 'first customer delivery' is, by UK standards, amazingly narrow. I'm intrigued to know how all the carriage clearances will be obtained in such a short time.

Under no circumstances can the C-17 be termed a 'turkey'! The A400M fills the gap between the C-130 and the C-17 and, although it isn't a direct competitor for either, strikes a good compromise of payload/range/speed v. cost.

[Porrohman]

Is the A400M an ambitious enough design? I have compared the A400M to the Shorts Belfast from 40 plus years ago with surprising results.

According to Wikipedia, the empty weight of the A400M is about 11 tonnes more than that of the Shorts Belfast. They both carry approximately the same maximum payload (36.3 Belfast vs. 37 tonnes A400M). I expected that the weight of the mission equipment etc in the A400M would be more than offset by weight reductions as a result of technology and materials improvements in other areas but this doesn't seem to be the case. Granted, the A400M has 800nm more range at max payload but it needs twice the power and 14 tonnes more fuel to carry out a max payload mission because of the 11 tonnes of extra empty weight and the higher fuel consumption. At Max payload and Max TOW, the Belfast flew 107.9 miles per tonne of fuel whilst the A400M only manages 77.5 miles per tonne of fuel; the Belfast therefore flew 39.3% further per tonne of fuel. The Belfast could carry significantly more troops and had a slightly longer ferry range than the A400M, albeit at a lower cruising speed and altitude.

I don't doubt that the A400M's survivability in a hostile environment would be much better than a Belfast's, but how often would the A400M be deployed in such a way? I don't doubt that the higher cruise speed of the A400M will increase productivity. But do the mission equipment and 800m range increase and higher cruising speed/altitude justify the 11 tonne increase in empty weight and much higher fuel consumption vs. the Belfast?

Given the advances in so many technologies and materials that have taken place over the past 40 years or so (FBW, composite materials, digital electronics, aerodynamics, engines etc), I had expected much better weights and performance figures for the A400M. Or am I being unfair in my comparisons?

[BEagle]

"....albeit at a lower cruising speed and altitude."

Not for nothing was it termed the 'Belslow'.

One of the most useless features of the ponderous old thing - the Machmeter.

Figures I have show an economic cruise speed of 315 mph at 24000 - that's 273KTAS which is around 190KIAS and M0.45..... With its 35.3 tonne max payload, the Belslow had a range of 1000 nm; with 10 tonnes, it had a range of 3600 nm - but wars would be over before it could lumber onto the scene.

Whereas the A400M will cruise at M0.72 and 31000 ft after a MTOW take-off - and carry 37 tonnes for 1800 nm or 10 tonnes for 4400 nm.

Which, as far as max payload is concerned, is 4% more, 80% further and 60% quicker........

[MarkD]

aero junkie - many thanks.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

17 x C17 @ 220 must be a better option than 25 A400s for same total outlay.

It's also a proven frame as opposed to the 400.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

OTTB,

Now you just know that the old chap with "the floppy ears" is going to tell you why you are so wrong :p

[Navaleye]

Actually, that's a very good point. Also it would save the cost of supporting two different types.

[BEagle]

Fair point.

Don't forget, though, that the RAF's C-17s were originally leased as the STSA rather than as the FLA....

The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s will now be bought and the STSA will become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, presumably the A330 MRTT – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it would be.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was when a MRTT rather than a FSTA was being considered.

So:

C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA will be an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA.
A330 MRTT will probably be the FSTA under PFI but not a FTA .


But WTF is currently going on with FSTA I have no idea.

Except that the price seems to keep going up...and the delays keep getting longer.

...and that sounds like another piece of DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage which has just gone thundering over my house at 0003 local, incapable of following the RW08 SID....:mad:

[Porrohman]

Not for nothing was it termed the 'Belslow'.


Which, as far as max payload is concerned, is 4% more, 80% further and 60% quicker........


