JSF and A400M at risk?

[StopStart]

To be honest, and at the risk of dragging this off topic, I don't know that the C130K fleet retiring a bit earlier is really going to have that much of an effect. Sure there'll be a capability gap in a couple of areas but on the whole the transfer of engineering effort and funding onto the J fleet might actually generate more 'frames on the line here. Couple that with the draw-down of TELIC freeing up (hopefully!) more airframes it might be possible to get by without too much pain. Not looking for an argument (!) just stating things as I see it :)

[Co-Captain]

Assuming said frames aren't pulled out of the big Telic frying pan into the big Herrick fire... :bored:

Here's hoping...

[VinRouge]

well, with the credit crisis in full swing, its going to be next to impossible for them to cancel the project...

WE could end up with far too much AT (not that that is any bad thing) when a400m comes into service. Shame we will probably be out of afghanistan by that stage...

[XV277]

Is this news or old news? Yesterday's Hansard:

Both - first time I've seen it mentioned by a Govt Minister, but there has always been a suspicion that the C-17 buy would be more than 6 - reserving up to 10 tail numbers for them for one!!

The cynic in me suspects that ordering 'one or two' in dribs and drabs as needed is seen as more politically acceptable, and easier to hide, than ordering 6 at one go.

[moosemaster]

I personally have never heard 10 C17s being the desired number from the UK stand-point. The UK was always after 8, with Boeing saying it wouldn't place a sim in UK until there were 10 A/C for it to support. However, I've been out of the "loop" for a few years now....

So, back to the point,

Diario de Sevilla - EADS anuncia un retraso de al menos tres años en la entrega del... (http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/economia/323334/eads/anuncia/retraso/menos/tres/anos/la/entrega/am.html)

The article above (for those who can't speak spanish) is basically saying that first delivery will not be until 3 years after first flight. With first flight delayed until late 2010, that puts FAF delivery at late 2013, and RAF at around 2015.

Good news is though, from one who is partially 'in the know', I haven't heard of any reduction in capability.......yet! :ok:

I can agree that there have been some rather major underestimations made on both sides of the fence. Airbus thought it was 'just another Airbus' and allocated resources accordingly, while the customer wanted a mini C17 straight off the bat and underestimated exactly how much work and technology has gone into a C17. Not to mention the fact that the C17 is a bit bigger, with jets and so the engineering solutions can be a little bit more....chunky!!

Never had a chance of working like that, but we're getting there, slowly but slowly...:ugh:


As for the "other aircraft" that could be offered, as EADS is the parent company for CASA as well as Airbus, the pax role could be filled by the offered A330s, and the flat floor role could be filled with a few C-295s. With 57 already in international service, at least it's available and has a proven track record.

Naturally a 295 is smaller than Albert, but the stats aren't too bad really.
71 seats + 4 optional
Floor load of 3 land rovers or similar
5 108"x88" pallets.

Not too far off a Mk1 for payload, but speed and range suffer a bit as it's only a twin.

[Gainesy]

Av Week's take , EADS brochure:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/Gainesy/A400Mrescue.jpg

[Modern Elmo]

The new US administration will (probably already is) be looking very hard at costs in every direction, and with so much "fiat money" (not the Italian Fiat) being poured into economies, even cautious Germany, there are certainly rocky times to come and ALL budgets will suffer.

American attitudes may not be the same as D-lands.

On the contrary, some ppl. -- e.g., me - deep inside the [lower end of] the bowels of the US mil.-ind complex are expecting the nObama administration to do a lot of spending on military and NASA pojects. Gotta stimulate the economy, doncha see, and a least the stuff's still made in USA.

Where will the $ come from, and how will nObama justify this to his followers?? Never mind, let's just visualize the New Age of Peace, Love, and Understanding!

[Hilife]

Moosemaster

Good news is though, from one who is partially 'in the know', I haven't heard of any reduction in capability.......yet!

I can't say the German's will agree with you on this point.

Airbus A400M Overweight & Understrength

12 Jan 2009 - BERLIN - The Airbus A400 military transport plane is too heavy and does not deliver on performance, the Financial Times Deutschland and newspaper reported on Jan. 12.

The FTD cited sources which said the current version of the A400M can carry only 29-30 tons of material, instead of an expected 32 tons, and that it is itself 12 tons overweight.

The European Aeronautic Defence Space Company, Airbus' parent company, will have to completely revise its plans, the newspaper said.

EADS acknowledged recently that the first delivery of an A400M would be delayed by three years, but did not give a precise date.

A total of 180 of the aircraft have been ordered so far for 20 billion Euros ($26.8 billion) by OCCAR, the European organization for military cooperation that represents seven countries.

Gainsey

I believe the very same brochure is currently circulating around Pratt & Whitney Canada's facility.;)

[Double Zero]

Isn't it about time we dumped politics and trying to re-invent the wheel ?

The C-130 may be over 50 years old, but the 'J' versions certainly aren't.

That and the rather good ( as far as I can make out ) C-17 have transport covered; so unless we come up with something special & extremely unlikely like a V/STOL job, let's leave it to them, buy a few more and spend the rest of the money on aircraft, ships or army equipment ?

[HaveQuick2]

If we bit the bullet and ordered a few C-17s and a sqn of C-130Js today, would they be fully in service before 2015 anyway (the most optimistic A400M date)?

Is the C-17 line not winding down? Can Lockheed easily make more slots available on the J line?

[Benjybh]

How about the ones parked up at DM, surely they would be fine?

[John Blakeley]

EADS making some interesting comments in the USA. I assume the currency coming up as a dot is the Euro.

A400M contract 'Mission Impossible'
Date:15th Jan 2009
Source: Army Technology
Link: Army Technology (http://www.army-technology.com)

NORTH AMERICA - The head of planemaker Airbus called the way the delayed A400M airlifter project was conceived a 'recipe for disaster' and said the •20bn ($26.3bn) fixed contract would make rivals weep.

Parent EADS last week called for changes in the way Europe's largest single military procurement deal is carried out and requested more time to carry out plane tests. The move followed delays which EADS blames on a group of engine makers.

"We want to continue the programme, but we want to continue it in a way that ensures success for the customers and success for the industry," Airbus chief executive Tom Enders said on Thursday. "With the current contractual and organisational set-up we will not get there; this is a recipe for disaster".

He added: "It is mission impossible."

Enders suggested the project designed to renew transport capacity for seven Nato countries needed a significant overhaul. It is two years late, but EADS wants to add another year to stabilise the project and says it was unfairly saddled with all the risk.

"It would be irresponsible to continue on the current track, so our task is not to put the programme back on track but to put it on a new, solid and realistic footing in terms of the schedule, the organisation and finance," Enders said.

Britain this week said a three to four-year delay was unacceptable.

EADS faces steep penalties under the contract. It was drawn up initially on purely commercial terms, which is considered unusual for a military deal.

EADS chief executive Louis Gallois said on Tuesday the company had made an error by accepting the A400M deal in 2003.

Critics of the project say it was distorted by political meddling, particularly in the choice of a European engine consortium, but Germany has pressured EADS to honour the deal.

Enders said US rivals, many of whom get paid on guaranteed cost-plus contracts, would be appalled at the deal.

"Our American colleagues would run away crying if they were obliged to step up into the A400M contract," he said.

So far at least, one US contractor seems to be celebrating.

Lockheed Martin expects to sell more of its competing C-130J transport planes as a result of the A400M delays, a senior company executive told Reuters earlier this month.

EADS has taken •1.7bn in charges on the A400M and is expected to add more once negotiations over the programme's future with member countries have provided firm direction.

JB

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Lockheed Martin expects to sell more of its competing C-130J transport planes as a result of the A400M delays, a senior company executive told Reuters earlier this month."

Yes please Mr :ok:

[ORAC]

The C-130J is too small for FRES or FCS and even the Stryker has to be stripped of it's armour. That's why AJACS is being looked at. So the only real currently available replacement is the C-17, and how much are they each?

[VinRouge]

pretty cheap as it goes. 1/4 of a billion US.

Well, cheap when you consider how much is going on bank bailouts that is!! :}

[tucumseh]

ORAC



The C-130J is too small for FRES


Quite right, and this is too often ignored. The limitations imposed by the C130 payload capability mean that to design FRES around C130 would significantly reduce its survivability in some roles.

The normal way of expressing such requirements in a URD is the ability to deploy a platform (e.g. FRES) and its associated manpower and equipment a given distance in a single lift. I seem to recall this was deemed to be around 2000nm (Akrotiri?). Similarly, the requirement to deploy a FRES battlegroup is what determines the numbers of these aircraft we need.

A C130-only fleet is non-compliant with these deployment requirements and consequently a major dependency of the FRES programme is that we have the proper mix of C130, A400, C17 and access to the US C17 fleet. I believe the baseline originally used by FRES was the Strategic Defence Review aircraft numbers, which is now quite dated. Any reduction immediately compromises FRES.


The understanding of these interdependencies is crucial, and any slippage or changes in one programme requires immediate revalidation of the other(s). One could be cynical and say there are probably quite a few in MoD corridors of power who don’t care if A400 is delayed, because is provides a ready made excuse to realign (i.e. slip) dependent programmes, like FRES. This is common practice (it happened on AH) and is one of the many causes of cost overruns and delays which can’t be pinned on procurers. This works both ways – it can be used to hide undeclared slippage in other programmes!

[indie cent]

UK reveals 'contingency plans' following fresh A400M delay (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/16/321227/uk-reveals-contingency-plans-following-fresh-a400m.html)

Contingency plans afoot.

I mentioned this before in jest: Would it not be more prudent and risk-mitigating if the A400M were reconsidered as supplementing and then replacing the prematurely knackered J's at the end of the next decade. C-17's clearly the sensible choice to take the strain. Seems almost pragmatic given the schedule sliding shambles that (unsurprisingly) the A400 programme has become.

Nothing against the concept, Airbus just seem to have woefully underestimated the complexity of the mil airlifter and its engine.

[Could be the last?]

IC,

It is not like Airbus and the rest of the EADS consortium do this for a living!! or B.

With the current round of savings that have to be made, surely this is one project that could be scrapped and have the money 'invested' in the operationally proven platforms J/C-17.

I understand each J is approx £50m, and would therefore expect the C17 to be £1-150M, again even after buying ourselves out of this white elephant we could procure a substantial number of other airframes.

[Truckkie]

Unfortunately the C-130 is now no longer big enough to carry modern equipment.

Most vehicles are now too large or heavy to be carried by C-130s.

We need a mixed fleet, hub and spoke, to enable full force projection.

Doesn't have to be A400M - more C17s - 'Fat' C-130s?

[ORAC]

The USAF A-400M equivalent, AJACS/AM-X (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ajacs-load-us-begins-another-nextgen-tactical-transport-project-03230/), won't hit the street till 2020 at the earliest. So it's wait for the A-400M or buy more C-17s.

I would suggest that we could do worse than also looking at the C-27J as a tactical/SF aircraft at the low end; it can't lift FRES, but neither can the C-130J, but has many tactical advantages and is cheaper. The money saved on buying a couple of C-27J instead of a C-130J at one end of the spectrum would provide the funds for a C-17 instead of a couple of C-130Js at the other.

Yes, we would end up with a 3 type fleet, but we'll end up with that with C-130J, A-400M and C-17 anyway.......

[LeCrazyFrog]

Read on a defence blog that one EADS top brass and at least one country participating in the program are considering binning the whole thing...
As a govt, I suppose you have to balance what you've spent against what you have to spend, and for the moment not much has been spent on this clusterf***
Shame, I was getting really fluent in payloads and capabilities of the all the transport acft by reading this thread... :8
guess we're gonna have to talk JSF again...

[VinRouge]

It wont get cancelled for one reason.

Governments are spinning up the printing presses. Cash is getting destroyed faster than its being created at the moment. They are going to print a shedload, so why not spend it on projects that will keep their home nation citizens employed? Unfortunately more C-17s and C-130Js doesnt create more british aerospace jobs. A400M does. That Cyclops-eyed commie is going to reinflate like Labour did in the 70s.

Lets face it, in 10 years if we have 25 A400M and a load of C-17s, we will have a 2 fleet hub/spoke AT fleet which supports current ops, future ops and FRES.

[Modern Elmo]

Prediction: C130 production ends before C-17.

[pr00ne]

Modern Elmo,

Intriguing prediction! Fascinated to see if you are right.

[Lyneham Lad]

Long and quite interesting article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/19/321222/analysis-where-next-for-the-airbus-military-a400m.html) entitled "Analysis - Where next for the A400M" on Flight International. The first part of the analysis goes over the information etc released earlier this month then goes on:-
Unlike with the Airbus A380, where development work had been under way for around four years before product launch, or the A350, which deployed derivative engines and a derivative cockpit, detailed engineering work on the A400M did not start until the contract was live. Gallois says this required EADS to "start from scratch" with every item, adding that the project's complexity exceeds that of the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter combat aircraft, and requires both military and EASA civil certification. EADS has "a big share of the responsibility for the underestimation", he says, but "it is not alone".

and

In a bid to repair the damage with his customers, Gallois last week revealed a surprise "bridging solution", under which EADS has proposed supplying modified A330s and "other airplanes" to A400M customers that require interim lift. Admitting that the A330 could only fill "a limited part of the gap", he says: "It can't be the only solution: but it could be part."

The initiative would enable the UK and other customers to use A330s to transport troops and freight, freeing assets such as Boeing C-17s and Lockheed Martin C-130s for frontline duties. Preparing the civil type for such a role would require reinforcing the cockpit and avionics systems, incorporating an inert gas generating system and installing directional infrared countermeasures equipment.

A330s are already due for delivery to the UK Royal Air Force through its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme, and the Ministry of Defence had already been investigating the possibility of accelerating the type's availability from a current first delivery in 2011. But while the FSTA fleet could resolve a persistent problem in sustaining an "airbridge" between the UK and Afghanistan and Iraq, now provided primarily using the RAF's aged Lockheed TriStars, it would not address the UK's looming tactical transport crisis.

Fatigue on the RAF's C-130Ks and newer C-130Js makes the A400M's availability vital, with deliveries originally scheduled between 2010 and 2015. Hutton's comments fell short of threatening to withdraw from the A400M project: a move which would have serious financial and political implications, and potentially also damage the interests of British industry, which has hundreds of employees working on the aircraft, including in the final assembly of its composite wing. But the MoD says a range of options are being considered, including "reallocating assets, extending the out-of-service date of the C-130K and leasing or procuring additional assets - for example C-17s or C-130s".

and


UNCERTAIN FUTURE

While asserting the need for "a clear, visible time schedule", Gallois is unable to commit to a date for the A400M's first flight, saying only that it will happen one month after delivery of the full-authority digital engine control software for its Europrop International TP400-D6 turboprop engines. The FADEC issue is on "the critical path", he adds.

Industry sources say the one TP400 flown for the first time on a C-130 testbed in the UK on 17 December has been given a clean bill of health following post-flight inspections, and that the aircraft should return to the sky before the end of January. Initially flown at around 30-35% of its 10,000shp (7,460kW) output, the powerplant could be taken to maximum power after between seven and 10 test flights, one source adds. Enders believes the testbed could conclude its work "in the next couple of months", enabling the first A400M to fly later this year.

EADS says it could have flown the A400M last October, had the final FADEC software been available, and blames the engine choice for many of the A400M's problems. The EPI consortium started work on the TP400 at the behest of the programme's partner nations, while the airframer had opted to acquire an off-the-shelf solution from Pratt & Whitney Canada. This compromise was one of the project's most risky, and damaging decisions.

Difficult to see a realistic achievable interim solution to covering the UK's tactical airlift requirements. But there again, I am only an interested onlooker who relies on information in the public domain. I'm sure the 'powers-that-be' have a contingency plan up their collective sleeves and all will be well - NOT. :{

[Truckkie]

reallocating assets, extending the out-of-service date of the C-130K and leasing or procuring additional assets - for example C-17s or C-130s".


Not a hope in hell of extending the C130Ks - no budget available!

As well as needing new wing spars they also require a whole avionics upgrade to keep flying in European and North American airspace past 2012!

More C17s and C130Js required immediately for Tac Airlift.

A330s with OBIGGS, DAS, flight deck armour and LAIRCM? How long will that take? Crews? Training?

Roll-on the 'perfect storm' of 2012:mad:

[XV277]

Can someone remind me whose decision it was to go for a brand new prop design for the A400 (Probably back in the Euroflag or FLA days) rather than using a proven jet engine?

My memory says France, but that might just be national predjudice!

[VinRouge]

Did they have a turboprop big enough though already though for the 400? (SHP?)

M.54 I reckon would take a hell of a lot of poke without new, modern engines.

Add to that the problems with older fuel burn and the effect hence on mission payload.

Just a few ideas why they stuck with creating new donks.

[XV277]

IIRC the original plan was for a jet powered aircraft, but one of the original partners insisted on a prop - inspite of there not being a suitable prop available. My thought was France as the original plan was for a SNEMCA based engine

[BEagle]

FLA 'solution 10' was indeed a 4-jet design. However, A400M is based upon 'solution 58' or thereabouts. Over the years, the quoted engine power has increased considerably.......

The fin and tailplane were redesigned very late in the programme and the unusual engine rotation pattern was firmed up.

I'm not convinced that the TPA400 software is the only issue holding up the aircraft's progress....

[GreenKnight121]

Well, there have been repeated unofficial comments about the floor not being up to spec.

[moosemaster]

The "old" floor was indeed dire and made of swiss cheese, but has since been the subject of a COMPLETE redesign to ensure that it meets ALL the stated requirements.

