JSF and A400M at risk?

[Squirrel 41]

Jig Peter,

All good news. But whether good enough for the UK remains to be seen. Personally, I'm delighted that CAS appears to have made it clear that the number is 25 and that the price is per the contract. If Airbus take a bath on the initial 180, then that's no bad thing - I'm sure that they'll make their money back on the through-life support.

S41

[Lyneham Lad]

In Flight International:- (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/16/334999/dubai-09-pictures-airbus-military-runs-a400m-engines.html)

Airbus Military has run all four engines on the prototype A400M, putting it on track to fly the delayed airlifter before the end of the year. After the four engines on the first A400M were run one by one on 15 November, Airbus Military said at the show it was expecting to run all four engines at the same time by today.

Click on the link for more info + photos. Some very overdue positive news at last!

[Trumpet_trousers]

I do hope they remember to take the S. African flag off the forward fuselage before 1st flight... :)
Maybe UK plc could get a quick, pre-emptive bid in for an additional 8 'spare' ac now that the yarpies have thrown in the towel? :}

[BEagle]

"We are quietly confident that we will be able to do the first flight this side of the new year," Airbus Military vice-president defence capability marketing, Peter Scoffham, said at the show today.

No, that can't be right. Scoff being 'quietly' anything would be a first! Eh, shag? :p

Seriously, it'll be great news when it does fly.

TT, perhaps someone needs to speak nicely to the Scandiwegians about the ex-Seth Efrikan order - and persuade them that the A400M would be a better multi-role aircraft for their needs than the Embraer KC-390?

[ORAC]

UPDATE 1-Airbus A400M countries to meet in Berlin-Germany (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSLG46492320091116)

BERLIN, Nov 16 (Reuters) - Officials from countries who have ordered the delayed A400M military transporter from European plane maker Airbus will meet in Berlin on Thursday to discuss the matter, the German Defence Ministry said.

"On Thursday, the state secretaries from the countries involved in the deal will meet in Berlin," Defence Ministry spokesman Christian Dienst told a regular government news conference on Monday when asked about the deal. "Before a decision is made, anything you read at the moment is rumour, speculation or agenda-setting on the part of others."

Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA) is in talks to rescue the 20 billion euro ($29.8 billion) contract with seven European nations that ordered the plane: Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey.

German daily Financial Times Deutschland reported on Monday that Airbus could split delivery of the A400M into two tranches to avert the collapse of the project. Due to make its maiden flight next month, the A400M airlifter has been delayed by three to four years by engine snags and other industrial problems. Last week, British and French air chiefs suggested pooling maintenance or even sharing the use of some planes to balance cost increases.

FTD cited industry sources as saying France in particular favoured splitting the 180-plane order into two tranches. elsewhere by Reuters.......Under the plan the first tranche would be delivered at the previously agreed price while there would be fresh price negotiations for the second tranche, it said.....

[Lyneham Lad]

"On Thursday, the state secretaries from the countries involved in the deal will meet in Berlin,"

Oh, whoopee. Another opportunity for our wonderful, masterful SoS the Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP to excel. :E

[Squirrel 41]

LL -

I think that the problem is that A400M is made of composites: doubtless El Bob would be all over A400M like ferret up drain pipe if only he could "meet metal bashin' lads on plant floor"...

:ugh:

S41

[ORAC]

Gentlemen, place your bets..... :cool:

Irish bookmaker betting 1-2 odds Dreamliner flies before the Airbus A400M (http://blogs.kansas.com/aviation/2009/11/17/irish-bookmaker-betting-1-2-odds-dreamliner-flies-before-the-airbus-a400m/)

Forget Texas Hold ‘em tournaments. An Irish bookie is taking bets on whether Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner will fly before Airbus’ A400M military transport aircraft.

Both planes are supposed to take their maiden flights by the end of the year. Both programs have been hit by numerous delays. Some commentors are speculating that the flights may be pushed into next year, the bookmaker, Paddy Power, notes.

Paddy Power bills itself as Ireland’s largest bookmaker and a leading provider of gaming services. It’s offering odds of 1-to-2 that Boeing’s Dreamliner will take to the skies first. It’s offering 6-to-4 odds that the Airbus A400M will fly first.

“This has the makings of a very interesting race with obviously billions on the line for both airlines,” Paddy Power said in a statement. “Our betting suggests that Boeing is the early leader, but this could obviously change very fast.”