BEagle, the Belslow certainly wasn’t fast, and I laughed out loud at your comment concerning the mach meter, but I think you’re comparing max cruise speed on the A400M with long range cruise speed on the Belfast, so the difference isn’t quite as great as you suggest.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, cruise speed on the Belfast was 358mph, but my Putnam’s “Aircraft of the Royal Air Force” says that long range cruise was 315mph (same as your figure) and max cruise was 346mph. You’re quite correct however to point to a significant speed and range advantage in favour of the A400M. Is that enough to justify the huge increases in empty weight and fuel consumption though?

If (hypothetically of course) FBW controls, composite materials, digital electronics, some aerodynamic improvements and improved engines were applied to a Belfast, I’d have thought that the weight savings and improved efficiency would allow it equal the A400M’s payload/range (but not the speed). Why then is the empty weight of the A400M 11 tonnes more than the Belfast and it's fuel consumption 39.3% higher? Is the A400M an ambitious enough / efficient enough design?

Many future airlift needs will require ranges, payloads and speeds beyond the capability of the A400M. Wouldn’t it be better to buy the C5 (if production could be restarted), C17, A380 or B747 for sectors where speed, range and payload are more important than tactical capability, and then shorter range tactical transports to move cargo from there to the forward operating base where countermeasures, short/rough field performance, manoeuvrability, airdrop capability, turnaround time etc are priorities? This would be a logical specialisation in terms of both aircraft and aircrew capabilities.

[BEagle]

I don't know where you get your 'huge increase in fuel consumption' from? But wth nearly twice the power of the Tyne, the TP400 certainly doesn't have twice the thirst.

The larger OEW is partly due to the fact that the A400M is a rugged aircraft with a tactical load limit of in excess of 2.5g. Something which cannot be said of the Belfast.

As for using C5, A380, C-17 or B747, then transferring to a 'tactical' aircraft - that's precisely what the A400M is designed to overcome! It has the payload/range/speed of a strategic transport (but not the outsize capability of the An124, for example) - plus the characteristics necessary for a modern, rugged, tactical transport. As well as the ability to be used as a tactical tanker.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Bearing in mind the current and set to deteriorate even more troop/equipment level problems we have and the fact that, despite the very brave efforts of all those directly involved we are making little if no headway in the current 2 theatres of Op's can someone explain to me exatcly what the purchase of so many A400's is all about?

[Good Mickey]

To replace the rapidly deteriorating C130Ks. The AT fleet is in dire straits at the moment...25 A400Ms would be just the tonic.

GM

[Saintsman]

Whilst the performance of the A400M is the main consideration, also in the equation is the maintenance and support costs. The A400M will require very little maintenance with the first 'heavy' check at the two year point only taking about a week. The running costs will be considerably less than a C130plus it also gives better availability and therefore a smaller fleet is required.

[BEagle]

The A400M should indeed require fewer maintenance inspections than current AT types (although I though the C check interval was 15 months?).

But will the spanner branch really allow that? Or will it be over serviced to death like most other RAF aircraft?

Some airlines allow a 25 minute turnround time for flights with fare paying passengers. Yet when I was flying the FunBus, the engineers at group were insisting on 2 hour turnrounds for something similar. Most of which was filling out all their infernal servicing paperwork and checking things which had just worked quite happily for the previous 5 hours.....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BEagle, for DTMA read DSCOM. DE&S get very prickly (how apt!) about having their version of Newspeak disregarded.

[LowObservable]

The Belslow/A400M comparison's a bit of a red herring. As Beagle has pointed out, the A400M is much faster and stressed for tactical operations. It also flies higher and has a sensible crap-runway landing gear (three times as many wheels as a C-130, as many as the twice-the-size C-17). And if you look at the Belslow's payload-range performance and use the noggin a bit, you can see that it is a steep plummet from 80000 pounds at 970 sm to a mere 20000 pounds (MTOW minus OEW minus max fuel) at 5200 sm... even at 40000 pounds paylod, you can only carry 75 per cent fuel.

As for the C-17 - Boeing will offer you a good end-of-the-line price and the dollar's value helps. But it's a big aircraft, so think about the maintenance, the fuel burn and all that entails.