That, at least is one less thing to worry about.:ok:

[ORAC]

Is that one of the things contributing to the weight problem then? :}

[moosemaster]

Not that I'm aware of, but then again, I am just a mushroom :}

[Navaleye]

Why can't this government tell the truth for once? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5569934.ece)

[mick2088]

While it is pretty obvious the carrier delay is being done to save money, or at least spread out spending, I think a two-year delay is probably better in terms of Dave-B deliveries. Unless LockMart has changed its production schedule in the last few months, the timescale for the delivery into UK service, if they buy 138, is 2014-2029. The three test models are due to be delivered in 2011-2012. Even if the UK had an earlier IOC of 2014 as LockMart offered according to the article, there would hardly be enough Daves in service by the time the carriers had originally been due to enter service, and there would be a handful of converted pilots fresh from training in the States (hence why the US has earlier IOCs mostly for training squadrons that will train almost every nation buying them). Besides, it was originally proposed that the Harrier would go on until 2018 and that would initially be deployed on the CVFs as there wouldn't be enough JSFs in UK service.

Unless they scrap the Harrier earlier, then there would be a problem mostly as pilots would have nothing to fly for several years. What would they do with them all?

[LowObservable]

Correct: as discussed several times here, the UK took the decision some years ago to extend the life of the Harrier, buy JSF later and operate the first CVF at least with Harriers until the JSF arrived.

I can think of a few logical reasons to do this. Operating a brand-new aircraft off a brand-new ship is asking for trouble. Moving JSF purchases to the right reduces the overlap with T3 Typhoon. Also, later JSFs could be ordered with the F136 engine (if it doesn't get cancelled) which takes advantage of the 2004-05 configuration change that provides a bit more airflow - the F136 can produce a bit more thrust than the F135, making a difference on vertical landing.

So Hutton's statement that "the later delivery is in line with..." is accurate. Getting in touch with my inner grammar Nazi: to infer that the carrier delay is the result of JSF delays is not accurate, but did Hutton imply it?

[turboshaft]

This week's Aviation Week & Space Technology paints a bleak picture of the program: flight-test aircraft are 12 tons overweight, with the payload of production aircraft expected to be at least 5 tons under spec. And in addition to the FADEC issues, cracks have now been found in engine gearbox casings, requiring strengthening.

The most serious claim made by Av Week is that 'Sarajevo profile' steep approaches may not be possible "because of possible flutter issues with the propellers." If true, look for Boeing to capitalize on the loss of one of the underlying prop vs. fan arguments.

[Archimedes]

Linky (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/A400M012309.xml&headline=A400M%20Problems%20Range%20Far%20Beyond%20Engines&channel=defense) to Aviation Week story to which turboshaft refers

[GreenKnight121]

A400M Problems Range Far Beyond Engines

Jan 23, 2009
By Jens Flottau

PARIS – Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program, as the aircraft may need massive re-engineering work to achieve its performance targets.

In turn, numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft for its customers, industry sources tell Aviation Week. They come in addition to the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program that are linked to the lagging engine full authority digital engine control (FADEC) development (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 25, 2008).

One key area of concern appears to be the A400M being overweight, which would negatively affect the aircraft’s payload and range capabilities. Sources close to the program say the aircraft is significantly heavy in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, those sources say. A weight savings campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at the most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.

Airbus officials suggest the main performance criteria aren’t at any particular risk. Executive Vice President for Programs Tom Williams says the more he has reviewed the program, the more certain he has become “this is still going to be a bloody good airplane.” The aircraft is beating its short field performance and load targets, he says.

Yet, industry sources say the weight problem could well turn out to be the primary issue with the aircraft, rather than engine software. One observer believes the A400M payload will end up 3-4 tons below the original target even after all possible design changes, which could include the introduction of carbon fiber in noncritical areas. The three-year time frame proposed by EADS between the first flight and first delivery at the end of 2012 at the earliest would suggest that modifications to some parts of the aircraft structure also are possible.

Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

An EASA official says the agency does not comment on ongoing certification processes.

[Truckkie]

Great!

Overweight, less payload and not able to carry out tactical type approaches.

What a great tactical airlift platform:mad:

Less than 30 tons payload - what's the point?

More C17s and C130Js please:ok:

[skaterboi]

Less than 30 tons payload - what's the point?

More C17s and C130Js please

I would agree with your view to get rid now however......

these problems (weight, FADEC, props) are not necessarily insurmountable. The weight can be got down and will still give a useful load enabling FRES etc to be hauled around which can't be done in a J. The FADEC and the props issue I'm sure can be sorted - didn't the J have prop delamination issues at the start? That seems to have gone away now so with the extra delays they can address the issues.

Whilst I concede the delay is more of an issue for us as the K is on its last legs, I'm still not sure that getting out is the right plan. We need the capability medium and long term and even the J can't take the larger loads, let alone the distance the A400 will be able to take them.

When you factor in the extra issues of getting more C-17s and more J's such as cost and delivery time I'd say it's a pretty difficult to decision to make.

[StopStart]

Whilst I would concede that the C130 won't be able to carry FRES it's worth pointing out that FRES is about as far off as my elevation to Air Rank. It's safe to say that the A400M is a good few years off too. Realistically, a mini fleet buy of US Js to cover the coming woes of the next few years plus a few more slots on the C17 production line would see us right.

Then we can sit back and wait for the A400, Moon Base Alpha, FRES and Tracy Island to be delivered in a few years time...... :rolleyes:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

If the A400 gets binned what happen to Fres..................just a thought :confused:

And in the meantime as you all wax lyrical anyone have an argument with a few C17's and some more J's to take up the current slack...............:ok:

[StopStart]

Stick em on the C17s. The yanks don't have an intermediate size transport aircraft to lug all their Pirahnas etc around in they just go on a boat or a C17.

Personally I reckon we could do with a bunch of C17s, the remaining C130s and a fleet of C27Js. The C17s just take the stuff directly to where it needs to go or spoke it out on a couple of C130s, whilst the C27J would cover 95% of all the in-theatre TacAT requirements.

[Buster Hyman]

Any RAAF chaps care to comment on C130J & C17 ops? :confused:

[BEagle]

The weight issue is somewhat perplexing - how can it be that, even after weight reduction redesigns, the aircraft may end up with a reduced payload capability of 3 - 4 tonnes?

Then we can sit back and wait for the A400, Moon Base Alpha......
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/LtEllis.jpg

Ooh, yesss........:ok:


OK, OK - yes, I know that actually Gabrielle Drake appeared as Lt Ellis in UFO, not Space 1999, but any excuse to post her piccie will do!

[Truckkie]

Just where in the current OrBat will the A400M sit?

Too big for tactical work with associated airdrop/para problems

Too small for strat - not a big enough payload or the range of a C17

Why don't we just go with platforms we know work and wait for development of future US platforms - 'fat' C130 etc

The A400M I'm afraid will be a complete white elephant, late and over budget, overweight and no good for the job.

And C27's would be good intra-theatre tac airlift too:ok::ok:

[Biggus]

I don't see the issue with regard to the "perfect storm" scenario regarding lack of AT in 2012. The solution to this, delay in A400M etc is simple...

Make all tours of the Stan 1 year (unaccompanied of course), or until relieved, and send everyone and everything out and back by ship (transit time not counting towards the 1 year of course) apart from the last portion of the journey. AT only required from the disembarktion port/country directly into theatre.....

By the way, I'm joking, but somebody else with this idea might not be......!!

[Madbob]

Are you advocating the return of troopships of the maritime variety? I can just picture convoys sailing along the Med......decks crowded with seasick soldiers.

Might even give the Navy a "raison d'etre" and a case for funding a new generation of convoy escorts! Plus jobs in the shipyards, if we have any left that is, (the dockyard workers were always a safe vote as far as the "Old" Labour party was concerned) mind you, it might also make a few ex pats feel proud at the sight of a White Ensign as the sail past.

O, for an Empire.....

MB

[XV277]

Are you advocating the return of troopships of the maritime variety? I can just picture convoys sailing along the Med......decks crowded with seasick soldiers.

Might even give the Navy a "raison d'etre" and a case for funding a new generation of convoy escorts! Plus jobs in the shipyards, if we have any left that is, (the dockyard workers were always a safe vote as far as the "Old" Labour party was concerned) mind you, it might also make a few ex pats feel proud at the sight of a White Ensign as the sail past.

O, for an Empire.....

MB


And they'd need to go round the cape, as sailing through the SUez Canal might be a bit dangerous*, and Elfin Safety would be against that

* And yes, I know Grey Funnel Lines uses the Canal

[herkman]

I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that the political hand that rocks the A400M cradle, may get burnt.

I am old enough to remember the problems of the introduction of the Belfast.

First aircraft too heavy and flew 100mph slower than design. Whilst Shorts made good progress with changes, I suspect that this aircrafts production was curtailed because of these and other matters.

The A400M is late, very late and if any one believes the 2012 into service date, they are very trusting.

The supply of military aircraft should be entrusted to people who have prior military experience in producing same, and how critical the into service date can be.

The C130K by that date will be completely knackered from an operational point of view, and there appears to be nothing to take up the slack.


More C17's perhaps in the short term both for the RAF and RAAF could overcome the short term problem.

I for one am glad that the RAAF is not in the que for the A400M.

Our servicemen of both services should stop having to work with one hand behind their backs.

Regards

Col

[moosemaster]

The supply of military aircraft should be entrusted to people who have prior military experience in producing same, and how critical the into service date can be.

Ah, the old, "you can only go if you've been before" mentality!!:}

Even if we do as you say and stick to "existing" suppliers, there are no viable alternatives at present.

"Fatter" Albert will be 2020 at the earliest provided it even gets off the drawing board,
C27 is too small all together,
C130J is too narrow,
C17 is too big for intra-theatre tac work (great for strat and for US style "Tac" work).
Antonov in any guise is not politically acceptable, nor technologically able.

Face facts, A400 might be delayed, but it is still the only realistic option in the current environment.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Sorry Moose but I have to disagree,

In the current environment more C17's and J's works just fine, however you may wish to consider swapping the word might with is :ok:

[StopStart]

moosemaster - sorry but I have to disagree with most, if not all, of what you say.

C27 is too small all together - no, it's not. It would handle a huge chunk of the current C130 tasking in theatre when co-ordinated with sensible C17 usage.

C130J is too narrow - for what? I'll concede it's too narrow for FRES but then it's also too narrow for the Starship Enterprise...

C17 is too big for intra-theatre tac work - No it's not, one C17 is the right size for trash hauling tasks that would currently occupy several C130s at once.


I think there needs to be a long hard look at what we actually expect our AT (non-shiny) to do. The C17 is a very versatile tac/strat aircraft - they can deliver your FRES, tank, helicopter etc to pretty much wherever you need it. In sensible numbers too. An A400 might fit a FRES vehicle or two in it but what's the point? A C17 could deliver 3 LAVs + hod loads of troops whilst the A400 could put two in plus a couple of blokes to drive them.
I fail to see what scenario we are realistically trying to accomodate here.

Herkman - not wishing to be contentious but I don't believe the C130K going out of service will have that big an impact on day to day ops. There is the viewpoint that sustaining it may exacerbate future issues. One could argue that withdrawing it now might free up funding, hangar space, engineering manpower, crews and spaces on the Marshall's line to keep the Js ticking over. As it stands at the moment I reckon we face the ungodly prospect of most of the C130 fleet, Js and Ks, falling flat on their collective arses by 2012.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The role of the RAF has changed beyond all measure since the Wall came down. Regrettably, the thinking in the higher echelons, military and political, appears to be entrenched in Cold War strategy.

Time to move on and accept that you have a strategic and tactical airlift task and to use the tactical as the driving force for change: I fail to see why highly trained personnel should be employed on strategic AT when the tactical stuff is really your bread and butter.

Civilians can do the strategic airlift and leave you guys to work on the very specialised tasks.

[Brian Abraham]

From Aviation Week & Space Technology Airbus's A400M May Face Design Overhaul To Meet Performance Targets | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw012609p2.xml&headline=Airbus%27s%20A400M%20May%20Face%20Design%20Overhaul %20To%20Meet%20Performance%20Targets)

Airbus's A400M May Face Design Overhaul To Meet Performance Targets

Jan 25, 2009

By Jens Flottau and Robert Wall

Airbus is facing much more than just contractual and schedule challenges in its A400M military airlifter program - the company may need to do a great deal of re-engineering work to achieve the aircraft's performance targets.

Numerous issues threaten to make the A400M a less attractive and capable aircraft, industry officials say, on top of the well-publicized delays in the flight-test program linked to the lagging engine Fadec development.

One key area of concern is that the A400M is overweight, which would negatively affect its payload and range capabilities. According to Airbus Military data, maximum payload is 37 tons and range is 1,780 naut. mi. with a full payload. But people close to the program say the aircraft is considerably heavier in its current development status. The first six units to be used in the flight-test program are 12 tons heavier than planned, according to those executives. A weight-saving campaign has identified a reduction potential of 7 tons. Early production aircraft will only incorporate reductions of 5 tons at most, leaving payload below the 30-ton mark.

Airbus Military appears to have informed procurement agency Occar about the likely weight penalty. Some Occar members, including France, have accepted the changes, but Germany, whose air force needs the aircraft for so-called out-of-area deployments that are both payload- and range-critical, has not. If the A400M falls far short of the previous design targets, missions to places such as Afghanistan would become much more complex and costly.

Germany plans to use the A400M to transport the Puma armored fighting vehicle that weighs 31.5 tons in its basic version. If Airbus Military cannot recoup more of the payload capabilities, the aircraft would only be able to carry the Puma with a sizable range restriction.

Government officials indicate it is unlikely that Germany would reduce its A400M order in favor of other models, such as the C-130J or the C-17 that are being evaluated by the U.K., but mainly for political reasons. A proposal by EADS CEO Louis Gallois to use Airbus A330-200Fs as an interim solution is receiving a lukewarm response at best.

"If we wanted to have a commercial freighter, we could simply charter one from Cargolux or somebody else," one German military official says angrily. But Germany's current C-160 Transall transport fleet flies a lot of short-haul domestic legs in Afghanistan to places that cannot accommodate an A330F. One air force official hints that the Transalls could continue operating for several more years instead, as they are well maintained. But Germany leases some Antonov An-124s for missions beyond the C-160 capabilities.

If the A400M's biggest customer (60 of 192 units on order) insists on the previous performance guarantees, it could force a major redesign of the aircraft, such as a larger wing to allow for more fuel. But that seems highly unlikely, given the already huge financial and schedule challenges that made Airbus CEO Thomas Enders describe the terms of the current program as being a "mission impossible."

On Jan. 9, EADS and Airbus announced a delay of up to four years in the A400M project and proposed renegotiating the contract with the Occar nations. According to the original terms committed to in 2003, EADS is carrying most of the financial risk of the program and may face big penalty payments if no solution is found. In their statement early in the month, Airbus Military and EADS said they "want to discuss the program schedule along with changes to other areas of the contract, including certain technical characteristics of this first-class military aircraft." No additional details were mentioned and Airbus/EADS officials have declined to comment further.

Responsibility for the A400M was recently shifted under the Airbus umbrella to reduce management complexity and improve program oversight.

Airbus officials suggest the main performance criteria aren't at any particular risk. The executive vice president of programs, Tom Williams, says the more he has been reviewing the program, the more certain he has become that "this is still going to be a bloody good airplane." The aircraft is beating its short-field performance and load targets, he says.

However, the fact that Airbus has halted A400M prototype production until "adequate maturity is reached" is interpreted by industry insiders as an indirect admission that there are probably massive changes to the aircraft in the works, making continued production obsolete at this point.

Industry officials say the weight problem could well turn out to be the primary issue with the aircraft, and no longer engine software. One observer believes the A400M payload will end up 3-4 tons below the original target, even after the design changes, which could include the introduction of carbon fiber composites in non-critical areas. The three-year timeframe proposed by EADS between the first flight and first delivery at the end of 2012, at the earliest, suggests that modifications to some parts of the aircraft structure are also possible.

Some weight-saving initiatives are affecting aircraft operations, though. A hydraulic system to lower the main landing gear on the ground in order to ensure an even loading ramp has been scrapped. That decision means floor beams may have to be reinforced, since heavy tanks are planned to virtually drop down when their center of gravity has passed the loading edge.

Executives close to the Europrop International (EPI) engine consortium say Fadec issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. Gallois said early this month that once an acceptable standard Fadec was provided, the A400M could fly about a month later. But, in addition to software, there are also hardware problems involving the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The executives say upgraded casings have been delivered to the Seville, Spain, final assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals are also in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. For example, the A400M may not be able to fly "Sarajevo profile" steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Moreover, officials familiar with the program say some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given the EASA approval needed for planned civil certification. An EASA official says the agency does not comment on ongoing certification processes.

EADS is talking with customers about some requirements relief, but company officials claim these have to do with special needs and are not related to fundamental aircraft performance aspects. Enders says both customers and the company's own engineers contributed to some requirements being added that are "technologically hardly feasible or only feasible at a disproportionate amount of cost."

Williams says one example is an extreme tactical navigation requirement. It calls for the aircraft to fly low and remain entirely passive - not even using a terrain-following, terrain-avoidance system - to support special operations.

[herkman]

Hardly the information that is needed to get this program back on schedule. Dare I say that Airbus must be very concerned at where this will end.

One tends to think that the biggest customer, is unlikely to change their position. I think what Airbus is doing, is softening the customers up for yet more delays and reduced capacity.

Very sad, very sad indeed.

Regards

Col

[Lazer-Hound]

It's well known UK (or Italy) don't really want Typhoon Tranche 3. It also seems niether want A400M now. But Germany wants both. Maybe we could agree to stick with A400M and drop T3, or vice-versa?

[XV277]

The supply of military aircraft should be entrusted to people who have prior military experience in producing same, and how critical the into service date can be.


Of course the original idea behind giving it to Airbus was their experience at bringing projects in on time and to spec.......