[Trumpet_trousers]

for both airlines :confused: wtf?

Paddy ah, I see...

[ORAC]

Airbus first engine runs on A400M successful (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLJ43025020091119)

MADRID, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Airbus Military said on Thursday it had successfully run all of its A400M military transporter plane's engines for the first time, paving the way for its first maiden flight next month. "This is the first time we completely powered up the aircraft using the engine power and the first time that the aircraft has been operated completely autonomously," Fernando Alonso, head of flight operations, said in a statement.

The A400M airlifter, which has been delayed three to four years by engine snags and other problems, is due to make its first maiden flight in a few weeks time.

[mick2088]

My money's on the first flight for the A400M sometime next week.

[163627]

T. Trousers,

Not yet they haven't, they're "too busy"!!!


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/19/335233/picture-a400m-completes-first-ground-run-of-all-four.html

[Trumpet_trousers]

Not yet they haven't, they're "too busy"!!!
Maybe I'll pop down to the hangar with some white spirit and a rag tomorrow :ok: There is certainly a lot of purposeful activity occuring at the moment!

[Tester07]

Will you be on the first flight, T.T?

[Trumpet_trousers]

Tester07: P.M. awaiting you!

[Jig Peter]

Apparently the meeting in Berlin last Thursday (19/11) decided that another meeting was needed in early to mid December ...at which, with any luck, Mr. Enders will be able to show nice air-to-air shots of the A400M flying (at last). That should help the Ministers concerned to agree to let the programme continue, while re-negotiating the incredibly convoluted set-up - like sorting out the vague responsibility chain, from OCCAR upwards and downwards. And then there's the money thing ...

Tha French Senate's report on the programme indicates that, apart from alternative aircraft not being available in less time than the A400M, their cost to do the tasks set for the A400M would be even more* ...

Talk of the proverbial rock and hard place ... :ugh::ugh::ugh:


* But then, they would, wouldn't they ?

[VinRouge]

Jig, not so sure...


Boeing offers C-17B as piecemeal upgrade (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/08/19/314814/boeing-offers-c-17b-as-piecemeal-upgrade.html)

[Jig Peter]

That was then, Rotwein, like August's try by Boeing to keep the Big Giy's line going, and that would be a whole lotta money more than the custpmers are likely to want to pay ...
But this is now, and we'll see soon enough what the December meeting brings forth - elephant or mouse ... Preferably with the Eurolifter reprieved, eh ?

[Squirrel 41]

TT / Jig Peter,

I don't doubt that when it gets flying A400M can be made to be a decent - indeed, potentially world-beating (:cool:)- airlifter that by bigger than the -130J has a niche that makes it ideal for supporting fielded forces with medium weight capabilities over the three decades from 2013/14. It also looks more elegant than a -130J, which is clearly vital.

HOWEVER, the damn thing is at least three years late at a time we desperately need all of the airlift we can get, and the "fixed-price" contract appears to be anything but. If the rumours of a reduction to 19 aircraft for the same cash are accurate, we are accepting a unit cost increase of >30% (in addition to the aforementioned delays).

<<Rant mode: ON>>

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE NAIL AIRBUS'S FEET TO THE FLOOR AND ENFORCE THE BL**DY CONTRACT THAT AIRBUS FREELY ENTERED INTO?!?! :ugh:

<<Rant mode: STANDBY>>

It's not as if EADS / Airbus can't afford it... they can - and unlike the RAF / MoD's shameful and craven approach to BAES over Nimrod MRA4, it's more than time for industry to pay for it's mistakes - like they would for their airline customers.

S41

[Lyneham Lad]

In Flight International today:-

Airbus Military's A400M transport has undergone its first low-speed taxi trial, with the milestone having taken place near Seville, Spain on 23 November. "The Airbus Military A400M airlifter has moved under its own power for the first time", the company says.

Full article. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/24/335420/picture-a400m-performs-first-taxi-trial.html)

That first flight might just be made before the year end :cool:

[Jig Peter]

Seattlepi.com has a video of the A400M doing its "full four" engine runs, and also mentions that, according to Flightblogger, the "word on the street" is that first flight could be on Monday 25/11 ...

AND ...
The sound on the video even at minimum volume goes straight to the sternum ...

[mick2088]

This is the video. I thought it might have been this week too or by next Monday, but the A400M still needs to do high-speed taxi trials and an aborted take-off first, apparantely.