[Porrohman]

I don't disagree that the A400M is faster and has a longer range than the Belfast. I just struggle to understand why its empty weight is 11 tonnes more than the Belfast and why the Belfast could travel almost 40% further per tonne of fuel whilst carrying almost the same payload. Given the huge technological advances that have taken place in the last 40 plus years I am yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward so far that the A400M design is particularly ambitious or efficient, especially when used in a long-range strategic airlift role where it lacks the range, payload and speed to be particularly effective.

The Airbus Military website http://www.airbusmilitary.com/missions.html#RAPID illustrates my point perfectly. It shows a couple of typical A400M missions, both of which could be predominantly strategic in nature and would probably be better served using C5Ms, C17ERs or B747 Dreamlifters for outsize cargo and A380Fs or B747-8Fs for the rest, with A400Ms, C130Js and helicopters being used for the final short hop to the front line.

The Middle East mission envisages setting off from Paris with a fuel stop outbound in Cyprus. Departing from the UK instead of Paris, the duration of the outbound flight is probably 10.5 hours by A400M (I've added 1 hour for a fuel stop and another hour for departing from the UK rather than Paris). A B747-8F or A380F could fly the same sector non-stop in just over 6 hours carrying four or five times the payload. Why use a tactical airlifter and tactically trained aircrew to perform what is clearly a strategic airlift task? In any case, would the RAF have sufficient aircrew to be able to achieve the levels of aircraft utilisation envisaged by this two week A400M operation? I suspect not.

The payload / range / speed capabilities of the A400M would be even less appropriate if the Far East humanitarian operation illustrated on the Airbus Military website had required transportation of substantial quantities of relief supplies from Europe. The Airbus scenario envisages ferrying the aircraft from Denmark to Australia with minimal payload and it takes 32 hours to complete the trip. With a 30 ton payload, and departing from the UK rather than Denmark an extra stop would be needed and the total journey time might be about 35 hours. A B747-8F or an A380 could complete this journey in about 19 hours whist carrying 120 or 150 tonnes of relief supplies. By ferrying the aircraft out with minimal payload, the scenario painted by Airbus implicitly accepts that the A400M is not a suitable vehicle for delivering cargo across such long ranges, and that it is better suited to delivering the final short hop from Australia to Timor.

The A400M would certainly be a very useful asset to the RAF in the tactical transport role. In the short range tactical mission it might be even more useful if it could carry more than 37 tonnes payload in exchange for less fuel. According to the Airbus specifications, this doesn’t appear to be possible though.

It’s obvious for all to see that the RAF needs a major boost to its airlift capability and I don’t disagree that the A400M would be a useful addition to the short range tactical airlift fleet. I have yet to be convinced however that it’s a particularly efficient design, especially when used in the long range strategic airlift role.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

GM,

The post above is what I was trying to get at and whilst I fully aggree with your sentiments surely the purchase of more C17's and more C130J's would make sense, both tried and tested and currently performing well.

The A400 is already late and the cynic in me see's it only ever slipping further to the right therefore not solving the very problems you allude to :(

[LowObservable]

PM,
I quite agree that a slower turboprop will outperform the best jet (edit: or quasi-jet-speed aircraft) in MPG, and that's partly because it does weigh less, so both your observations are correct. To take a simple, comparable example, a Bombardier Q400 turboprop - with not much more advanced tech than the Belfast - is more effiicient than the same company's similarly sized CRJ.
However, the Belslow is just that, which has a special meaning in military airlift where the figure of merit is tons/aircraft/day. If the aircraft is half as fast then you need twice as many to deliver X amount of kit in Y hours.
As for the converted civvy freighter: an idea that Boeing tried to pursue on many occasions, including a 747 derivative with a long nose ramp and a kneeling front gear that looked like a giant puking dog.
The problem here is utility. The Civvy freighter can't be unloaded without large specialized pieces of equipment (scissor lifts). It's confined to large airports with major taxiways and 10,000 foot concrete runways. Absent those things its utility declines to zero.