[Jig Peter]

:ok:
Flight Global today (28 Jan) tells us that the TP700 was taken to take-off and then (briefly) to full power on its second flight on 27 Jan (sorry, but I'm not able to link to the article).
Originally, this wasn't expected to happen till much later in the test programme, so it's a good sign of progress, as well as the earlier news that on inspection after its first flight, the engine was given a clean bill of health. Now let's hope more flights from Marshall's go as well and that the first A400M will be able to get airborne soon (my optimism function says "before Easter?").
Whatever the weight/payload/range issues really are can then be properly analysed, if any. All we have at the moment are rumours and Avweek's not necessarily unbiased article ...
As a side issue, I do wish Ppruners would be a bit realistic about "possible alternatives" - neither Lockheed not Boeing can deliver their stuff off the shelf.
:8

[Lyneham Lad]

Flight Global today (28 Jan) tells us that the TP700 was taken to take-off and then (briefly) to full power on its second flight on 27 Jan (sorry, but I'm not able to link to the article).

A400M's TP400 engine taken to full thrust during second flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/28/321726/a400ms-tp400-engine-taken-to-full-thrust-during-second.html)

:ok:

[StopStart]

As a side issue, I do wish Ppruners would be a bit realistic about "possible alternatives" - neither Lockheed not Boeing can deliver their stuff off the shelf.

Who said anything about buying new?

[Art Field]

In light of the weight and range problems with the A400 may I raise the subject of it's AAR capability once again? I did not consider this to be one of the reasons to have receiver qualification right from the start but surely this must be the case now.

[Jig Peter]

The A400M went to Airbus because of the company's then-justified reputatio for on-cost, on-time deliovery of programmes ... That was earned by the predecessors of one Noel Forgeard, whose qualifications for the job included being an "industrial adviser" to top politicians and, in the words of his biographer (paraphrased) his long-standing ambition to run a large company before he was 40 (he had missed his self-imposed deadline by 3 years).
His failure to manage the A380 programme in sufficient depth (or back the relatively inexperienced programme manager he put onto the A380) resulted in the mismatch between Catia versions across the programme and the problems we all know about, and which seem to be still not fully solved.
On THIS thread, he also reckoned that CASA could handle something bigger than their products to date, but also failed to allot enough design resources ... Recovering from the "Catia mismatch" on the A380 and his insistence on retaining the "traditional Airbus twin-aisle" fuselage width for the A350 needed vast amounts of design engineering time which could have been available for the A400M.
What his "expert input" to the power plant decision was, Gornose, but as it seems to have been political, what's one to suspect ??? P&W Canada had a suitable-sounding contender (but no hardware), but politics prevailed. Forgeard was, as we know, eventually unseated (with loads of dosh, but also many a law-suit over his head), and his successors and their teams of engineers are even now still hard at work to recover from one man's overweening ambition.
I'm sure they will get the A400M "right" ...
One can feel like shooting the pianist, but don't let's take an AK47 to the whole orchestra ...
:8
"The evil that men do lives after them" ... and it's left to the good 'uns to tidy up afterwards.

[Jig Peter]

What? More second-hand, non-standard aircraft for her Majesty's air fleets ... They've been there, done that - and regretted it, haven't they ?

[StopStart]

They've also "been there, done that - and regretted it" when it comes to believing the lofty promises of aerospace manufacturers. :rolleyes:

Second hand C130Js (for example) from the US would be (as long as they weren't twatted about with by some random UK company on the way here) ideal. Given that I've got more hours on the Wii-Fit than most of their Js have got flying hours, "second hand" would apply merely in terms of ownership rather than usage.

A mini-fleet operated effectively as a seperate type would cause few issues. Different software standard (better) and equipment fit (better) would not mean the end of the world, far from it. Just look at the way the C17 is operated. US kit/trg etc etc. I'm led to believe they've been something of a success..... :cool:

[gijoe]

As one who has the pleasure of enduring 14 hours on Monday on one of the Tri*s, I can conclude that they are looking very, very tired. They cannot go on forever...even the bodge tape on the leading edges is in need of a refurb!

Secondhand cannot be a good idea again.

The other thread on a review of procurement procedures ties in with this nicely.

G

[StopStart]

Agreed, second hand tristars would be a bad idea but we're not really talking about shiny AT.

"Second hand" C130Js on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish. Having seen the USMC fleet leader C130J out east a couple of months ago I'd say it's probably in better nick than ours were when they were originally delivered.... :hmm:

Ultimately though, it's all pie in the sky. Still, it's raining outside so I can't play in the garden...

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"Given that I've got more hours on the Wii-Fit than most of their Js have got flying hours"....................those J's must be bloody new..........or your Wii thingy is broken........:p

[StopStart]

The former....definitely the former..... :)

[Brain Potter]

SS, out of interest are the Americans actually looking to dispose of some of their C-130J airframes?

Another source of low-mileage second hand aircraft might be the air forces of those NATO nations who are not fully contributing to Afghan mission?

[StopStart]

Quiet Potter, you filthy meddling civvy. Check yer PMs!
:ok:

(PS. No but.. & perhaps)

[hello1]

Hmmmmm, not sure that our friends in the US have quite gotten round to selling their C130Js yet - particularly as they are still buying new ones from Mr Lockheed almost as fast as he can build them.

However what Mr Lockheed does do is a nice line in USAF spec C130Js which I imagine all the other new customers would also want. Clearly the UK would require some additional work to remove the enhancing features that were standard on the H3 and everyone else's C130J....but not on our fleet!:ugh:

[Good Mickey]

C130J is too narrow - for what? I'll concede it's too narrow for FRES but then it's also too narrow for the Starship Enterprise...

...another self appointed J expert who has no idea what lies beyond '245'.

GM

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Not a 100% certain with regards to FRES but I think Stoppers is correct with his Starship Enterprise assertion.................or have I missed something :confused:

[StopStart]

I'm not self appointed. As for what's behind 245 well I know there's a urinal but to be honest everything else is a mystery. Would love to see the Enterprise tie-down scheme tho.....

[Good Mickey]

The J is an awesome bit of kit especially when we're talking performance and SA. However, it is definitely too narrow and you will know only too well SFFP when you are trying to get to the back due to no ready access down the side of a B16 CDS load. A wider herc that can accommodate pallets with seats alongside down the entire freight bay would be the dream solution...and this is where the A400M will be a winner.

Unfortunalely, I don't think I'll see it in my carreer!!

GM

[BEagle]

Almost 15 years ago, I had a look around the 'FLA' mock-up at Farnborough. In the freight bay was a large orange structure which looked like a (kevball) goalpost. "What's that?", I asked my host. He replied that it was a C130J fuselage cross-section representation.

It looked tiny in the cavernous interior of the FLA. And that was the FLA's biggest snag - it was thought of as a 'Funny Looking Albert' rather than as a revolutionary airlifter.

[StopStart]

GM. This isn't a "lets knock the A400" thread - the issue facing the TacAT fleet are the looming J fatigue issues and ever lengthening A400 delays. I'm not knocking the A400M - far from it, I'm quite a fan. It will be a superb bit of kit for all the reasons you state. Indeed, if I'm still alive when it turns up I'm still hoping to get on the Initial Cadre.

But, and it's a big but, someone, somewhere surely has to consider what the fall back is for if and when the A400 delays get too long and we face a gap in AT capability??

My argument is based around what we're going to do to plug the gap. The answer, in my opinion, is a stop-gap of "more of the same". FRES is, frankly, irrelevant in the argument because it is, realistically, as far off as the delayed A400 is. Yes, it would be nice to be able to put seats down next to pallets but it would also be nice if I had FLIR and TFR at the front. We have neither and it doesn't stop us doing what we do. Having to climb over CDS loads is just a fact of life; get the C17s to do it if it's all too hard (like the US do) and you could drive a car up and down alongside the loads if you wanted to.

There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available. We have what we have and have to make do. As the A400M slips further and further to the right what do you suggest we do? As I see it we either sit tight, weather the storm and just hope it'll be ok (this is what the MoD will do by the way) or someone bites the bullet and goes for an interim stop-gap measure to ensure that the good service the TacAT fleet currently offers to the front line is maintained.

[tucumseh]

My argument is based around what we're going to do to plug the gap. The answer, in my opinion, is a stop-gap of "more of the same". FRES is, frankly, irrelevant in the argument because it is, realistically, as far off as the delayed A400 is.



Agreed. FRES is a much misunderstood programme. It is envisaged to be a suite of vehicles (16 variants at one point), but very often the MoD itself writes as if it is just one vehicle type. About 8 years ago the Initial Operating Capability was deemed to be approx 2007 (for less complex variants) through to 2011; (very) roughly aligning with A400. This has slipped and the HCDC report of Feb 2007 noted 2017/18 as more realistic. I don’t know if this has slipped further in the last 2 years.



In the last couple of years a number of UORs have been delivered in response to the requirement for better protection – Mastiff, Vector, plus the Bulldog programme (enhanced FV430) etc. In the above HCDC report, MoD made it quite clear these were interim solutions and came nowhere near meeting the FRES requirements. But my suspicious mind tells me that, somewhere, a beancounter will be trying to chop FRES funding claiming these programmes form part of the solution.

In my opinion, these delays and machinations make StopStart’s statement valid. As I said in a previous post, someone will be trying to spin the A400 delay as “programme alignment with FRES”, while completely oblivious to the problems the delays are causing. Keep discussing it guys; MoD will be reading pprune to inform future policy!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

GM,

Some of us are still fit enough to CLIMB OVER a block 16/24 CDS load :ok:................not that I include myself in that statement at this moment in time :(

[Madbob]

Tucumseh - what makes you believe that "MOD reads pprune posts to inform on future policy?"

I fear your blind faith is mis-placed :ugh:.

MB

[Good Mickey]

SS,

the starship enterprise gets tied in like any other bit of kit...2 & 2!!

GM

[John Blakeley]

EADS fully committed to succeed in A400M programme Amsterdam, Tue 10th Feb 2009, 16:17:28
EADS N.V. (http://www.eads.com)

EUROPE - EADS reaffirms its full commitment to deliver on the European A400M Military Transport Aircraft programme and welcomes the public support given by the French Senators today towards making this exceptional aircraft a success – an aircraft that represents a “brickstone of sovereignty” for the European Defence, as the Senators outlined.

Concerning overcosts, in contrary to statements made in media reports, EADS confirms that no indication can be given today beyond the provision of 1.7bn euros already taken, as long as a binding industrial plan, which includes the availability of systems, is not established and not before OCCAR’s position on EADS proposals is known. This is in line with what the audit commission of the French Senate on the A400M has expressed.

EADS made a proposal to OCCAR at the end of 2008 to enter discussions to redefine certain technical and contractual specifications of the programme. According to the announcement of January 9, EADS confirms that the delay between the first flight and the first delivery of the A400M Future European Military Transport Aircraft will be three years. The Group is working with the engine consortium to define the date for this first flight. The group is simultaneously studying possibilities to facilitate the production ramp-up. EADS is more than ever determined to deliver on this programme which is one of the most ambitious European Defence Programmes designed to produce an aircraft of exceptional performance. The state-of-the-art technologies will make the A400M an aircraft of the future, designed to be operational for many decades. This aircraft features second-to-none capabilities compared to any currently existing strategic and tactical military transport aircraft.

At the same time, EADS is reorganising the structure of the programme. Following EADS CEO Louis Gallois’ proposal, the EADS Board of Directors had decided in December 2008 to integrate the A400M programme under the sole lead of Airbus thus simplifying and clarifying its lines of responsibility. The French parliamentary report presented today does not question the actual status of the A400M as previously communicated by EADS.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2007, EADS generated revenues of Euro 39.1 billion and employed a workforce of about 116,000. The Group includes Airbus as the leading manufacturer of commercial aircraft, with Airbus Military covering tanker, transport and mission aircraft, Eurocopter as the world's largest helicopter supplier and EADS Astrium, the European leader in space programmes from Ariane to Galileo. Its Defence & Security Division is a provider of comprehensive systems solutions and makes EADS the major partner in the Eurofighter consortium as well as a stakeholder in the missile systems provider MBDA

[moosemaster]

@ SS

In response to my statement,

Face facts, A400 might be delayed, but it is still the only realistic option in the current environment.
you said,

moosemaster - sorry but I have to disagree with most, if not all, of what you say.
then said,

There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available.


Can you decide which side of the fence you are on please?:}

I am linked to the project (as previously admitted) and so want it to continue, but am also mindful of the hardships caused by the extended(ing) delays. However, as I stated I cannot see a viable alternative, either temporary or permanent.

Also, FRES is not the only load that will benefit from the larger cargo hold of the A400. I don't have an exhaustive list, but there is a list of load items that can be carried by A400 that a C130 can't. (Granted, they are in the same list that a C17 can, but you don't need to wait for 4 of them to justify a sortie.:bored:)

[StopStart]

Er, pardon?

You said:
but it is still the only realistic option in the current environment.
No it isn't. It doesn't exist in any viable form....

I said:
There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available.
There isn't! The A400 doesn't exist and neither does the C130XL or anything else floating about on a designer's sketch pad.

There is no other airlifter of similar dimensions/perf/modernity etc to the A400 that could be procured instead of/in addition to the A400 to fill the gaps. The C130 fleet is getting very knackered very quickly. The A400 is drifting further and further to the right. What do you suggest we do? Rather than keep telling us all the things that the A400 will be able to carry how's about we all actually deal with the fast approaching crisis? You telling me the A400 will be able to carry all sorts of stuff is like you me telling you not to worry about your broken down car because in 100 years you'll be able to teleport to work instead. That in no way addresses the immediate problem.

I'm not on any side of the fence, in fact I don't believe there is a fence. I'm just the poor end user watching the current fleet get thrashed to death with no money to support them properly whilst the replacement disappears further and further over the horizon. I'm not knocking the A400 (for the 10 billionth time) I would just like to know what exactly we're going to do when the A400 doesn't start rolling into Op service in 2 years time!!!

There is no need to be defensive - I think we're all mostly agreed that the A400, as and when it turns up, will be a very good bit of kit. It won't be as all-singing-all-dancing as the glossy brochure said it would be but then what new aircraft ever is. The fact that it is being delayed is what is causing us, the end-user, problems and, as I said before, do we do something as a stop-gap or just ignore it and hope it will go away?

[Farfrompuken]

do we do something as a stop-gap or just ignore it and hope it will go away?

Clearly the latter!!;)

[Biggus]

I refer you to post 301...

[Spurlash2]

From Christopher Booker's column in The Telegraph, at the end of the Clemenceau dit.


In May 2000, in the first flush of his enthusiasm for integrating Britain's defence effort with the EU, Tony Blair signed up to buy 25 A400M transport aircraft for the RAF, to replace our ageing Hercules fleet. Delivery was promi sed by 2006. After many delays, it was last week announced that the first A400s, now costing £100 million each, cannot be delivered until 2014 or even later - an overrun much longer than both world wars put together. We could still buy replacement Hercules from the US, off the shelf at £40 million each, less than half the cost. But such are the joys of "integration" with our European partners.

The breaking news the BBC wouldn't tell - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4623607/The-breaking-news-the-BBC-wouldnt-tell.html)

[VinRouge]

£100m EACH!?!?

C-17 isnt too far off that!!

Why not buy another 20 C-17s and tell the frogs to p*ss off?

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember we also have a training and support system with engineering expereince of the C17 whereas the A400 .....

Now there surely can be no Typhoon-JSF-CVF argument on this one!

[Evalu8ter]

A400 is an embarressment to all concerned. It was a wonderful "chummy" idea for Bliar and his euro-phile, Islington cafe-culture, air/ar*e-kissing nu-labourites. Now it has been overtaken by Political infighting, Industrial incompetance and the harsh realities of the wars we are now fighting; a war which is eroding our fragile AT fleet by the day as the A400 cavalry stubbornly refuses to arrive.

Bin it.

Hold a mini-AT review in light of the current campaigns and then purchase a small number (12?) of C27J to offload the CH47/C130J in Theatre, a few more C130J to ameliorate the bashing they are taking (and to prevent expensive re-winging of Ks and Js) and some more C17s (another 6 or so). If A400 matures into a worthwhile product (and I do think it will) purchase them in 15 years time as a replacement for the tranche one C130J.

Airbus has had it's chance; it's blown it. Move on, and let the French and Germans wallow in euro-myopia.

[VinRouge]

Equivocator, your prices for c-17 are crap. Latest order equates to £140 million a pop for C-17. The USAF just ordered 15 of them for $2.95 billion.

As I had said, if they had ordered these when the pound was trading at 2.04 to the dollar, they would have cost £96 million each, comparable with A400m. I reckon significantly cheaper than A400m once you consider the significant development issues we all know the project is facing... We could easily use them in the Airdrop role once we have enough; where do you get the idea the yanks are NOT using the C-17 in the tactical role?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7nlAWnICA

YouTube - C-17 Airdrop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7nlAWnICA)

YouTube - C-17 South Pole Quad Sequential Airdrop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxosyjXvwOQ&feature=related)

YouTube - Afghanistan airdrop of supplies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKbuPmhrT6M&feature=related)

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

;)
Evalu8ter

You say bin the A400M, but how much (£) will it cost UK to pull out now?

Forget about late arrival of the aircraft, the contract will state how much we would have to stump up if we pull out at any stage.

You can guarentee that it will not be small change.

Aaron

[Minorite invisible]

There is no other airlifter of similar dimensions/perf/modernity etc to the A400 that could be procured instead of/in addition to the A400 to fill the gaps.

There is an aircraft in Ukraine called the Antonov An-70 that has similar size, speed, better runway performance and still claims a 47 tonne payload.

Antonov An-70 STOL & Soft field (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5353906462603205349)

The An-70 has an MIL-1553B compatible databus and was built to AP-25 norms, streamlined with JAR-25. If A-400M customers ordered 180 of them and decided to equip it with the avionic suite and DASS that had been planned for the A-400M, Europe would finally have a great tactical airlifter at much less cost than completing the A-400M.

The alternative is C-130Js and C-17s.