YouTube - A400 Essais Moteurs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTFitHATBWc)

[ftrplt]

Hmm - nice gnd power receptacle location. Anyone keen to disconnect that with 4 running?

I hope the APU exhaust collecting rain isnt a problem.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Hmm - nice gnd power receptacle location

Hmm - suggest you get your eyes tested :mad:

JP: Do you mean Mon 30th?

[BEagle]

Hola, TT!

Good to see that your aircraft is about to launch - hope all is well with you!

Still managing to track down a vindaloo outlet or two?

[XFTroop]

Probably a v/silly question from an ex Herc member of SODC(not AT) fraternity but are not the engines supposed to turn in the same direction? Video shows 1&3 going anticlock and 2&4 clockwise??:confused:
Mind you, even after 30 odd years on Albert I still can't remember which way those went but I think they were all the same direction.
But then I didn't have a window seat.:(

XFT

[BEagle]

No, the A400M propeller rotation directions are as you observed - they do not all rotate in the same direction.

I understand that this has positive benefits regarding acoustic fatigue effects on the airframe and confers significant aerodynamic advantages.

Another advanced Airbus design feature!

[GreenKnight121]

Tested on the P-38 back in the 1940-41 era.
:E

[StopStart]

Tested on the P-38 back in the 1940-41 era

Not strictly true as the P-38 props rotated outwards giving it two critical engines and making engine failures on take off a very brief and messy affair. They rotated outwards to provide stability for the nose cannons - engine criticality wasn't a consideration, obviously!

The A400M props rotate towards each other, as BEags says, to reduce interference vibration and noise and to reduce the yawing thrust effects of assymetric flight.

[ORAC]

So this is a case of in, out, in out, shake it all about? :p

[Trumpet_trousers]

I believe the correct terminology is "down between engines," or DBE :ok:

[BEagle]

That's the term I've also heard, TT.

Doubtless when StopStart becomes an A400M Staneval examiner, one of his Cat questions will be to explain the advantages of 'down between' rather than 'up between'?

[Trumpet_trousers]

... and there's a Vulcan-esque brief 'howl' during the engine start cycle too!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I half remember asking this before but can’t remember what the answer was: doesn’t DBE rotation reinforce the formation of tip vortices on the mainplanes? Doesn’t that have a drag penalty?

[hval]

In todays Reuters ( Link Here (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE5AP00O20091126) );

Basically, article states that price per unit may need to rise, and for deliveries in any given period to be reduced from current targets. Suggestions of a possible 25% unit cost increase. It would also appear that Germany and not the UK are the sticking point with any potential contract changes.

Article raises further interesting information. Well worth a peruse.

Hval

[Art Field]

"They do not rotate in the same direction"
But does this mean that in the event of an engine change down route there is a possibility of getting the wrong one sent out?

[Brain Potter]

... and there's a Vulcan-esque brief 'howl' during the engine start cycle too!

Is that from the taxpayers?

[StopStart]

But does this mean that in the event of an engine change down route there is a possibility of getting the wrong one sent out?

Possibility? I'm sure with very little work the MoD Logisticians will be able to reduce that possibility to a certainty....

PS. Same engines, different gearboxes. Not sure if you can do an engine change "down route" and swap gearboxes across or if the engine would need to ship out with the correct gearbox on...

[BEagle]

But does this mean that in the event of an engine change down route there is a possibility of getting the wrong one sent out?

A distinct certainty, Arters, as Stoppers has rightly stated.

After ensuring that 'right hand side, co-pilot's windscreen' had been requested through the supply system, guess what turned up..... Still, a couple more days of CHING!! in the USA whilst the Eng and Supply folks back in the UK sent the correct one wasn't unwelcome.

Getting the wrong windscreen wasn't anything like the surprise a V-bomber crew chief once had when he opened the boxed up PFCU motor he'd been waiting to be delivered to Offutt - only to find it actually contained a Bedford 4-tonner crankshaft..:\

Of course being a high quality Airbus product, the likelihood of engine or prop failure is somewhat remote....;) But I'd put money on someone sending the wrong prop one day in the future!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The MoD loggies will get it exactly correct, so long as the engine unit with the CW gearbox has a different NATO Stock Number to the one with the ACW gearbox (as it should) and those “down the line” demand the correct one. :ok:

[Modern Elmo]

I half remember asking this before but can’t remember what the answer was: doesn’t DBE rotation reinforce the formation of tip vortices on the mainplanes? Doesn’t that have a drag penalty?