[barnstormer1968]

When I read of comparisons between the A400 and the Belfast, I was anticipating a lot of banter, I feel sadly let down. There have been no guide lines to ignore Wikipedia, or tales of how the Belfast could often have a speed of under 100knots, while flying in windy conditions.
I will admit that when seeing Belfast's fly overhead on my way home from primary school, I used to think they were stunning (certainly more exciting than Argosy's and Brittania's). But not really a serious rival in speed to either C130 or A400.
So (and sorry for further thread creep), as the Belfast is now very old, and the RAF has sold them on (and re chartered them recently), why don't we buy them back, and upgrade them in true British make do and mend tradition. how about composite wings, and modern turbo props, or more realistically, the same wings, and engines, but a nice new paint job (done privately), with a shiny Royal Air Force logo near the passenger doors. surely the snazzy new logo will add 200kts all by itself.
Sorry for my above nonsense, but most of the replies seem to be too serious in regards to true PPRuNe tradition.
OK. getting coat, and off to take medication here.:}

[LowObservable]

I was waiting for this to get posted...

"Belfast XB 225 arrived serviceable at Changi, ex Gan, at 1745 GMT, flight time 11 hours 56 minutes. No signs of scurvy amongst the crew".

[Porrohman]

barnstormer1968; I now have a picture in my mind of a Belslow with go-faster stripes... Come to think of it, didn't the original transport command colour scheme have go-faster stripes?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0792090
They obviously didn't work! :ok:

By the way, there's an almost airworthy Belslow at Southend (G-BEPS ex XR368 Theseus) which has been refurbished and is just minus one prop at the moment. Maybe someone should try fitting some TP400s to it to see what happens? That would be interesting. Maybe it would finally become a Belfast.

[airsound]

OK I’ll bite. I’ve stood back while ignorant insults have been poked at the totally lovely Long Belslow, Queen of the Skies, and the envy of lesser trucky mortals throughout Transport/Air Support Command. I had the inestimable privilege of being the last Flt Cdr Ops on 53 Sqn (the Belfast sqn) until an ungrateful and ignorant government disbanded the sqn and sold the fleet of 10 aircraft to Heavylift - only to find they had to rehire them in order to keep the airbridge to Ascension going during the Falklands Unpleasantness. So I’m not biassed at all.

Anyway, where to start. 53 was a great outfit, shared a sqn building at Brize with 10, then the sole VC-10 sqn. Amongst the sqn bon mots, Four good screws are better than a blow job any day. And the great thing about Belfast ops was that there were no schedules, no slip crews, just ‘specials’, where you went off down the route as a crew, nightstopping all sorts of interesting places en route (and some less interesting) and brought the beast back similarly.

One of the good things about the Belfast was that it had no doors that could be opened in flight. Hence none of that nasty brutish tactical stuff. Interestingly, although these days we’ve moved into the sunlit uplands of C-17 ops, RAF C-17s are not actually used for tactical ops as far as I know - too expensive, or something. I’m not even sure that the USAF really uses C-17s in the TacT role. So, maybe there is still a role for Strat T, even though the C-17 boasts its cross-role capabilities.

Incidentally, 53 would have been a much better number for the C-17 sqn than 99 - 53 dated back to the first world war, had a distinguished second world war record with Liberators et al, and, of course, had been a heavy-lift transport sqn in its most recent incarnation, rather than a sqn of mere ex-airliners like 99’s Britannias.

I’m not sure I buy the arguments about speed either. When you need to get a big, bulky load, or quite a lot of troops, into a theatre where normal airliner ops aren’t feasible, I don’t believe that mach number is necessarily significant. Often the important thing is to get the load there within a day or two, rather than instantaneously.

Another good thing about the Belfast was the size of the flight deck. I’ve seen 16 people comfortably fitted in, in flight. Not quite sure why that’s a good thing, but it seemed fun at the time. Especially when you could use the Smith’s Flight System (very advanced for those days) to demonstrate to a visiting pongo (Major) that it was an ‘audio auto-pilot’, and if he just used the correct tone of voice and command, the aircraft would do as he said. We only realised afterwards that his RSM had been standing at the back of the flight deck falling about laughing at his boss’ antics. The Major’s sense of humour failure warning light began flashing rapidly when he cottoned on......