I think that 12 tonne issue is the real killer for the A-400M. The Gross weight is going to creep up and to maintain performance (speed, rate of climb, ceiling, take-off run) the engine HP, already an issue, will have to follow. That will increase fuel burn, reduce range, reduce endurance, reduce payload, require larger tanks, etc....
Why do you think the An-70 has 14,000 SHP engines instead of the A-400Ms' 11,000 SHP for a similar sized aircraft ?
Older A-400M specs found on the web mentionned a Take-Off Weight of 130 tonnes. Then we saw 136.5 tonnes and now EADS talks about 141 tonnes. There is a trend there. Where will it stop?

The C-17 went through the same pains, and its runway performance that paid the price. In the early days, to justify funding, Boeing claimed the Boeing C-17 could use 3000 foot runways and was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic one. Now that the C141 is retired and the C-5 is out of production, one does not hear too much of that anymore. If anyone knows of any runway under 4500 feet where a C-17 has ever landed (outside of training missions), let us know where.

The problem with the A-400M is that is is primarily a tactical aircraft with some strategic capabilities. This extra weight might turn it into a bad tactical aircraft with even more limited strategic capabilities.......

[GreenKnight121]

Latest info I have seen (press release yesterday) quoted C-17 at $200 million US each for USAF*, $220 million US export.


* for the 15 just ordered

[The Equivocator]

Any chance of a link?

[GreenKnight121]

I'll try to find it.

[GreenKnight121]

Found it. Boeing release, detailed in Aviation Week:

Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/C17-021309.xml&headline=Boeing%20Turns%20to%20Cost%20Reduction%20on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense)

[proteus6]

If the AN70 is so good why is Russia not buying any?

[The Helpful Stacker]

If the AN70 is so good why is Russia not buying any?

Perhaps Russia isn't keen to buy aircraft from a Ukrainian company?

[BEagle]

If the An 70 is so good, why isn't Russia buying any?

IIRC, it was because they suddenly woke up to the fact that it wouldn't really do anything which the Il 76 couldn't already do.

And they still had one or two of those knocking around.....

[Flyingblind]

Have seen information regards a collaboration between India and the Ukraine re a 'mini-me' twin engine C-17. Rather like those good folk down in the South American jungle.

New players keen to get a slice of the action are showing their paper planes, Interesting to see what will be actually make it to market in the coming years.

[Minorite invisible]

There are several reasons.

Design work on the An-70 began in 1983, and the decision for production was made in 1988, when Ukraine was still part of the USSR. At the time the USSR was broke and funding was minimal for all military programs.

In Dec 1991 Ukraine became an independent country and the Antonov Design bureau that designed the An-70, the Aviant plant that was to manufacture it, as well as the Ivchenko-Progress Company that designed its engines all ended up outside what is now Russia. These three companies are not Russian but Ukrainian. Even the wings were built at TAPO, in Uzbekistan, now also an independent country (outside Russia).
The top brass of the Russian Air Force were upset at Ukraine because at the break up of the USSR, the bulk of the IL-78 Air to Air refuellers were based in Ukraine, which kept them. There were also also other conflicts regarding the Russian Black Sea fleet, based in Ukraine.

But until then, the broke Russian were still funding the program, although minimally. The first prototype was ready for flight in 1994, and on its fourth test flight, it crashed after having a mid-air collision with an An-72 chase plane that was filming it. Two years later (1996) the ADB had converted the static test airframe into a flying prototype to continue the flight testing programme. The certification flights continued until 2001 when the sole prototype lost the #1 and #3 engines at night, right after take-off, at 130 feet AGL. The mishap occurred right after the An-70 had taken on 38 tonnes of fuel at en en-route stop to Russia for cold weather tests. At first fuel contamination was suspected but it turned out both engines were shut down automatically by the FADEC, and to compound the problem, one prop failed to feather and windmilled. They put it down in a snowy field, straight ahead. The prototype was fixed within a few months but work was needed on the engines, especially the FADEC (sounds familiar?)

It is around that time that Russian Perm Aircraft engine company began to work on a new engine for the Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft, the PS-90. Russia was broke and some High ranking Russian Air Force Officers could not understand why Russia had to fund a 70 or 80 million dollars Ukrainian aircraft capable of hauling 47 tonnes when one could buy brand new 50 to 60 tonne capacity IL-76s for 15 to 30 million dollars (India took delivery of 6 IL-78 tankers in 2003, for somewhere around that price and China ordered 38 of them, a sale that Russia eventually blocked)

(Recently India ordered 3 IL-76 based A-50 AWACS, the first of which was delivered last just month:
Photos: Beriev A-50EI Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/India---Air/Beriev-A-50EI/1472219/L/)
Those cost a fortune, but the price was due mostly to the AWACS modifications and electronics rather than by the IL-76 on which is it mounted)

Then in 2004 there was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, with talk of Ukraine wanting to join the EU and worst, NATO. Finally in 2006, Russia which was the main customer with 165 An-70 orders pulled out. By that time what Russia was doing is not to buy new airlifters at all, but they began a re-engining programme of their 250+ fleet of IL-76/IL-78/IL-82/A-50 aircraft with modern Perm PS-90 engines and EICAS, a handful of which have been completed so far. Here are pictures of one of them.
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-90/1301030/M/)
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-90/1296097/L/)
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-90/1331089/L/)

This conversion cost them probably under 30 million dollars each (4 engines, plus a little work) In 2006 and 2007 Ilyushin has continued delivering brand new IL-76s, of a 50 tonne capacity for about 50 million dollars a piece. Russia is now in the process of restarting a new Ilyushin production facility at the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Factory, a version they call the IL-476. It will be 100 per cent Russian, and not Ukrainian.

That is why Russia is not buying the An-70.

[Sook]

Slightly off topic, but while doing some digging into AT on the parliament website, I found the following:

House of Commons - Public Accounts - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmpubacc/136/1011719.htm)

Maybe that explains why we won't get the An-70.

[proteus6]

Thanks Minorite invisible
Couldn't ask for a better answer then that!

[hello1]

From the Commons link:

The confusing and contradictory process by which DPA.......

Chortle - fill in the missing word. 'Existed' would be a good start.;)

[Arcanum]

The C-17 went through the same pains, and its runway performance that paid the price. In the early days, to justify funding, Boeing claimed the Boeing C-17 could use 3000 foot runways and was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic one. Now that the C141 is retired and the C-5 is out of production, one does not hear too much of that anymore. If anyone knows of any runway under 4500 feet where a C-17 has ever landed (outside of training missions), let us know where.

A C17 was used to fly a live Killer Whale called Keiko from Oregon to Vestmannaeyjar airport in Iceland back in 1998. Run way length 3900ft.

Vestmannaeyjar Airport (VEY) Details - Iceland (http://www.world-airport-codes.com/iceland/vestmannaeyjar-7401.html)

That said, they did break the front undercarriage on landing.

[Minorite invisible]

A C17 was used to fly a live Killer Whale called Keiko from Oregon to Vestmannaeyjar airport in Iceland back in 1998. Run way length 3900ft.

Vestmannaeyjar Airport (VEY) Details - Iceland

That said, they did break the front undercarriage on landing.

Thanks for that! I knew the story but was not aware how short the runway was at Vestmannaeyjar.

Here is a US Air Force quote

The Globemaster arrived at Vestmannaeyjar's airport on time. Although Keiko and the other passengers were safe and sound, the C-17 suffered landing gear damage upon touchdown. Air Force accident investigation board later determined that the accident occurred due to the failure of the trunnion collar spud of the main landing gear, caused by a technique used to clean the component. Damage to the right main landing gear was substantial, and was classified as a determined a Class A mishap. A Class A mishap involve damages worth at least $1 million.

[ORAC]

Defpro.Daily: Abandoning the A400M programme means losing European sovereignty (http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/249/)

L'Airbus militaire A400M sur le ‘chemin critique’ de l'Europe de la défense

07:27 GMT, February 19, 2009

On 10 February 2009 the French Senate unveiled a report entitled “L'Airbus militaire A400M sur le ‘chemin critique’ de l'Europe de la défense” – “The A400M Military Airbus on the critical path for European defense,” which was jointly prepared by the Senate’s foreign affairs and finance committees.

For the first time, an official report reveals that the A400M is facing significantly greater technical problems and delays than have previously been disclosed.

The report notes that the delivery of the Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC) for its EPI TP400-D6 turboprop engines is now scheduled for October 2009, two years later than the original plan. Nearly identical delays are also expected for the navigation systems, Flight Management System (FMS) built by Thales, the GPS Air Data Inertial Reference System (GADIRS) built by Sagem, as well as the Terrain-Reference Navigation System (TRN) and the Terrain Masking Low Level Flight system (TM-LLF), both built by EADS Military Air Systems.

The first flight is expected to be delayed by about two years. Due to these delays, the delivery of the first A400M will not take place before late 2012, the report predicts.

Constrictions

Further, it is anticipated that the first aircraft to be delivered will have a number of constrictions: According to the report, the aircraft will be 12 tonnes heavier than originally designed, which could affect the planned payload of 37 tonnes. The report also said that the first A400M aircraft would have a reduced speed, not allowing the aircraft to operate in more sophisticated flight modes. Scheduled deliveries of the full operational aircraft would begin one year later.

Price

Also, the aircraft unit price has increased from €110 million at 1998 values to a currently estimated €145 million. This price tag is 31 percent higher than originally budgeted for and EADS has demanded further price increases. €5 billion have already been paid by the countries financing this program.

Causes for developmental deficits

Since the beginning, the participating nations had significantly different requirements for the new transport aircraft. The UK Armed Forces needed a new fleet of military transport aircraft by 2004 and any delay beyond that date would have caused a loss in operational capabilities.

The German Armed Forces had more time, since their C-160 transport aircraft did not need to be replaced before 2008. Indeed, the German military focused on reducing the price of the A400M project. However, for Spain the A400M programme marked a unique opportunity for its nation’s aircraft industry to take part in this highly prestigious programme. The report also said France had a similar position to the UK, but remains committed towards solidifying joint European defence cooperation.

Additionally, the report detailed causes for developmental inadequacies in technical aspects of the project since the A400M created a design challenge as it combines tactical as well as strategic airlift capabilities. The partner-countries requested the aircraft be powered with a completely new high-power turboprop engine, which became another such challenge. The participating countries also chose to install a unique aviation suite into the aircraft.

According to the report, even by assuming a comfortable 80% chance for success in each of the three main challenges, the programme as a whole had no more than a 50% chance of success.

The original goal for the A400M was to build a completely new aircraft to be delivered within a very rigid time frame and at a very low cost, the report said.

EADS itself sought to challenge Boeing’s market position and clearly underestimated the technical challenges to be overcome.
According to the report, OCCAr (the European organisation for joint armament cooperation, Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d’ARmement) which managed the A400M programme, never received the management resources or authority to provide effective oversight. This resulted in each change in the programme needing to be approved by all participating countries, causing further delays and complications.

Next steps

The report stated that major deadlines must be met in the coming weeks.

OCCAr is expected to present a comprehensive review of the programme by the end of February 2009. The report also pointed out that the contract stipulates that if the first flight is delayed by more than 14 months, participating nations have a legal right to abandon the programme in a collective or individual decision and demand their funding payments be returned. Since the first flight was scheduled for January 2008, this deadline expires in April 2009, which means that any decision about the future of the programme has to be taken by April 2009.

The report also noted that the programme runs at a loss and since aircraft deliveries have been greatly delayed this would allow governments to ask for major penalties, which would place EADS into a precarious financial situation. At the same time, the report stated that the European aerospace and defence giant should not be weakened since it is a part of the European sovereignty.

The report concludes that cancellation of the programme would entail very severe consequences for all involved. EADS and the entire European aerospace and defence industry would face large financial losses and would also lose its credibility as a major industrial programme partner. The participating nations would lose the European-built aircraft they sought to create and would find only US alternatives, leaving the military transport aircraft sector to the US. Further abandoning of the programme will be accompanied by losses of jobs and know-how and European sovereignty, the report stated.

For these reasons, the authors very strongly suggest that all nations, as well as the industrial partner, should reach agreement as quickly as possible to ensure the success of the programme.

[Minorite invisible]

The French Senate report also said that "The An-70 and An-124 aircraft cannot be considered for political and technical reasons (certification)"

The An-124 is a strategic Transport (like the C-17) but still, around 1999, Air Foyle of the UK determined that they could produce within a couple years a "westernized" version of the An-124 called the An-124-210 with RR engines and western avionics. The UK MOD concurred, except they claimed it would take longer than Air Foyle claimed (4 years vs 2)
(House of Commons - Public Accounts - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmpubacc/136/1011719.htm))

About the An-70 now. Back in 1999, Germany thought well about the An-70 and mandated DASA to go to to Ukraine to study the AN-70 and determine if that aircraft met the specifications for the FLA and could meet Western Europe's certification. DASA which, as a Western European company preferred the A-400M project in which it would be involved and have more to gain. That DASA report was never published as far as I know, but leaks revealed that the report stated the An-70 would meet the FLA specs after some modifications and was certifiable to Western Europe's Standards. Of course DASA has since been integrated in EADS and is involved in the A-400M proper so they will not publish that report. If only it had been leaked in its entirety.

1999 | 2067 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999%20-%202067.html)
res2.1 (http://www.niss.gov.ua/cacds/rese/res2e.htm)
Antonov AN-70 (http://www.cthomas.de/an_70.htm)

As far as ramped airlifters, L-M made the C-130 and the C-141 and the C-5. Douglas made the C-17. Airbus made none (or the C-160, sort of). CASA made the CN-212, the 235 and the 295.

Antonov made the An-8, the An-10, the An-12, the An-22, the An-24, the An-26, the An-28, the An-30, the An-32, the An-38, the An-72, the An-74, the An-124 the An-225 all of which are turbine military-type ramped airlifters of different sizes. These aircraft are all over the World. This company produced more ramped airlifters than any other company in the world. The An-22 was the biggest aircraft in the world and remains to this day the largest turboprop ever made with four 15,000 SHP engines. The An-124 was the largest production aircraft of its time and the An-225 remains today the largest aircraft ever built. It carries 250 tonnes, twice as much as the C-5 Galaxy (which is the largest US aircraft). NATO makes extensive use of An-124s with the SALIS contract.

Here is an interesting document on Aviation related Industries and Ressource located in the Ukraine. Its 44 pages long. Worth every page.
EADS has money and software. Antonov has the experience, know how, and the people.
www.dglr.de/veranstaltungen/extern/aerodays2006/sessions/G_Sessions/G3/G34.pdf

Antonov is Ukrainian and many the engines that power these machines are also Ukrainian. Developing close commercial and industrial ties with Ukraine would do more to help this country and draw it to western Europe than integrating it in NATO and the EU, and also more than putting Missile shields on their territory. Instead we do our best to isolate them from Russia while at the same time we treat their great and advanced aeronautical industrial know-how as that of an ENEMY nation.

The US, through its control of NATO and with stupid unilateral measures such as the Missile Shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, and by putting constant needless military and political pressure on Russia, is entertaining this climate of fear against Russia that Ukraine keeps getting confused with. The result: extra sales of C-130s, C-17s, F-16s, Apaches, Patriot Missiles, Radars etc from the US. Every time anyone mentions Antonov in North America, they call it RUSSIAN or even SOVIET, to scare people. And Europe eats right out of their hands.

Europe will pay a price for that stupidity. You will all buy C-130s and C-17s.

[herkman]

There was a time, when I was serving with the RAAF, that the RAF had a good uplift capacity, was a force to be proud of.

Since then we have seen the reduction in capacity of the RAF, fall greatly on the C130. Yes there are other frames there have have done a good job, but they are all rapidly falling by the way.

The A400M was I presume supposed to resolve this issue, and if it had arrived on time, and achieved the specifications all would have been well.

But the aircraft is late, very late and now does not appear to enter service for at least three years.

The prototype has not flown, so we the users are unable to tell with accuracy, that it will do the job.

Running out of airframes must also mean that crews will be hard pressed to remain current, and some in disgust will leave.

For the life of me, I cannot see how the MOD can expect the RAF to carry out this role, without the equipment to do so.

I think it is very sad, and a direct reflection of the MOD, that at least in the cargo type roles, the RAF has been allowed to run down to the stage that it has, with every chance that it will get worse.

All the talk in the world, will not make up for the fact that we are short, very short on capacity to do the tasks. What is sadder is that the MOD does not appear to have a plan to fix it, and to fix it quickly.

Air Forces of the world, aimen of the worlde deserve better than this.

Regards

Col

[VinRouge]

Also, the aircraft unit price has increased from €110 million at 1998 values to a currently estimated €145 million. This price tag is 31 percent higher than originally budgeted for and EADS has demanded further price increases. €5 billion have already been paid by the countries financing this program.

In which case, as a result of UK/EU and UK/USD exchange rates, C-17 is now cheaper than A400m.

Its a no brainer.

More C-17s it is then.

[GreenKnight121]

Hmmm... Wednesday, the euro changed hands at 1.2568 dollars.

$220 million per for C-17 export models calculates as €175 million per... compared to a currently estimated €145 million per A400M.

Getting closer to parity, eh?

[ORAC]

I would suggest, even if you discount any further price increases, the additional cost of entirely separate supply/support and training chains will more than wipe out that price difference.

[proteus6]

You should also consider that export $ is lost money, if you spend money in Europe a lot is returned, earnings paid in wages are taxed, VAT etc. also development loans are repaid and the employment creates further growth.
Its not just a straight sum

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Proteus has a good point. I remember reading somewhere that if UK PLC bought entirely british from an entirely british company something like 60% of the apparent outlay ended up straight back in the treasury coffers through corporation tax, income tax (+NI), VAT, vehicle tax, fuel duty etc etc etc.

So the sums aren't always straightforward on a governmental scale, although it's all the same amount of cash out of the defence budget!

[phil gollin]

I'm more worried about the final performance. 12 tonnes overweight with a target 37 tonnes payload seems awful.

Any idea how much weight can REALISTICALLY be taken out of the design ?

.

[BEagle]

Indeed. Whilst engine software delays are, perhaps, understandable given the complexity of the engine/prop/speed range with which they must cope, quite how can something which was supposed to have 66500 kg OEW now be a massive 18% overweight at 78500-ish kg?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

It's pregnant. It's the only answer....