I could go on.....

airsound

[barnstormer1968]

That's more like the spirit. as I said earlier, I used to love to watch the Belfast's as a child, and yes, in the old "go faster stripe" colours. Belfast's used to seem to be a nicer looking cousin (sort of) of the C133.
I would hazard a guess that the Belfast is still in service, but can't say the same of the C133.
Anyway, I still could not resist the urge to ask for banter, and have to admit that I can read the "no sign of scurvy in the crew" over and over, and it still brings a smile.

Barnstormer1968:)

[mayorofgander]

Hi Gang;

The 'audio' auto-pilot got used on the Klassic to great effect every so often too.

Bit more difficult on the Electric Herc!!!

Later;
MOG:cool:

[Navaleye]

airsound,

I believe the last Belfast is no longer in service with Heavylift, but would be happy to be proved wrong.

[galaxy flyer]

Airsound:

You should start a thread..."Flew the Belfast?" I'll bet lots of good stories. At the end of position report, "and no signs of scurvy."

The amazing thing is, in the end very little tonnage is moved by air. Desert Storm, air was only about 4% of tonnage and only half by C-5. And we were flat-out most of the time. It is all the high-value stuff that moves by air. On the C-5, our biggest customer was AF tactical units or huge Navy stuff that wasn't urgent, just only feasible by air. Moved many Navy loads because moving overland was just impossible. A400 is just a modern (?) Belfast.

GF

[ga99js]

Galaxy flyer:
A400 is just a modern (?) Belfast.


Not really true. The A400 is really optimised for Tac Stuff (Low-level, soft natural surface TLZs at night, air-drop etc), and is actually not very big (wingspan only 6ft more than C130). The Belfast was a big slow strategic transporter- as someone pointed out, you couldn't even open a door in flight in the belfast let alone drop anything out.

Just because it's got 4 turbo-props and similar lifting capacity doesn't make the two aircraft the same.

You might as well say "The C-17 is just a modern Boeing 707".

[Porrohman]

I believe the last Belfast is no longer in service with Heavylift, but would be happy to be proved wrong.


As far as I know, Heavylift Australia is still flying one Belfast which is based in Brisbane but registered in the Philipines as RP-C8020 (ex Hector - RAF Serial XR365, ex G-HLFT, then operated by Heavylift Australia as 9L-LDQ, and re-registered in the Philipines last year). http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1202426

They're looking at bringing Southend's G-BEPS (ex Theseus - RAF Serial XR368) back into service and I read that it had been rewired and three of the four engines refitted and tested. I believe it's just waiting for a serviceable prop for the fourth engine. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1192370

If you're a fan of 4 x Tynes, there's a thread in the Freight Dogs forum in PPRuNe regarding the CL-44O Guppy, currently at Bournmouth, that you might be interested in. http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1250447

[airsound]

You should start a thread..."Flew the Belfast?" I'll bet lots of good stories. At the end of position report, "and no signs of scurvy."
Thanks for the suggestion, GF, it shall be done - and that might avoid further threadcreep here

Just to say, though, before I go - although the Belfast was nowhere near as big as your ginormous Galaxy, we could do one thing you couldn’t (I think!). Our freight bay cross section was 12ft x 12ft, which meant you could put a Sea King in without taking the rotor head off, and we often did, for instance taking a VIP version of SK down to Cairo for President Sadat. (Obviously, you folded the blades......)

airsound

[LowObservable]

(Obviously, you folded the blades......)

Well, they would be folded once you loaded it, particularly if they were still going round.

[Porrohman]

As for using C5, A380, C-17 or B747, then transferring to a 'tactical' aircraft - that's precisely what the A400M is designed to overcome! It has the payload/range/speed of a strategic transport (but not the outsize capability of the An124, for example) - plus the characteristics necessary for a modern, rugged, tactical transport.

A tactical delivery by A400M from the UK direct to a destination in say Afghanistan or Iraq will take well over 10 hours to reach the destination and would require a fuel stop on the way. The crew would be exhausted by the time they had to carry out the tactical part of the mission. :zzz: Taking the Iraq example, I suppose they could put a fresh crew on in Cyprus who would then undertake the tactical delivery to Iraq and return to Cyprus, but I suspect that the A400M would need to be air-to-air refuelled along the way back from Iraq to Cyprus and it’s going to be a long and tiring round trip for a tactical aircrew to undertake. I would have thought it would make a lot more sense to fly the cargo by strategic airlifter to a suitable base in the Gulf region, then use the tactical airlifters (C-130Js and/or A400Ms) to move the kit the last few hundred miles.

The problem here is utility. The Civvy freighter can't be unloaded without large specialized pieces of equipment (scissor lifts). It's confined to large airports with major taxiways and 10,000 foot concrete runways. Absent those things its utility declines to zero.

If there isn’t already that capability at the far end of the strategic air bridge, the simple solution to this problem is to fly the scissor lifts etc out in a C17. If you look at the major airlift operations carried out in the last 60 years by the RAF, there has almost always been a nice long concrete runway available in the general vicinity, and a safe enough distance away from the front line to mean that the strategic airlifters don’t need to be militarized to any significant extent.

In the 60’s the RAF used Comets, VC10s, Britannias and Belfasts to carry out the strategic airlift role. Then Beverleys, Twin Pins, helicopters etc to move cargo from the strategic bridgehead to the front line. Nowadays for the strategic airlift role, the RAF uses lots of “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” to augment their own Tristars, VC10s (both of which are obsolete) and C17s. As far as I know, the C17s are only used in the strategic airlift role, being seen as too expensive an asset to put in harms way (especially as they’re leased, not owned).

Why don’t the RAF lease or buy some modern, "bog-standard" commercial widebodies as FSAs (Future Strategic Airlifters) to replace the VC10s, Tristars and “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” in the transport role? There’s more than enough work to keep a fleet of new widebodies heavily utilised these days and they would require far less fuel and maintenance per tonne/km than the current fleet. I see this role as a completely separate requirement from the FSTA; FSAs would be far more efficient without all the plumbing and other mission equipment that are necessary for FSTA but unnecessary for FSAs. I’m sure Airbus in particular would offer a great deal on A380s, A330s or A340s at the moment. FSAs would be far more efficient at shifting the bulk of the cargo and troops than the fleets that are used at present. Much greener too. This would free the tactical airlift fleet and their crews to perform the tactical role they’re trained for rather than spending much of their time trucking up and down the airways. It would allow the VC10s and Tristars to focus on their tanking role until the FSTA arrives (the sooner the better). It would free the C17s to focus on shifting outsized loads and it would allow the RAF to cut down on the amount of “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” which goes thundering over BEagle’s house "at 0003 local, incapable of following the RW08 SID". :ok:

[Modern Elmo]

Why don’t the RAF lease or buy some modern, "bog-standard" commercial widebodies as FSAs (Future Strategic Airlifters) to replace the VC10s, Tristars and “DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage” in the transport role? There’s more than enough work to keep a fleet of new widebodies heavily utilised these days and they would require far less fuel and maintenance per tonne/km than the current fleet.

Why not just outsource that to Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc.?

[Modern Elmo]

A400 says no thanks to mbt’s:

Challenger 2 Tank
Type Main battle tank
Place of origin United Kingdom
Production history
Manufacturer Alvis Vickers
Specifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2_tank

Weight 62.5 tonnes
Length 8.3 m (11.50m with gun forward)
Width 3.5 m (4.2 m with appliqué armour)
Height 2.5 m
….