[engineer(retard)]

Seems like the old adages from previous collaborated programmes still holds true. In that the eventual cost and delay multiples are the square of the number of nations involved.

[BEagle]

pba_target, you're probably right - it's been f***ed about with for so long that it surely must be pregnant by now!!

[indie cent]

Sixth buyer for the C-17. UAE opting for airlift fleet of C-17 and C-130J...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/25/323068/uae-strengthens-airlift-capacity-with-c-130j-c-17-deals.html

[Ad Vantage]

A great combination!

[Truckkie]

All the arguments point to more C17s and C130Js.

Training costs minimal as fleets currently in service.

Logistics and engineering already in place.

Proven capability as both types currently operate throughout the whole spectrum of ops.

Meanwhile we have a whole C130K sqn on run-down, expecting to be the initial cadre and first A400M Sqn in early 2012:{

What will we do with a whole sqn of aircrew and support staff when their old aircraft is retired and the new one hasn't even flown yet!!!:mad:

The MOD should bite the bullet, cancel A400M and invest now in C17s and C130Js.

Outsize loads can still be moved by charter.

[StopStart]

And, as should come as a surprise to no-one on here, the Govt now think that the FRES program (that was half the reason behind us needing intermediate load lift capability) is, in fact, bollocks. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4800319/Frontline-armour-project-fiasco-MPs.html)

Who would've thought it......

:rolleyes:

btw,
a whole C130K sqn on run-down, expecting to be the initial cadre If they ever thought that the first A400 sqn was going to take anything more than their number plate then that sqn were very poorly briefed indeed....

[Truckkie]

Stopstart

You are quite correct - the Sqn and some of it's personnel were going to be intitial cadre.

Along with a mixture of rotary, ISTAR, AT and AAR crews to provide the mix of operational expertise that the A400M would need.

I believe this was to avoid old fleets taking old habits onto new platforms.

However, all fairly irrelevant when this platform hasn't even flown yet and when it does it will be overweight and at least 2 years late!:mad:

[Guzlin Adnams]

Is there any room for a smaller tactical a/c such as the C27? Another type, more money I suppose but it would be pretty cheap to operate and would take pressure off the 130's and in some ways maybe the Wokka.
Doesn't use the same engine as the 130J ?

[herkman]

To a degree the RAAF has taken some of the C130 boys to the C17 no problem.

Perhaps the real problem is, there are some jockeying for what is seen as plum posting.

They too if they exist they maybe are in for a rude shock.

If it was a true statement about old habits, with the safety record of the C130 in RAF and RAAF, I would ride the C130 anyday.

Some of the RAF crews must have close to 20,000 hours on type. The A400M has not even flown 2 minutes.

Regards

Col

[herkman]

The engine of the C27 I believe fully interchange with the C130.
So does a lot of the other gear.

Regards

Col

[Abbeville]

Found this on another (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=80d46c13-8f31-4f38-aa73-d6741eafb881&) website

[VinRouge]

Damn! I knew I should have shorted those EADS shares! :E

[chuks]

The news was in the papers here in Germany the other day, as if someone is floating the idea ahead of giving the A400M the chop.

I think the basic problem is that this is a fixed-cost contract that will not see additional funds coming from the governments involved. You know how usually "fixed-cost" means anything but that? Well, this time the purses are staying firmly shut but Airbus seems to be not in the mood to have to eat the losses.

There seems to be a perfect get-out clause if the first aircraft doesn't fly soon, when it is nowhere close to being flown and that might be that!

I guess it will be good news for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, tears on the pillow for the Airbus military division but much of this could have been foretold from the original A400M design spec with these big, turbo-prop engines. I seem to remember reading something about that when it was launched, anyway!

[The Real Slim Shady]

If they can't get the A400 right starting with a clean sheet, what chance the FSTA?

[The Helpful Stacker]

If they can't get the A400 right starting with a clean sheet, what chance the FSTA?

Eh? One is not really comparable to the other.

The process of building a military transport aircraft from scratch is (at least in my humble opinion) surely a much more complex task than converting an existing type to carry out the AAR role, a conversion that has been done before on many aircraft types including the type being offered under the FSTA contract.

The issue with FSTA is not the technology, its the politics and the funding.

Of course don't yet that stop you banging that tied old Boeing drum (interestingly the one company who seem to be having a little trouble with their airliner to AAR aircraft conversions).

[VinRouge]

If anything, this will be good for FSTA. Airbus could cut a deal to provide more A330's in pax fit and AAR (we are short of both remember) in exchange for the nations axe-ing A-400M and EADS will have to bite the bullet on development costs. EADS will take ahit, but not go bust.

Only losers will be Rolls who are getting a good bite of the cherry with export deals being arranged with the chinese courtesy of the UK government anyway, together with any smaller component producers etc.

But who knows? They may get the first one flying and we may fly it yet! I do hope so, all projects have developmental issues and A400m promised t be a great aircraft.

Having More C130J/C-17 woulnt be a bad investment either mind...

[The Real Slim Shady]

From the Defence Committee's report:

The Report also considers what appears to be a worsening situation in the airbridge carrying troops and materiel between UK and the operational theatres. The Committee was concerned to learn last year that the A400M transport aircraft programme had been delayed by 15 months, requiring an extension of the ageing Hercules C-130K aircraft fleet. Mr Arbuthnot commented, “It is extremely serious that the A400M transport aircraft programme is now running two years late and further delays cannot be ruled out. The Government must set out its most up-to-date thinking on the options available and say whether it considers that there is a real risk that the entire A400M project might be so delayed that abandonment would be preferable.”

Perhaps that and the report in the Times that the Govt may have to use £2Bn of taxpayer's money to rescue PFI schemes doesn't bode well for the FSTA either.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Slightly off topic, but.......

Along with a mixture of rotary, ISTAR, AT and AAR crews to provide the mix of operational expertise that the A400M would need.

I believe this was to avoid old fleets taking old habits onto new platforms.


I guess no-one has told PMA and the MR2/MRA4 force about this?!?!?! :ugh:

[phil gollin]

Sorry if this has been posted on another thread - I picked it up off another board :

F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed
Aviation Week's DTI | Andy Nativi | March 06, 2009
This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,
The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.

For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martinhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html#) seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.

The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.

But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.

Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon'shttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,00.html#) TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.

Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.

Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.

That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.

In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."

The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter.

Still, one key feature, Lockheed Martin executives stress, is the very low observability designed into the JSF. Whereas the F-35 would carry its weapons internally, the Typhoon, Su-30, Saab Gripen or Dassault Rafale carry their missiles externally, thus increasing their radar signatures and degrading their on-paper air-to-air performance. The F-35 also accommodates more internal fuel, 8.3 tons, giving it greater endurance potential without external fuel tanks that would affect radar signatures.
Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary's beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.

Those figures are part of the rationale for countries pursuing the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missile to supplant Amraams. Yet even in the Amraam world, Typhoons may have an edge over the F-35, since they could launch the missile at higher speed. Sukhoi Su-30s and the future T-50 are also being designed to maximize air-to-air missile performance that way.

Finally, while Lockheed Martin touts F-35 stealth as an advantage, it has its drawbacks, as well. The aircraft's payload is limited as long as it wants to preserve its low-observable signature through internal carriage. That means having only four AIM-120s at its disposal. A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a "stealthy" JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35's potential.

It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft.


==============================

[Double Zero]

I wouldn't like to be the JSF pilot trying to dodge something like an AMRAAM; I was on the first European trials of the weapon ( Sea Harrier ) and it's a 'hittile' rather than missile relying on proximity fusing, as the Sidewinder etc are.

It's also extremely resistant to countermeasures, the concensus being that if one knows such a thing is coming your way, reach for the yellow & black handle...

It would be surprising if Eastern manufacturers haven't got a similarly capable weapon, they certainly manage magnificent aircraft & ejection seats.

[Modern Elmo]

... much of this could have been foretold from the original A400M design spec with these big, turbo-prop engines....

What is wrong in principle with big turboprop engines? Please explain.

And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage --

That is contradictory and illogical. If drag due to large frontal area were a problem, the aircraft would be slow to accelerate at lower altitude. At higher, stratospheric altitude, flate plate or profile drag is less and less of a problem.

Furthermore, this alleged "large frontal area" may be providing more lift than drag. An aircraft such as the F-35 is a blended wing and lifting body design.

...meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals....

Which quick reaction role? Define that.

The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 ...

Your source for that ratio?

... and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter.

You don't know what the F-35's wing loading really is. No, you can't calculate the wing loading of a blended wing and lifting body aircraft by taking the wingspan and chord and some guesstimated coefficient of lift and applying Oswalds's efficiency factor, and then dividing assumed weight by the effective lifting area you have erroneously and ineffectively calculated.

The wing loading is actually lower than 110lb./ft^2, because the F-35 gets significant lift from its central body, as I said above. Look, the F-35 is optimized for best performance below about 30,000 feet, as is its predecessor, the F-16. This means that the aircraft needs somewhat heavier wing loading for less drag in thicker, lower altitude air. Heavier wing loading is also needed to allow pull-up or turning maneuvers at high g rates in denser air, or else the wing roots and box structure will have to be made stronger and therefore heavier.

What do you think an F-16's wing loading is when configured for air to air combat? Would you say that the F-16 has not been ideal for a dogfighter during the past thirty years? Nobody's fighter plan is ideal for all altitudes and all missions

I'm not saying that the F-16's design is perfect. The F-16 has a pitch-up problem at certain airspeeds.

However, wing loading is something the designers of the F-16 and F-35 understood very well. The designers chose the wing loading for these two aircraft quite intentionally and for a good reason, which is that these two aircraft are optimized for flight at lower altitude. Nobody's fighter plane performs equally well at stratospheric as well as lower altitudes

[ORAC]

GAO calls rush to field F-35 strike-fighter not 'prudent' (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-10196641-42.html)

The Department of Defense's $1 trillion-plus plan to build and deliver multiple versions of the Joint Strike Force (JSF) aircraft to multiple customers is behind schedule, over budget, and upside down, according to a report from the Government Accounting Office (PDF (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09303.pdf)).

Upside down because the military is accelerating procurement of operational aircraft before it has even taken delivery of test units, according to the non-partisan GAO. "Procuring large numbers of production jets while still working to deliver test jets and mature manufacturing processes does not seem prudent," the report states.

The JSF program, personified by the F-35 Lighting II, is a joint international venture led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The report calls this the DOD's most complex and ambitious aircraft acquisition and the linchpin of the military's plan to modernize its tactical air forces.

Chronic manufacturing inefficiencies, parts problems, design changes, and a steep learning curve have slowed delivery of test aircraft, according to the watchdog agency, even as DOD wants to ramp up production of line aircraft. Speeding up the delivery of 169 aircraft by 2015 will require billions in additional funding, "magnifying the financial risk to the government" and adding years to the development schedule, according to the GAO.

Contractors say they'll have the problems fixed and all the test aircraft delivered by next year. But by that time, the DOD plans to have already purchased 62 operational aircraft, according to the report. As currently configured, the DOD is at liberty to spend $57 billion on 360 aircraft, even before it completes flight testing. The contractor has extended the manufacturing schedule three times.

In 2007, the DOD decided to cut back on test aircraft and flight tests and rely instead on "state-of-the-art simulation labs, a flying test bed, and desk studies to verify nearly 83 percent of JSF capabilities." Ground testing to this extent is not a proven substitute for actual test flights, the report warns.

The single-seat, single-engine multi-role strike fighter has something for everyone. It does stealth, air-to-air, close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. It can take off and land on conventional runways, do short takeoff and vertical-landing, or land on a carrier. The project features a mixed bag of contractors as well, with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems leading an international team of suppliers and manufacturers.

[ORAC]

Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features
(http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/17/323962/pictures-boeing-unveils-upgraded-f-15-silent-eagle-with-fifth-generation.html)

Boeing today unveiled a new F-15 prototype aimed at the international market with such "fifth-generation" add-ons as radar absorbent coatings, internal weapons carriage and integrated digital avionics, plus featuring a distinctive V-tail.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/f-15se/images/28531/425x283/boeing-f-15se.jpg

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/f-15se/images/28530/425x283/boeing-f-15se.jpg

[ORAC]

Jerusalem Post: IAF mulling purchase of 'stealthy' F-15s (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710730741&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Facing soaring costs and American opposition to the integration of Israeli systems into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Israel Air Force is reviewing specifications of a new and advanced model of the F-15 Eagle, which is claimed to have enhanced stealth capabilities.

Boeing unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), a new configuration of the F-15 which has undergone improvements and modifications that, according to media reports, give the plane a stealth capability that is effective in evading radars on enemy aircraft, but not ground-based radar systems. Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments to the aircraft as well as a new design for the conformal fuel tanks that allows them to carry weapons rather than fuel.

Israel operates several squadrons of F-15s, including one of 25 F-15Is, the aircraft with the longest range in the IAF.

The Silent Eagle will be capable of carrying internally air-to-air missiles, as well as air-to-ground weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).

Defense Ministry Director-General Pinchas Buhris was scheduled to travel to the United States on Monday for talks at the Pentagon about the F-35.......

Israel's interest in the new F-15SE stems from a number of considerations, but primarily from expected delays in the delivery of the JSF as well as the Pentagon's opposition to Israel's request to install Israeli-made systems in the aircraft, which is under development by Lockheed Martin.

While Israel decided last year to purchase the F-35, if political disagreements over the integration of systems continued, officials said it was possible interest in the newly-modified F-15SE would increase.

The Jerusalem Post first reported on the US opposition in February. In addition, the price of the F-35 is expected to pass the $100 million mark and would only arrive in Israel - if a deal is signed in the coming months - in 2014. According to media reports, the new F-15SE will cost less and could arrive in Israel as early as 2011.

There is also an option to upgrade existing F-15s to the Silent Eagle model at a much lower cost. The US Air National Guard is also considering upgrading existing aircraft instead of purchasing new fifth-generation planes like the JSF and the F-22.

[glad rag]

Reading the above "report" it looks like Dave B is even more of a lash-up than ever!:}

[BEagle]

If by that childish 'Microsoft Flight Simulator' :8 spotter-geek appellation 'Dave B', you're referring to the F-35B, I think you'll find that it's a STOVL aeroplane, not a CTOL aeroplane such as the F-15.

However, the F-15 has had the benefit of many years of constant development, whereas the F-35 is at the beginning of its service life. So the new F-15SE is likely to be an exceptional aeroplane.

[GreenKnight121]

Oh, dear, BEagle... it seems your memory has gone rather dotty.

As you well know, but seem to have forgotten, "Dave" is this board's own created nickname for F-35... with "Dave B" corresponding to F-35B.

It is widely used here, and has nothing to do with any simulator, nor with "spotters".


Do see a Doctor about those memory lapses, dear chap... it might be a sign of something serious.

[BEagle]

"Dave" is this board's own created nickname for F-35... with "Dave B" corresponding to F-35B.

Only by the wannabees who infest this site.

[Squirrel 41]

"Only by the wannabees who infest this site."

Bit harsh BEagle.... IIRC, this was the consensus of those who contributed to the long debate on F-35B vs F-35C, many of whom were very knowledgable indeed. I believe that "Dave" was considered "banter"......

S41

[glad rag]

Beagle,

Cheer up old chap.

[BEagle]

Quite happy, thanks!

I just happen to have grown weary of that stupid 'Dave' appellation for the F-35.

[Wrathmonk]

Strange that you've not grown weary of TypHoon, Vickers FunBus, your various low quality nicknames for former very senior officers etc etc .... ;)

[GreenKnight121]

Quite happy, thanks!

I just happen to have grown weary of that stupid 'Dave' appellation for the F-35.

And you choose to show this by belittling and denigrating those who use it?


Excellent display of^ class and character.

^a complete lack of

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

You don't get to almost 15,000 posts without some contradictions in your 24/7 ether persona :sad:

[NURSE]

well guys I would sugest you enjoy reading the sales lit and looking at the pictures of JSF and A400 in RAF colours as that could well be the only time they appear in RAF or RN colours given the budget statemant and the 23+ years it's going to take to make the country solvent again I would sugest if you haven't got it now or its in production for you now for the services you aren't going to get it.
The Chancellor is being very optimistic with his figures and I would sugest its a huge IF he gets the loans. There are efficiency savings for all departments of Govt this year and it looks like the defence budget will fall in the next few years. Wonder if Tornado & C130K will last another 25 years?

[Wrathmonk]

Nurse

Agree with what you are saying, particularly regards the budget.

Anyone else sad enough to dig into the supporting doicuments for this years budget? Whilst I haven't (and wouldn't!) read every page, the following alarmed me (unless I'm reading it wrong).

On Table C11 (or page 241 of the overall document [and page 25 of 38 of that particular section]) - click here (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_04_09bud09_chapterc_463.pdf)- it gives the Resource DEL for Goverment Departments. The figures below (in £Bn) read across as the estimate for 08-09 / Plan 09-10 / Plan 10-11. Defence makes interesting rwading compared to the other two big spenders.

Defence : 37.9 / 38.7 / 36.7
Health : 92.5 / 99.9 / 104
Children, Schools and Families : 46.8 / 49.2 / 51.3

Anybody see something wrong here....?:ugh: Or is this government smoke and mirrors and actually the Defence budget is going up? It goes on to say (in footnote 1) that the 2010/11 figures reflect adjustments as a result of additional value for money savings. So how come Defence is the only one (of the big hitters) that goes down? It also has a throw away comment that the increase in 09/10 over what was forecast in Budget 08 is the need to fund ongoing operations. So much for the "contingency fund"!

Incidentally, the Capital DEL figures follow a similar pattern.

So, given defence industry inflation is (or was) running way above any of the other government inflation figures, from what I can see the future is indeed bleak. Never mind saving FW FAA it could get a whole lot worse than that.

[NURSE]

simple solution for the FAA staying in the fixed wing arena let them take over Maritime Patrol with Nimrod. The USN does that with orion

[NURSE]

£36.7 billion will be more than enough to cover 2010/2011 as the defence cuts sorry efficiency savings to be announced later this year will bring our forces down to a level that this will cover along with expensive operations.

The Govt claim the operations part of the budget will come from contingency reserves.

[Double Zero]

I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if we'll end up with a souped-up Coastguard, air, land and sea ?

Seems we can forget ' projecting our interests ' abroad - and that might suit us and ' abroad ' fine - as long as we can sort out anyone threatening invasion; the Navy seems to be going this way already, CVF excluded ( which sadly I expect it will be )...

[ORAC]

A400M Delayed by Paperwork Blunder (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4078604&c=EUR&s=AIR) :ugh::ugh:

Airbus A400M engine maker Europrop International has admitted it blundered in the development of a vital computer system by failing to produce the correct paperwork to allow the power plant to be certified to the required civil standards.

EPI president Nick Durham said the company only realized last year that the paper trail required for the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) was OK for military approval but not the civil requirements agreed to in the contract with Airbus. "The problem came from having to demonstrate to the European Aviation Safety Authority traceability through the development cycles. When we sat down with them late summer last year, it was clear to us and them that actually, whilst everything worked, we couldn't clearly show that," Durham said.

Durham attributed the error to "the pressure of the moment." "We didn't intentionally go down this route. The organizations involved in normal military programs work in a slightly different way to validate the software by operation and I think what happened was people kept to those processes under the pressure rather than move to the civil certification processes we had agreed to. It's a matter of what you do up front and what you do later," he said...........

Talking to reporters in Seville, the EPI boss said the company had to virtually develop from scratch the complex software required to control the aircraft's propulsion system. Durham said EASA is scheduled to do a formal audit on the software system this summer with full engine certification targeted for late 2009.......

Durham said EPI had had to draft in a lot of the best people from across the European partners to resolve the problem, causing other development programs to be "sacrificed." The FADEC workforce had been "more than trebled" to over 200 engineers, he said. The EPI boss said that at the time of the decision not to proceed with the flight test program, the FADEC system was functional, had the required paper trail for military approval, and had operated for over 2,000 hours on the engine-test bed.

Asked why, in light of the fact the A400M program was already facing delays, the decision had not been taken to develop the traceable software in parallel with the flight test program and grant a waiver for the military-approved system to be used, Durham said he wasn't the right person to say. "We had to come through with a traceable engine sooner or later and to demonstrate we had it right and give the customer [Airbus] confidence we had it right. Working with the customer we decided this was the best solution," Durham said.

In a statement, Airbus said the lack of certification of the FADEC, as required by EASA, meant they were not in a position to perform first or subsequent flights. "There is first a civil certification through EASA, and then a "military certification and qualification" which is for the more military specific aspects of the power-plant - airframe combination and utilization such as resistance to gravel and bullets.

EASA grants the stamp for first flight as A400M MSN1 [a test aircraft] will be operated under civil registration. Before granting it, EASA wants to have the assurance that it is safe for the airframe/engine combination to take-off. In the case of the FADEC software, which is complex integrated software, the minimum assurance is to show compliance to DO178B certification process and as a first step, demonstrate traceability of top level requirements in the software development process," said the statement...........


Durham said that despite the FADEC setbacks the 2,600 hours of running on test rigs and 25 hours on the flying test bed showed good results. About 90 percent of development testing is now complete and work is now underway to complete installation of instrumentation on the test engines for MSN1 with the aim of starting ground running tests this summer.

A Hercules C-130 flying test bed operated by British company Marshall Aerospace has been operating with a TP400 replacing one of the four engines since late last year. The engine has operated at 70 percent of take-off power and will shortly move to takeoff at full power, said Durham.

"Engine performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams. At take-off and cruise we are meeting maximum temperature margins, fuel consumption is at specification and in-flight restarts are working," he said.

Although A400M is known to be heavily overweight, Durham said the engine weight is within 1 percent of specification.

"That's pretty unusual at this stage of engine development. If the performance we have seen so far is backed up on the flight test program, it is so good it suggests we will be able to take out a bit more weight with modifications in the future."

[LowObservable]

Even if the A400M arrives three years late (deliveries in 2012) the consortium will still have delivered a complex, brand-new, front-line aircraft in less than ten years from contract award.

[ECMO1]

Der Spiegel is carrying an interview with the CEO of Airbus, translated in English. The interview is from 30 March but they just had it on their english web site. Based on what he is saying (or not saying) I doubt you will see an aircraft by 2012. Part of the problem with the A400M he blames on the contract they signed to develop the aircraft.

SPIEGEL: Germany is threatening to completely withdraw and France is considering reducing its order. It doesn't exactly look like a promising future ...
Enders: Objection! If we can manage to get the program back on course now, the A400M will be a success story. That is what we want -- but not at any price. In any case, we cannot build the plane under the conditions that we've had up to date.
SPIEGEL: Your company is also partly to blame for this development.
Enders: True. EADS should never have signed this contract. Our American competitors would never have accepted such conditions. We've made big mistakes, and errors have also been made on the customer side. We should now rectify these together.
SPIEGEL: What are your demands on the governments? More money? More time?
Enders: We submitted a few proposals back in December. This basically concerns three issues. First, the A400M should be technically and economically organized like any other defense project, where the risks and opportunities are appropriately shared by the customer and the industry. This means, for example, that Airbus will no longer carry the risks alone of engineering the engine, because that is neither our job nor did we want things this way. In all other military programs, the engines are also handled separately.
SPIEGEL: And second?
Enders: Engineering, flight tests and the start of production have to be optimized chronologically in order to minimize the risks of series production. And third, studies need to be conducted to assess whether the A400M, which is designed to be more or less an all-rounder, really has to be able to do everything right from the start. It could save everyone a great deal of time if some of the things this multi-talented aircraft is supposed to be able to do were only introduced step by step.


Interview available at SPIEGEL Interview with Airbus CEO Thomas Enders: 'EADS Should Never Have Signed the A400M Contract' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,616296-2,00.html)

[Yeoman_dai]

I think we need to start looking at the defence budget not as a whole, but as a % of our GDP.

The US spends 4.06% of its GDP on defence, France 3.4%, Pakistan 6%, India's increased from 2.6 to 3%. By comparison, we spend 2.6% - i KNOW it's wiki and I apologise, but check out the % of GDP table - for the 6th largest economy in the world, 69th isn't really the best place to be.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

although in this table Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Organisation | Key Facts about Defence | Defence Spending (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm) at the bottom of page, it apparently shows that defence used up 5.8% of the government's total expenditure. - NB made me laugh, the reduction of a whole 5% on the MoD's overheads.

World Military Spending ? Global Issues (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) that has some interesting info as well based upon the USA's division of spending within government.

There is no real thrust in this post, its just a collection of data that show's just how skewed our priorities are. We still send aid to China for gods sake!

[Wader2]

The CIA World facts Book gives the following Defence GDP:

USA 4.06% (est 2005)
UK 2.4% (est 2004)
FR 2.6% (est 2005)
Pak 3.0% (est 2007)
Ind 2.5% (est 2006)

[ScrumpyJ]

Just a trade off in the end though. Our defence budget may be lower but we as a country get free healthcare. In that respect we should count ourselves lucky. Furthermore, I would suggest that it is just as important how well the money is spent rather than simply how much of it there is in the first place perhaps?

[BEagle]

....but we as a country get free healthcare....

But wouldn't it be great if those of us, unwilling to risk NHS waiting lists, who have been paying around £100 per month to BUPA could claim that against income tax......

If not, why not?

[Lima Juliet]

Our defence budget may be lower but we as a country get free healthcare

Yup, and in the military we now have to have stay awake next to Mr or Mrs Taleban twice removed from Birmingham waiting to cut off our b@lls and pop them in our gobs whilst we await for the morphine to cut in to relieve the pain from the effects of their cousin's rocket attack whilst in Kandahar. What a brilliant country this is... Jeeesh!!! :ugh:

[Herc-u-lease]

Not that it adds much value to the debate but the situation with the software is dire. Not realizing you have to comply with civil standards but just military is a bizarre argument. Any serious aviation software development should be following processes designed to meet DO-178B objectives. These should be checked at each stage; planning, development, verification and if the the overseeing expert is not happy - then is the time to correct, not when you've flown xx hours on the "final" builds.

Bad software management - and calling it a paperwork blunder is like saying the Titanic sank because of frozen water.

[pr00ne]

Leon Jabachjabicz,

If that's how you feel about this country sod off then.

You can still get the Daily Mail abroad so you will still be able to keep up with how terrible it is here.

***t

[LFFC]

EPI president Nick Durham said the company only realized last year that the paper trail required for the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) was OK for military approval but not the civil requirements agreed to in the contract with Airbus.

Doesn't that say a lot about military safety standards compared to civilian standards?

[Lima Juliet]

Proone

Just trying to restate the obvious about military hospitals and how the Gov's Selly Oak decision has, in my opinion, let us down badly. A year or so ago I sat next to an 19yr old lad who was being rushed back on a Tristar to save both his feet - he was more scared about going to Selly Oak than losing his feet (which he sadly lost anyway). The 7hrs I spent with this lad has had the deepest effect on me during my 2x Op HERRICK tours - so I guess I am entitled to my opinion, don't you think?

If you think that everything is right with the Country and you are entirely happy with the Military Hospital vs NHS debate then you I suggest you are in a minority.

LJ

[Yeoman_dai]

JL

I recently spoke to an ex WO2 who,m as a run down before his retirement, had been the Amry liason to Selly oak. The problem is the doctors. In times of peace, doctors need to constantly practise to stay at the forefront of medicine, so it is impossible for the military to keep the top line doctors and nurses at any given military hospital - they kep leaving basically, and if they dont, when it comes to it, and they are needed, they aren't at the top of their game.

Don't get me wrong, its lamentable, but unavoidable. And, although it hurts me to say it, the new military wing being built onto Selly Oak is the best solution - because from who I have spoken to, the worst part o the Selly Oak is that the wards are mixed.

And in all fairness you're first post wasn't anything about that? Not having a go, just pointing it out.

[glad rag]

Doesn't that say a lot about military safety standards compared to civilian standards?

No.

It does say a HELL of a lot about the management of the project though.

[Chugalug2]

glad rag:
Doesn't that say a lot about military safety standards compared to civilian standards? No.
Quite right glad rag. Nowt wrong with Military Safety standards, as long as they are adhered to and enforced. The words FADEC and Chinook Mk2 should send a shiver down the backs of those contemplating the A400 RTS if it should ever happen. The difference between UK civilian and military airworthiness standards are that the former are enforced but the latter are not, by their respective authorities. The former is of course independent of its operators, the latter is one and the same. For military airworthiness standards to be adhered to requires an independent and separate MAA. Self Regulation does not work, in aviation it kills!

[ORAC]

Well, there you are the. France and Germany have agreed, and it's only another itsy-bitsy 6 months slip, at least until the next one - and the price increase - so we all have to obey, right? :hmm:

Sure, there'll be a meeting with everyone there, but the masters of spoken, haven't they? :hmm:

That'll be just after the pass vote to take over economic control of the City (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5508065/Calls-for-Brown-to-go-nuclear-in-City-battle-with-EU.html) and make sure that plays second fiddle to Paris and Frankfurt in the future.... :suspect:

Sarkozy, Merkel Agree To Delay Decision on A400M (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4134345&c=EUR&s=AIR)

PARIS - France and Germany have decided to delay for six months a decision on the future of the problem-plagued Airbus A400M military transport plane, President Nicolas Sarkozy said June 11.

Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the fate of the plane being built by Airbus, a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS, during a meeting at the Elysee presidential palace.

"We talked about the A400M and decided that it would be good to give ourselves a small delay of six months to continue discussions and to find the best possible solution," said Sarkozy at a joint news conference.

The A400M was initially scheduled to start being delivered at the end of 2009 but the program has suffered from a delay of at least three years and clients have threatened to cancel their orders.

The military transport plane was unveiled last year but it has been hit by delays in building its massive turbo-prop engines, putting the 20-billion-euro ($28 billion) project at risk.

Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Turkey are participating in the A400M program.

"We are in full agreement. ... We will give ourselves a few more months and then we will see," said Merkel, who added that France and Germany "need a transport plane in any case."

French Defense Minister Herve Morin said this month that there would likely be a meeting of ministers from the seven participating countries and EADS to renegotiate the delivery contracts.

[Safeware]

EPI president Nick Durham said the company only realized last year that the paper trail required for the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) was OK for military approval but not the civil requirements agreed to in the contract with Airbus.

I wonder what military safety critical software standard this guy thought they were developing it to??????

"a schoolboy error" or an excuse? :ugh:

sw

[ORAC]

MoD still mum on JSF's future (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9832)
Friday, June 19, 2009

Doubts over the future of the Joint Strike Fighter continue to persist after the MoD refused to give a definitive answer on when the decision to buy the planes will be made.

The £2.2bn project is scheduled to see 150 planes purchased for the two new aircraft carriers by 2018. But heavy cost overruns and delays to the US programme have led to doubts here in the UK over whether the MoD can afford to go through with the programme, or purchase all 150 aircraft if it does go ahead with it.

In February minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies told an audience that a major announcement on the JSFs was forthcoming. Other than the purchase of three test aircraft, the MoD has yet to make any other moves related to the JSF programme.

Yesterday Davies refused to set a date for the purchase or confirm whether the full order of 150 JSFs would be bought.

In a written Parliamentary answer, he told MPs that "The procurement process for the Joint Strike Fighter remains at a very early stage. We have not taken the final investment decision and at this stage cannot, therefore, confirm overall numbers or the in-service date."

The statement is just the latest in a series of comments and incidents that have raised concerns over the future of the JSF. In April Davies refused to tell Defencemanagement.com whether all 150 JSFs would be purchased. He also refused to rule out a Harrier life extension beyond 2018, leading to speculation that the MoD may take this route over purchasing the JSF.

Furthermore, Lord Drayson is back at the MoD. The minister for defence research and development has long been rumoured to be a staunch opponent of the JSF and is believed to have favoured walking away from the deal during his time as defence procurement minister. His return to the MoD could signal a shift towards cuts or an all out cancellation of the deal.

[ORAC]

F-35B first AAR from C-130 (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/08/marine_f35b_081809w/)

[Art Field]

Could do with a refresher AAR course, holding in contact far too low.

[BEagle]

Were you able to see the video, Art? It's showing as 'AWOL' on the link.

Certainly looks a bit low, but might have been doing 'envelope exploration', perhaps?

Left hose looks a little stuck?

[ORAC]

F-135 Engine for the F-35 under the hammer.....

Team Must Complete F135 Engine Review by Nov. 20 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4269392&c=AME&s=AIR)

U.S. defense acquisition chief Ashton Carter has ordered a high-level panel to review all aspects of development and production of the F-35's primary engine by Nov. 20, according to a Pentagon memorandum.

The joint acquisition team (JAT) Carter has established to review the F135 engine program should look at "all aspects of development and production of the F135 engine, with primary focus on understanding the production cost, cost drivers, cost projections and long-term affordability of the F135," Carter wrote in a recent memo.......

[GreenKnight121]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the review recommends canceling the P&W F135 and moving to the GE/RR F136 for the primary engine?

[barit1]

Funny you should mention it! (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1349120320090913?rpc=44)

[GreenKnight121]

Sounds like FOD or a simple blade failure.

However, this is indeed why Congress has kept funding the F136 every time Bush & Rummy, or Bush & Gates, and now Obama & Gates have tried to kill it... just in case.

The F-35 is too important to risk serious delays if its engine had developmental problems.

[Squirrel 41]

AIUI, the cost to finish the F136 is USD 2bn or so - not a huge amount in the scope of the overall programme.

On the basis of the evidence from the "Great Engine War" of F100-PW vs. F110-GE, the American GAO favour the F-136. These people are auditors, and are inherently small c conservative; if there isn't any evidence, they're loath to predict. In short, if the GAO recommended two engines, the Administration needs to find a way to save face.

And one way that they could do this and save a bunch of money is to kill Dave-B and offer to keep F-136 to keep the UK / RR happy. Dave-B vs Dave-C is all a bit immaterial if the CVF programme hits the rocks.

S41

[GreenKnight121]

Except that the RAF specifically wants Dave-Bs to replace their GR7/9s... irregardless of CVF or not.

And then there is the USMC... which is scheduled to get about 4 times the UK's total Dave buy... and they want Dave-Bs only!

And the Italians & Spanish who want Dave-Bs for the nice new light carrier/amphib combos they specifically designed to fly to fly that aircraft?


No, CVF is a minor driver for Dave-B... it would have been developed if CVF had never been authorized and the RN was to go all-helo, and it won't be cancelled even if CVF is.

[Squirrel 41]

GK121

I agree that CVF is small beer in the Dave-B debate, and that frankly the only people who matter are the USMC. However, Dave-B is more expensive, more complex and less capable than either the -A or the -C, and even the DoD budget is hurting.

I was merely suggesting that if you kill -B, you'd save far more than killing F-136; and though the USMC will cry and stomp their feet, it's not obvious where a MEB or MEU (or whatever they're called this week) would need stealthy fast air that didn't merit the special attentions of a CVN.

Dave-B is a technical marvel; it isn't, IMHO, cost-effective. I don't think that the RAF high command are so Harrier centric that they'd spite themselves to buy -B if CVF goes (and possibly if it doesn't). I suspect that the RAF in 2025 will have an FJ fleet of 5 / 6 Sqns (the sixth being a composite of OCU and OEU peeps) and 4-6 Dave-C Sqns.

S41

[GreenKnight121]

There have been a number of times since the USMC took its AV-8Bs to sea aboard the LHAs & LHDs that they have needed some sort of FJ air cover and a CVN was nowhere near... Liberia 1990 for example*. All the CVNs were scrambling to the opposite side of Africa, leaving the MEU all by itself... and a call came in for their help.