Technical Specifications

Dimensions
Overall Length 45.1 m
Wing Span 42.4 m
Overall Height 14.7 m

Cargo Box Dimensions
Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m
Ramp Length 5.40 m
Width 4.00 m
Height 3.85 m
Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m

Weights (2.25g)
Max. Take-off Weight 136.5 t
Max. Landing Weight 120 t
Max. Payload 37 t
Total Internal Fuel 47.7 t

Performance
Cruise Speed Range Mach 0.68 - 0.72
Max. Operating Speed 300 kt CAS
Initial Cruise Altitude at MTOW 29 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Normal ops 37 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Special ops 40 000 ft
Range at Max. Payload * 1700 nm
Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2400 nm
Range at 20-tonne Payload * 3450 nm
Ferry Range * 4750 nm
Tactical Take-Off Distance ** 1150 m
Tactical Landing Distance ** 680 m

* Long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011B.
** Conditions: Aircraft weight 110 t, all engines operative, ISA+15, sea level, soft/dry runway;
TOD as take-off distance to clear 50 ft obstacle;
LD as ground roll + 500 ft.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html)

This, from the above Wikipedia, sounds like b.s:

As with earlier versions of the 120 mm gun, the rounds are in two parts, a charge and a warhead. Contrary to speculation, this does not reduce the rate of fire of Challenger 2 ...

Right.

[Modern Elmo]

Boeing might claim that a C-17 loaded with the A400’s maximum payload of 55,115 pounds might have about the same STOL performance as an A400. Boeing also has a C-17B proposal, with more thrust and more flaps and better short field performance than the C-17A.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/fla.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/fla.htm)

A400M Future Large Aircraft - FLA
Avion de Transport Futur – ATF

Weights

Maximum Take-off Weight 110.850 kg 244,378 lb
Maximum Landing Weight N/A
Maximum Payload 25,000 kg 55,115 lb
Maximum Fuel N/A
Number of Fully Equipped Troops 105

Number of 88"x108" Pallets 9


Performances
Maximum Speed 422 ktas<
Maximum Cruising Speed Mach 0.68
Take-off Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50ft) < 1,067 m
< 3,500´
Landing Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) < 1,067 m < 3,500´
Maximum Range 7,593 km
4,100 nm
Range with Full Load 4,000 km
2,100 nm

Performances

Maximum Speed 422 ktas<
Maximum Cruising Speed Mach 0.68
Take-off Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50ft) < 1,067 m
< 3,500´
Landing Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft) < 1,067 m < 3,500´
Maximum Range 7,593 km
4,100 nm
Range with Full Load 4,000 km
2,100 nm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf)

… With a payload of 160,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles, and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less. The C-17 is equipped with an externally blown flap system that allows a steep, low-speed final approach and low-landing speeds for routine short-field landings. …

General Characteristics:

Length:
174 feet (53.04 m)
Height at Tail:
Wing Span to Wingtips:
55.1 feet (16.79 m)
169.8 feet (51.74 m)
Maximum Payload:
At 4,000 nautical miles:
164,900 lbs. (74,797 kg)
100,300 lbs. (45,495 kg)
Range with Payload:
160,000 pounds:
40,000 pounds (paratroop):
2,420 nautical miles
5,610 nautical miles
Cruise Speed:
0.74 – 0.77 Mach
Takeoff Field Length (Max Gross Weight):
7,740 ft. (2,359.15 m)
Landing Field Length:
160,000 lbs of Cargo:
3,000 ft. (914.40 m)

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/index.htm

The C-17's ability to fly long distances and land in remote airfields in rough, land-locked regions make it a premier transporter for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. It can:

Take off from a 7,600-ft. airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds, fly 2,400 nautical miles, refuel while in flight and land in 3,000 ft. or less on a small unpaved or paved airfield in day or night.
Carry a cargo of wheeled U.S. Army vehicles in two side-by-side rows, including the U.S. Army's main battle tank, the M-1. Three Bradley infantry-fighting vehicles comprise one load.
Drop a single 60,000-lb. payload, with sequential load drops of 110,000 lb.
Back up a two-percent slope.
Seat 54 on the sidewall and 48 in the centerline. ...