The rebels had control of and were flying some fighter aircraft, and the USMC really didn't want to provide cover for the helos evacuating embassy personnel & civilians with just their Sea Cobras... it was a good thing they had some Harriers along.

In a few years the Harriers will be all gone, and if Dave-B is canceled there will be NO "fast air", stealthy or not, for the Marines to deploy without a CVN... and with the reduction in numbers of the CVN force over the previous CVN/CV force, the liklihood of being tasked with a low-level (but still with air threats) mission and being told "sorry, no CVN available, do it by yourself" is increasing steadily.

* Site - Main - Reference Library (http://smallwarsjournal.com/reference/liberia.php)
In 1990, Liberia exploded into a bloody civil war that continues to this day. During this time, USMC forces have engaged in three incursions into Liberia, the last one occurring in May 1996. Despite these recent actions, most military officers remain largely unaware of the Liberian war, its causes, or the historical ‘special relationship’ existing between the United States and Liberia.
All 3 times, no CVN was provided... the USMC made do with cover from AV-8Bs on flat-topped amphibs.

[ORAC]

....Anxious to demonstrate progress toward a first flight, Airbus Military will hold another technical press briefing on the troubled A400M airlifter in Spain next week. Ahead of the meeting, the company told AIN that Europrop had delivered Fadec software for the TP400 engines, so that system integration tests could proceed on the so-called “iron bird” test rig in Toulouse, France.

AIN has also learned that only two more flights of the C-130 engine testbed are required at Marshalls’ airfield in Cambridge, UK. A further edition of the Fadec software should then follow to Toulouse and Seville, France, where Airbus now says that the A400M should get airborne “at the turn of the year.

[Squirrel 41]

GK121,

I'm in the uncomfortable position of not being able to say that though it hasn't happened, it needn't happen in the future. It's a political and budgetary call.

S41

[jordanpolonijo]

mate did you notice the prediction for 2009?? from those budget supporting documents..??


LOL


£150.1 Billion on social security payments.

I want to scream. :mad:

[jordanpolonijo]

Ten percent of that is 3.5 x CVF QE2 class carrier projects.

But instead we give it to Somalians instead.

oh...

and then we spend money paying Naval wages and taking our equipment to counter Pirates. Guess where they are from?

Brown supposedly has a PhD. Obviously his thesis investigated "how to mismanage a nation and **** it in the ****".

[ORAC]

Abercrombie: F135 Mishap Shows Second JSF Engine a Must (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4280893&c=AME&s=TOP)

Congressional supporters of building a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are seizing upon a faulty test of the fighter's primary power plant to drum up support. In a Sept. 14 "dear colleague" letter, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, House Armed Services air and land subcommittee chairman, said a mishap during a test of the F-35's main engine, being built by Pratt & Whitney, shows two engines are necessary. The incident took place Sept. 11.

"Sophisticated fighter engine technology requires the engineering 'A team' on the job. A dual-sourced engine is good for readiness and good for competition," Abercrombie wrote in the letter, obtained by Defense News. "With current plans calling for 80 [percent to] 90 percent of the manned fighter fleet to be based on F-35A, B and C, two engine sources are required," he added. "Friday's [F135] engine failure makes this crystal clear."

Abercrombie sent the letter to members of the House Appropriations and Armed Services committees.

General Electric and Rolls Royce are developing the alternate power plant, the F136.

Abercrombie told colleagues the Pentagon is moving too fast to buy planes "without adequate testing." Those opposed to building both power plants say the F135 is performing well, the subcommittee chairman said, but "they fail to say that only 140 actual flight test hours have been logged, and there have been three engine failures, including one last Friday."

The push by Abercrombie comes amid several controversial weeks for the F-35 engine debate. With Pratt's F135 program reportedly up to $2 billion over budget, Pentagon acquisition, technology and logistics chief Ashton Carter has ordered a special team to conduct a soup-to-nuts review of the F135 effort. GE and Rolls on Sept. 1 handed Pentagon and F-35 program officials the first 100 or so F136 engines on a fixed-priced contract, as opposed to a cost-plus arrangement. The latter kind of contract typically is dramatically more expensive for the government.

While the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the alternative is not needed and attempted to terminate that effort, Congress for the past several years has kept it alive. House and Senate conferees who will hammer out a final version of 2010 defense spending legislation will decide the fate of the alternative engine program for another year in coming weeks. If the GE-Rolls engine initiative is kept alive long enough by the Pentagon and Congress, it is slated to enter a head-to-head competition with the Pratt & Whitney power plant in 2014. The winning engine would be delivered to DoD starting in 2016.

In his letter, Abercrombie touts the benefits of competition, borrowing a line from President Barack Obama's Sept. 9 speech to Congress on health care reform. "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition," the subcommittee chairman quoted Obama as saying. "That's how the market works."

[GreenKnight121]

Hmmm... kinda like the TSR.2 wing-break?

Ares Homepage (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8efd7958-7133-4ab5-a6a5-7ee6867c32af&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Pratt: F135 Fan Fix Simple, Cheap (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8efd7958-7133-4ab5-a6a5-7ee6867c32af&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Posted by Graham Warwick (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/community/persona/index.jsp?newspaperUserId=163197&plckUserId=163197) at 9/18/2009 4:49 PM CDT
Pratt & Whitney says it's standard industry practice - clip the tip of a blade to remove the piece that's susceptible to damage. And that's what the manufacturer plans to do with the fan blades on its F135 engine for the F-35, after a piece of the tip of a first-stage fan blade broke off during durability testing.

Pratt says the "potential cause" of the piece breaking off was an aerodynamic disturbance caused by a worn bushing ahead of the fan. The bushing is a cylindrical metal part used to seat, or locate, a component in the fan inlet case. Tear-down of the engine revealed all the bushings were severely degraded and some were missing.

That's not as bad as it might sound, because the blade damage occurred 2,455 cycles into a 2,600-cycle durability test of the initial service release (ISR) engine for production F-35As. That's the equivalent of eight years of in-service operation, Pratt says. When the tip broke off, the engine was 5 hours into a supersonic high-cycle fatigue test designed to deliberately excite blade vibration.

Pratt says the "minor modification" to be made immediately to all ISR engines will be to clip the corner off the tip of the fan blade at its trailing edge, removing the piece that broke off and "alleviating the potential" for it to fail. This will not degrade the engine's performance, the company stresses.

Engines for flight-test F135s are not affected, although the bushings are the same, because they have a "first-generation" fan that has already passed the required durability testing. The ISR engine has a "second generation" fan with lighter integrally bladed rotors. The bushings will be inspected periodically for wear until a new design is developed under the F135 component improvement program.

[ORAC]

Hmmm,

So there's this simple cheap modification that eliminates a point of failure, obviously saves weight, and has no impact on performance.

In which case, why weren't the blades built that way in the first place? :hmm:

[barit1]

Clipping blade tips is indeed a long-honored practice to fix fatigue vibratory problems. I can't count the number of engines that have had this implemented.

But there is ALWAYS a performance matter to be considered; that's why the blades weren't built that way in the first place. :rolleyes: Clipped blades mean the on-wing life is reduced because the engine will run out of EGT margin sooner.

Trust me, if the F136 is cancelled, Pratt will have no incentive to quickly and properly fix the F135.

[VinRouge]

You will get tip losses from this. Sounds as if it was from the cold end, in which case, possibly not as much thrust at altitude and high temperatures. Below its when a fadec is limiting against max thrust limits, it wont make much of a difference (although fuel consumption will be up slightly). If it is caused by acoustics from the othjer failed components, it may be less of an issue as long as they can beef up the non-rociprocating parts and take a slight weight penalty or slightly mod the design. It gets expensive when you mod bits that start to spin round.

If they are making out that a full blade mod at this stage is going to be cheap, they are talking hoop. Any single element in a gas turbine modded can lead to vibs problems in other areas. Its one great big balancing act I am afraid.

[Jig Peter]

:)
It's great to read that A400M has been moved outside the FAL in Spain for ground testing before the arrival of flight-ready engines, and that an engine with fully-modified software will be runniing on the "Iron Bird" in Toulouse shortly (source Airbus Military via Flightglobal 22 Sep)).
Apart from the understandable political pressure on the teams to get flight testing under way well before the end of the year, it will be a big relief for them to be back, at last, to the pre-flight stage ...
"Ooo-blurdy-ray" and (nearly) "oof !!!" etc ...

[Sook]

It's the FADEC rather than engines they're waiting for. I doubt the engines that were fitted at roll-out have changed substantially since that date, apart from a few mods that may have come out of the FTB programme. I guess they've had enough time to do any mods while they've bene waiting for the FADEC to be completed.

[Jig Peter]

You're absolutely right, Sook - in fact, the hardware seems to be under those red covers in the rolling-out shot. Let's hope the software is found OK and flight-worthy, and that the C-130 flights at Marshall's next week go off OK too.
Fingers crossed ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Flightglobal today (01/10) has a shot of the modified C-130 on its last TP400 test flight from Marshalls, and another of A400 MSN 01 with all four engines and propellers installed. VERY nice to see ! Those propellers look more than impressive, and clearly bathe most of the wing in their "inwards rotating" slipstream.
Optimism seems to be strengthening down in Spain ...
:ok:

[ORAC]

Airbus Engine Tests Completed (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4304754&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - The first flight of the Airbus A400M airlifter has edged closer following an announcement from Marshall Aerospace that it had completed the final phase of testing on the TP400 engine due to power the much-delayed transport aircraft.

The U.K.-based company said the flight trials of a single Europrop International-developed engine mounted on its modified C-130K test bed aircraft were completed Sept 30 after achieving 110 hours of engine running time. The test included 54 hours of flight trials.

Completion of the risk-reduction phase means the A400M is on track to meet the promises of Airbus executives that the airlifter would make its first flight around the end of the year. The fourth engine was recently fitted to the first A400M development aircraft at the Airbus military factory in Seville, Spain.

The future of the program had been in doubt earlier this year as a result of delivery and cost overruns. Airbus is in talks with partner nations Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey over a new program schedule for the A400M, including guarantees on performance, delivery and price.

The talks are being held under the umbrella of an agreement that has seen a temporary suspension of a contract clause allowing customers to cancel the program.

[ORAC]

The wrong way to build the F-35 (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_wrong_way_to_build_the_oLQLtHrRWTGHtp9LS8VrzI)

I'm quite unused to defending the actions of Congress, but when it comes to contracting the production of the new F-35 fighter, the Defense committees are right and the Pentagon is wrong.

The F-35 will be the only new US fighter plane for decades; with different versions for the Air Force, Navy, Marines and eight different allies, expected production will run more than 3,000 jets. Yet the Pentagon bureaucracy has fallen back on discredited, static "should cost" models to justify awarding a 30-year monopoly on the engines to a sole supplier.

Key members of the Defense committees, with decades of experience in defense issues, want to require competition for the contracts -- annual bidding by at least two suppliers. This would rightly ignore the testimony of appointed Defense Department officials whose tenure in procurement jobs has historically averaged about 18 months, and who certainly won't be around to pick up the pieces from yet another sole-source fiasco.....

[ECMO1]

Another article which might be of interest regarding the JSF.

Reuters.com
October 6, 2009 House, Senate Negotiators Fund Second F-35 Engine
By Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters
WASHINGTON -- U.S. House and Senate negotiators defied a White House veto threat and agreed on Tuesday to include $560 million in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill for an alternate F-35 engine, several sources familiar with the talks told Reuters.
President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have repeatedly said they oppose funding for the second F-35 engine, which is being built by General Electric Co and Britain's Rolls-Royce Group Plc given mounting pressures on the U.S. defense budget.
But administration officials issued more cautious statements on Tuesday, which several sources said signaled that the White House was easing off its veto threat.
"If the final bill this year once again calls for further investment in a second engine, the department will carefully evaluate the impact of that before making a recommendation to the president about whether or not to veto the legislation," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.
"We need to see the whole bill," said Kenneth Baer, press secretary for the White House budget office.
The White House had said Obama's advisers would recommend a veto if the final bill would "seriously disrupt" the F-35 program, but that phrase left officials some "wiggle room," said one congressional aide, who asked not to be identified.
Morrell's response to the move was "pretty qualified," said a second congressional aide, noting that this case clearly differed from the F-22 fighter, which lawmakers agreed to halt after a direct and forceful veto threat from the president.
"People just weren't willing to fall on their swords for this one," said the second aide.
Congress has funded work on the second engine for 13 years, eager to support high-paying jobs and maintain competition in a weapons program that is valued at over $100 billion over time.
If Congress prevails in funding the engine this year, it would be the fourth straight year that it has overridden efforts by the Pentagon to scrap the program.
Funding for the second engine was in addition to the program budget, and did not reduce the Pentagon's $6 billion request to buy 30 F-35 fighters, said two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.
The conferees were due to meet again on Wednesday to finalize the compromise bill, which authorizes Pentagon programs, followed by a vote in the full House on Thursday.
Separately, the Senate approved a separate measure that actually funds Pentagon programs.
The Senate's fiscal 2010 appropriations bill included no funding for the second engine program, but Senator Daniel Inouye, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee, favors funding the engine, which means the compromise version of that bill is likely to include some money for it as well.
Lockheed Martin Corp builds the F-35 fighter. Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the airplane's main engine, has lobbied hard to shore up support for proceeding with just one engine for the fighter.
Pratt spokesman Jay DeFrank said the bill was not yet done, and the administration's reaction could still affect its final outcome.
GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said the GE-Rolls team had not been formally notified of what the congressional negotiators decided, but funding for the competing F-35 engine would be "a victory for acquisition reform."
Proponents of the second engine, which Congress first began more than a decade ago, argue that competition is imperative in a program involving over 3,000 engines. They say the Pentagon's own studies conclude it would save $2.2 billion over time by keeping both engine teams on their toes.
The initial House version of the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill included $603 million in funding for the alternate engine, while the Senate included none.
Morrell last week said the department was also concerned about ensuring that Congress did not cut the number of airplanes in the program or shift development funds, which could increase the cost of the program in the longer term.
Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Andy Sullivan.

[ICBM]

Thousands of F-35 in our future skies

One engine problem grounds the lot......

Argument in itself for a competitive alternate engine choice

Oh and Pratt make really reliable engines don't they....:ugh:

[barit1]

To be fair, GE has suspended F136 testing. On a tailpipe inspection, some minor damage to turbine blades was found, but (to my knowledge) no operational symptoms; also no evident upstream distress. Perhaps FOD.

GE, Rolls Halt Tests on US F-35 Alternate Engine - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8776625)

[svermeul]

The below taken from a South African newspaper.

"Armscor has admitted in Parliament today that the price-tag for acquiring eight A400m military heavy-lifting aircrafts has skyrocketed to R47-billion.

Armscor CEO Sipho Thomo told MPs that the initial estimated price was R17-billion, even though it is believed that the amount was as low as R7,5-billion.

Thomo said they had already paid R2,9-billion, and has admitted to withholding R1,1-billion because the aircraft would be delivered in 2016. This is pending the decision of cabinet this month whether to continue with the acquisition."

In UK Pound terms 4.05 billion for 8 aircraft, or 506.5 million each. :yuk:

[ORAC]

News South Africa: R47bn arms deal scandal rocks shocked MPs (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091015041747703C534312)

In one of the most serious tests to President Jacob Zuma's cabinet yet, it will have to cancel a R47-billion freight aircraft transaction gone wrong within the next month, or pay the price of a potential arms deal scandal part II.

Armscor chief executive Sipho Thomo admitted to shocked MPs yesterday that the cost of acquiring eight A400M Airbus heavy-lift planes had rocketed from a steep R17bn in 2006 to a whopping "estimated" R47bn.

Parliament's committee on defence yesterday grilled Armscor and acting Secretary of Defence Tsepe Motumi about their annual reports. The Department of Defence received its 10th consecutive qualified audit report from the auditor-general, who noted that the government could have blown R2.9bn in an irregular tendering process on the Airbus planes.

The soaring cost of the eight aircraft came to light as MPs questioned Thomo about the R2,9bn paid out of the secret Special Defence Account.

Armscor has acknowledged that there had been no tendering processes and that the decision to buy the aircraft was made by the cabinet, after which it requested the state arms acquisition company to handle the process. Then-defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota announced the decision in 2005, and the deal was concluded the following year.

The aircraft is a new model that has yet to take to the skies. It is a joint project between France's Airbus and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), with participation from British Aerospace (BAE), French armament electronics company Thales and South African aerospace companies Aerosud and Denel Saab Aerostructures. EADS, Thales and BAE were beneficiaries of South Africa's Strategic Defence Procurement Package that has cost taxpayers at least R60bn.

Thomo told the committee yesterday that the government had withheld a further R1,1bn payment to the aircraft - in addition to the R2,9bn - after Airbus told Armscor last week about the price escalation and that the aircraft were four years behind schedule. They are to be delivered in 2016, 10 years after the order.

Thomo said the cabinet had a one-month window period to cancel the order.

Armscor and the Defence Department delegation would not answer detailed questions about the fiasco, saying they needed to brief Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu.

"Some of the questions are sensitive and we are not at liberty to discuss (this) in an open forum," Thomo said, adding that the cabinet could terminate the contracts. Our concern is that we don't have time - that decision needs to be made by the end of October."

Committee chairman Nyami Booi (ANC) noted that the payments would have to come from the defence budget, which was only R32bn a year.

David Maynier (DA) wanted to know what the total cost of the acquisition would eventually be, as well as the cost to taxpayers if the cabinet decided to cancel the deal. He called on the government to start terminating the procurement and to launch a "full and independent inquiry into the Airbus deal".

[ORAC]

Bloomberg: U.K. Agrees New A400M Terms as Germany Stalls, Les Echos Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aYR8p.6JBVi4)

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. has agreed to take 19 A400M military aircraft instead of the originally ordered 25, while paying the same amount of money, French daily Les Echos reported, without citing anyone.

Germany is refusing to renegotiate its A400M contract and French Defense Minister Herve Morin will discuss the issue with his new German counterpart Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the newspaper said.

[Co-Captain]

No doubt we'll soon be paying well over and above the original price for only 15, five years later than originally promised. You heard it here first!!

[BEagle]

When will the A400M Bristol B€urocrat ever fly?

Manuel de EADS don Sevilla y Siesta, he say "Mañana"....:uhoh:

[Squirrel 41]

So if I understood correctly, this was a fixed price contract for 25 x A400M to be delivered starting anytime soon - 2011?

Now, our friends in industry - and not BAES for once - got a few sums wrong and are going to lose a packet of money. And they're running late due to unforeseen circumstances - like;

(i) Certification paperwork not done for engines
(ii) Has different engineering requirements to a passenger jet
(iii) We can't manage A380

Ah.

So, let's pick the correct response:

(A) Bin the order, get our money back and buy C-17, C-130J and CH-47 [:)]

(B) Bin the order, get our money back and use the dosh to fill the hole in the EP post PR09 [:*]

(C) Recognise that lift is an essential precondition for expeditionary warfare, bin the order, get our money back, add it to some extra cash from the Treasury and buy C-17, C-130J and CH-47F/G [:ok:]

(D) Stay put, accept a 32% cost increase and fund it by cutting the number of airframes and accept the delay whilst we flog aircraft on well past their revised OSD. [:hmm:]

And the winner is......

D! :ugh:

Well done Bob and MoD....

S41

[mick2088]

"Germany is refusing to renegotiate its A400M contract". They stand to get the biggest share of A400Ms and seem to have the right idea. I hope that 19 versus 25 for-the-same-money Les Echos report is false.

Meanwhile...

Northrop Grumman has begun assembling the centre fuselage for the first F-35B (BK-1) for the UK.

Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman Begins Producing First International F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (NYSE:NOC) (http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=177021)

http://media.primezone.com/cache/189/int/7526.jpg

[ian176]

Now, our friends in industry - and not BAES for once -

Surely not???? I thought it was only BAES in the world of defence who couldn't cost properly or deliver on time.......

[BEagle]

Northrop Grumman has begun assembling the centre fuselage for the first F-35B (BK-1) for the UK.

Sure that isn't James May's latest project?

[Double Zero]

Sadly not,

I suspect James May would make a better job of it, and HE works at the home of V/STOL !

[WPH]

BK-1 sounds more like a 1980's training shoe to me! British Knights - how apt for our new stealth fighter jet. Looks a bit like a trainer too....

...reminds himself not to drink and type ramblings on a Friday night.....

[Biggus]

In his recent report, Mr Haddon-Cave QC highlighted some issues that arose because of the continual slippage of the Nimrod MR2 out of service date. With further delays to the A-400M certian, I hope any engineering issues with the C-130K that were originally postponed, or deemed not necessary, because it was shortly due to be retired are to be re-examined thoroughly.

Until recently I'm sure I would have taken it for granted that such things would obviously happen, but in the light of the H-C report....

[StopStart]

I hope any engineering issues with the C-130K that were originally postponed, or deemed not necessary, because it was shortly due to be retired are to be re-examined thoroughly.


Yes indeed. Lets hope they stop burning what little money left we have on the C-130K. The smoke and mirrors over the longevity & productivity of the venerable K would make for several episodes of Yes, Minister. We can barely scrape together 2 or 3 of the things (incl the odd one deployed somewhere) and they do little more than absorb engineering effort that would be better directed elsewhere. If the A400M is there solely to replace the K then may I suggest we buy 1 of them, man it with approximately 30 odd crews and then park it in a corner of an airfield, unused.

:ugh:

[Biggus]

SS

Apologies, having no local knowledge of what's going on at Lyneham I was assuming the A-400M was partly intended to replace the venerable K as per the MOD mantra.

I bow to your more informed input!!

[StopStart]

No apologies necessary Biggus - I think I was still a little overwrought after John and Edward's performance on X-Factor....

The A400M will obviously provide additional airlift capability but for the MoD to suggest it will replace the poor old K is like suggesting that the Typhoon is a replacement for the Lightning. The K is well past its sell by date and the output it delivers to Defence is massively outweighed by the money and manpower that are poured into it.

[Guzlin Adnams]

More C17's plus a few J's please.
Now then, about the X factor, haven't you got a dog that needs a long walk :hmm: Scotch takes me to dark places on occasions but not to those depths...

[isaneng]

Oh come on StopStart, if you want a bite you'll have to do better than that..............

[svermeul]

South Africa today cancelled their order for 8 A400's

[ian16th]

Fin24.com>>Economy>>State aborts Airbus contract (http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?Channel=News_Home&ArticleId=1518-25_2560151&IsColumnistStory=False)

[Jig Peter]

The first A400M is now undergoing fuel system and fuselage pressure tests before returning into the hangar for engine installation and further progress towards first flight, which Airbus Miliotary say they are increasingly confident that it will take place on (the latest/new) schedule ...
Now THAT's progress ! And all the best to all who are working to make the programme the success it deserves.

[ZH875]

... further progress towards first flight, which Airbus Miliotary say they are increasingly confident that it will take place on (the latest/new) schedule ...
Now THAT's progress !


Strange, my computer says the date is November 5 not April 1st:E

[Jig Peter]

Well, X-Ray Hotel, there's about 6 weeks to go before first lift-off and then the proving of the pudding will really start and the poor IT-guys deep within Europrop wil know if their re-write of that hugely complicated software is OK, and the aircraft handles right too ... I still wish the whole team well, having followed this story right from its earliest days under EADS/Airbus previous management ...
:8

[Blighter Pilot]

I still think SS is correct - lets bin the C130K now along with the reduced A400M order.

Use common sense and buy more C130J/C17 now!

The last costing to take the C130K onto 2017 was £325M for 9 platforms:eek: How many C130Js for that??

Defence are so desperate that they even considered buying 5 ex RSAF C130E models:mad:

And before anyone bites - I am a C130K operator:ok:

[StopStart]

isaneng - if I was looking for a bite I'd post something contraversial.

Not the slightest bit interested in yet more petty J/K cock waving. 15 years at Lyneham and a good few thousand hours on both types gives me, I believe, at least a minor position of authority from which to speak. My "concern" is that our little corner of the AT world continually fails to make the hard decisions it needs to if it is to be of any service to Defence at large. Continually tipping money we can't spare (and that would be much better spent elsewhere) into a very tired, old aircraft on the basis of some arguments that are, at best, flimsy and at worst specious, is not the way we are going to improve that.

JP - I'm sure the A400M will be marvellous when it finally appears. Unfortunately, that appearance is a moveable (in one direction) feast which only serves to increase the strain on the existing AT fleet. More C17s/C130Js is an "immediate" solution to an immediate problem.

[Jig Peter]

@ Stopstart
Agreed that RAF AT is highly stressed, but as for "immediate" relief by means of C-17 or C-130, I seriously wonder what the lead time would be for either of these aircraft. They aren't exactly stacked at the dealers while customers wait for a new "cash for clunkers " scheme.
BTW, I'm having a private "contest" about whether the A400 will fly before the 787 - not that that would bring entry into effective service all that much closer !
:8

[VinRouge]

The lead time would be significantly shorter than waiting round for 400m.

[VinRouge]

Going off how long it took the Danes to procure J and the UK to procure 17's 5 and 6.

Oh, and the fact the 400 hasnt even flown yet. Perhaps I should rephrase. From order to full operational readiness, the J and 17 has the a400's ass whooped.

[Wrathmonk]

Not having the C17 order book to hand I would still suggest that if you were to put a bid in for 'x' C17s today they would be fully operational out of Lye/Brize/wherever far sooner than the equivalent capability in A400M. The A400M has not flown yet. I'm assuming it then has to go through the full flight test schedule (and perhaps a full Boscombe flight schedule (unless they are being run concurrently). Even then when have we ever bought an aircraft into Service that is fit for everything we require of it straight away? I would imagine we could pick up a C17 from the factory (waiting list notwithstanding), and apart from a paint job and a shakedown, pretty much have it on the flight line straight away. Despite a lot of confidence from posters on this thread I cannot see that being the same for the A400M. Problem is the longer we wait then either the longer the queue gets for the C17 or worse the production line is shut down (if it hasn't been already:\) or worse still the 'fixed price' for the A400M goes up again (:E) and so we buy less .....

[Wrathmonk]

The E

You are obviously in a far more informed position than I so we will have to agree to disagree! It does worry me slightly that whenever there is talk of something being late, without a full capability and over budget that we are just going to repeat the mistakes made in much of our recent procurement. I'm sure given time the A400M will be a wonderful bit of kit but I don't think we have that time available. And the longer we leave it the harder it is to back out! At the end of the day it doesn't matter how short the Boscombe flight trial time is if it's not delivered to us on time (the original time not the reworked (and reworked?) time) in the first place. At the end of the day, however, I hope I'm proved wrong ;)

[VinRouge]

I just cannot believe the hassle of developing the A400M, including flight test, developmental delay, New IPT setup, new Engineering setup, new logistics setup, new training will be worth minimal future capability given.

Lets face facts. A400 moves crap from point A to Point B. Fres is now looking decidedly unlikely; we manage what we do well with the 2 types we have.

Dont get me wrong, in a world of unlimited budgets and less op pressure, I would be fully behind A400M and if it comes into UK service, would love the opportunity to fly it. But unfortunately, being a realist, I see that is not the case.

We need tough decisions. Money is most definately going to be a finite resource next year onwards for the military, we shouldnt waste what little we will have.

[GreenKnight121]

Looks like the C-17 line might be on for another year...

India Seeks To Bolster Transport With 10 C-17s - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4361097&c=ASI&s=AIR)

India Seeks To Bolster Transport With 10 C-17s

By Vivek Raghuvanshi
Published: 5 Nov 2009 17:07

NEW DELHI - The Indian Defence Ministry is negotiating the purchase of C-17 heavy-lift Globemaster aircraft from the United States through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, say ministry sources.

The U.S. Air Force flew the Globemaster in a joint air exercise between the air forces of the two countries held in India Oct. 19-23 at Agra to let the Indian military familiarize itself with the transport craft, said a senior Indian Air Force official.

India is negotiating the purchase of 10 C-17 aircraft made by U.S.-based Boeing, disregarding the Russian IL-76 transport even though the American aircraft is three times costlier, Defence Ministry sources said. The C-17's advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources.

The $1.7 billion deal, likely to be finalized by early 2010, would be Boeing's second-largest deal with India since New Delhi signed a $2.1 billion agreement in January to purchase eight P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.

The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official.
India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.

India already has contracted for six C-130J aircraft from the United States, the delivery of which is expected to begin by 2011.

The Air Force's current fixed-wing transport fleet comprises 40 Russian-made IL-76 and more than 100 AN-32s, which are being upgraded by Ukraine, and the U.S.-made C-130J transport aircraft.

In addition, the Indian Defence Forces are buying about 800 rotary-wing assets in the next seven years.

In July, India signed a $400 million contract with Ukrainian military export agency Ukrspetsexport to upgrade 100 Soviet-built AN-32 cargo aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

[pipertommy]

Any further news on the 400m intended flight date?

Thanks

[ORAC]

Savage attack on the whole JSF program in an Op-Ed at Military.com:

Tactical Air's Gloomy Future (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,205499_1,00.html) :ooh::ooh:

The Defense Authorization bill just signed into law by President Obama pretends a bright future for the Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter. The program is fully funded, and Congress even added separate authority for the alternate GE engine, advice sure to be taken when the definitive DOD Appropriations bill is enacted later this year. Meanwhile, in the real world, the F-35 program continues to fall apart. The latest - but hardly last - shoe to drop is a new internal analysis (breathlessly refuted by Lockheed) that the cost growth stage for this airplane is just beginning.

Lockheed's refutation of the Joint Estimating Team (JET) analysis of cost growth and delays in the F-35 program borders on the hilarious: new computer aided design, simulation, and desk studies (un-validated by empirical testing) make cost growth in truly modern defense technology a thing of the past, they assert. Indeed, just like in DDG-1000, LCS, FCS, VH-71, etc., etc., etc.....

How pathetic.

Even sadder than Lockheed's desperate grasp for reasons to do nothing to fix the self-dismembering F-35 program is the fact that the future of Western combat aviation relies on it. The 2,456 models of it on order for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will ultimately replace almost all tactical aircraft now in our inventory, except for the F-22, for which production beyond 187 aircraft was cancelled this past summer. Major allies, including Britain and much of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel have all made commitments to buy the aircraft. Sales to many others (there's a long list) are postulated, and those who do not intend to buy the F-35 will probably copy it to the extent their treasuries, government bureaucracies, and technological development permit.

Unfortunately, the F-35 is unaffordable, and it is a technological kluge that will be less effective than airplanes it replaces. It will undo our air forces and our allies', not help them............... [more]

[Finnpog]

Well that article is not exactly sitting on the fence is it?

Hard points of logic though - a shed load of USDs for a fatter & less effective aircraft in every aspect of combat performance, save 'stealthyness'.

[ORAC]

And the expected response comes. But as the above article says, name one previous program where it has been achieved. Lies, bluster, fudged statistics and whistling in the wind..... :hmm:

Carter: Plan Afoot to Halt F-35 Cost Hikes, Delays (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4367942&c=AME&s=AIR)

U.S. defense officials expect to finalize by late November a plan to avoid new F-35 cost increases and schedule slips that have been forecast by a Pentagon analysis cell, Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said Monday.In an exclusive interview at the Pentagon, Carter confirmed reports that a Pentagon "joint estimate team" (JET) has determined current program plans would spawn sizeable cost growth and schedule delays after completing an annual review of the triservice, international fighter program.

"The JET II study shows both some cost increases and schedule slips, which we should do everything we can to avoid," Carter said. "Those are forecasts which say what will happen if we don't change what we're doing. And we should change what we're doing so that those predictions don't come fully to pass."

During the next few weeks, defense acquisition and program officials will weigh a number of options and ultimately put in place a plan designed to steer the fighter initiative away from the JET-predicted trouble.........

[BEagle]

Hang on - I seem to recall......

From the very outset the principal aim of the Joint Strike Fighter program was to produce a low cost mass production strike aircraft which exploits the latest avionic/computer, stealth and production technologies.

:hmm:

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle

Dave *IS* low cost... compared with F-22! A mere snip at $100m vs $350m - let's buy loads!!! :ok:

Or not. :hmm:

The broader point is that if it works, A400M will probably be very good: in around 2015. However, the UK desperately needs something to retire the K's and compliment the J fleet in days few - and a C-17/C-130J mix is about the only game in town - especially as we have both types in service already.

On the question of FRES. FRES Utility Vehicle (UV) was down-selected to the GD Piranha V last year before being cancelled this year (Well Done! £m lots wasted on that fiasco...).

Anyway, FRES UV has been replaced this year as FRES programme lead by the SV variant (Scout) that will replace CVR(T) in the reconnaissance role (until it's cancelled at the cost of £m lots, of course).

S41

[Modern Elmo]

South Africa Ditches A400M


Nov 9, 2009


By Douglas Barrie

South Africa has pulled out of the Airbus Military A400M airlifter program, abandoning its intention to buy eight of the type.

South Africa ordered the A400M in 2005. Reuters quoted South African Defense Minister Lindiwe Sisulu as saying: “We have terminated the contract with Airbus but we’ve not terminated our quest to ensure we have the necessary capabilities. That is very clear.”

...

South Africa Ditches A400M | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/A400M110909.xml&headline=South%20Africa%20Ditches%20A400M)

[GreenKnight121]

M.E. ... check posts #475 & 476 on page 24 of this thread. They mention the SAAF A400M cancellation and link a news story.

[ORAC]

Britain presses Airbus on A400M costs (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLE11411720091114)

DUBAI, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Britain needs all 25 military transport planes on order from Airbus (EAD.PA) and expects the planemaker to come up with a plan to tackle cost overruns by mid-December, the British airforce head said on Saturday.

Britain is one of seven European NATO countries that ordered the A400M, whose future has been threatened by delays and increased costs.

"We are saying 25 is the answer, what is the question," Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton, head of Britain's Royal Air Force told Reuters at a military conference in Dubai.

"We have got to stand firm and challenge industry," he said. "They have got to come back in the middle of next month and tell us what can be done."

Dalton said negotiators were looking at whether Europe's biggest defence contract could be saved by reshuffling upfront costs and finding more efficient ways to carry out aircraft maintenance, one of the costliest parts of military procurement.

[Blighter Pilot]

So the A400M debacle rumbles on and on......:mad:

We know we need all 25 of them but we need to know when they will finally arrive and what the capabilities will be:confused:

Meanwhile the capability gap in the AT fleet continues to expand as another C130K is scrapped due to wing box cracks, with the possibility that the remaining airfames will go early next year as a cost-saving measure.

That would release the engineering personnel to concentrate on the C130J lines and avoid all the costs of moving a legacy fleet to Brize for 14 months.

Just the sticky problem of disbanding LXX Sqn to get past the Air Force Board!!!

[Co-Captain]

Holy crap! It appears the MOD / Airships have grown a pair... :eek:

[VinRouge]

Sounds as if so.

Surprised to hear they are demanding all 25. Perhaps SA pulling out as forced them to reappraise? I was expecting them to pay the same amount, for less jets as a result of overspend on development?

[Jig Peter]

Although Airbus Military grossly neglects its web site "news" page, there is progress happening ... MSN 001 was handed over to the test facility on Nov. 12 to start checks before first flight.
:ok:
Coincidentally, at Everett the 747F-8 freighter moved to the paint shop before in turn being handed over to the test outfit.
Bit of a race for first flights before Week 3/December for two of the 3 delayed programmes - 787 seems to be on hold to see if the wing-join fix works ...

Developments 16/11
The 747-8 seems not to be a runner in this "race" any more, as it won't fly before New Year.
Meanwhile, at Dubai, they're showing pix of the A400M's engines running (one at a time so far, but "all together now" set for 16/11).