Thought experiment: Consider multi-engine aircraft with all propellers rotating the same way. Why don't those aircraft have significantly unequal wing tip vortices?

[Xercules]

The directions of rotation of the propellers were the result of a considerable amount of Wind Tunnel testing. In the "standard" configuration (all the same way) there were 2 contradictory problems with aerodynamics and internal noise. These meant a radical approach was needed.

This arrangement means that neither outboard engine is more critical than the other in the enigine failure case - both are more like a Herc #4 than a #1. Each wing reflecting the other then produces a symmetrical flow across the wing and, as importantly, across the rear fuselage and VTP. There being no critical failure side means a smaller VTP = weight saving. As a bonus the paratroops will also get a smoother ride. With this arrangement the troops will be steered away from the aircraft on exit. Neither side will be thrown under the aircraft to wrap themselves around their mates from the other door.

From the noise perspective - the main noise sensed inside the aircraft comes off the blade tips. The outboard noise becomes almost irrelevant whilst the inboard noise continues to follow the direction of rotation and tries to "enter" the aircraft from underneath - there is thus a far greater noise absorption (attenuation) because of the cargo bay floor.

There you have it - DBE benefits for all.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/winksbuddie.gif

[Jig Peter]

Oh, by St. Effie Neck - got me eyes crossed lookin' at the Kalendar ...
Head hung in shame.
Will be crossing fingers & all on Monday 30/11.
Back to thread ...
:confused::sad:

[Jig Peter]

ref Green Knight's 535

de Havilland's Hornet's props rotated in different directions too - did it have the same problem as the P-38? It was said that handing the props cut out swing on take-off, which was a more frequent problem (on, for example, the "Mossie") than engine failure (said the RR brochure).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Modern Elmo. I went through that exercise but it didn’t really help. The yaw from any asymmetrical vortex drag would be masked by the yaw from the fin in the prop wash.

Xercules. Thanks.

Sorry, for the incipient Thread drift.

[Modern Elmo]

Here's what I think: multiple propellers opposed or not opposed does have a significant effect on p-factor, but not on wingtip vortices. This includes wingtip vortices at high angles of attack.

Take at look at photo 1566-333142 here: Crop Duster Stock Photography Images From SuperStock (http://www.superstock.com/stock-photography/crop+duster)

[herkman]

My understanding is that Airbus carefully studied the impact that the six bladed prop on the C130J had on its operations.

The concept of having to come up with those sort of fixes on the A400 were overcome by the different rotation of the props on each wing.

There was a concern of the lack of interchange between the inboard and out board engines and props, but it was considered with the reliability of current build engines this was unlikely to be a major problem.

Does or will the A400 have a clearance to do three engine ferry trip to closest engine.

Regards

Col

[GreenKnight121]

XP-38:
Each engine had a General Electric B-1 turbosupercharger. To combat torque, the propellers rotated in opposite directions, a special version of the Allison engine being produced with a left-hand rotating propeller shaft. The engines had inwardly-rotating propellers.

YP-38 & production:
The propellers were outward-rotating rather than inward-rotating as on the XP-38. This improved the aircraft's stability as a gunnery platform.

Warren M. Bodie, in his book The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story Of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter, states that, "Engine rotation was changed so that the propellers rotated outboard (at the top), thereby eliminating or at least reducing the downwash onto the wing centersection/fuselage juncture. There was, by then, no doubt that the disturbed airflow, trapped between the two booms, was having an adverse effect on the horizontal stabilizer.

The likelihood of an engine failure on take-off was considered less important than increasing the aircraft's capability as a fighter.



This P-38 experience is quite opposite to the case of the P-82 (twin Mustang). The XP-82 was to be powered by two Packard-built Rolls-Royce V-1650 Merlin engines. Initially, the left engine was a V-1650-23 with a gear reduction box to allow the left propeller to turn opposite to the right propeller, which was driven by the more conventional V-1650-25. In this arrangement both propellers would turn upward as they approached the center wing, which in theory would have allowed better single-engine control.

This proved not to be the case when the aircraft refused to become airborne during its first flight attempt. After a month of work North American engineers finally discovered that rotating the propellers to meet in the center on their upward turn created sufficient drag to cancel out all lift from the center wing section, one quarter of the aircraft's total wing surface area. The engines and propellers were then exchanged, with their rotation meeting on the downward turn, and the problem was fully solved.



The experience did, however, prove the superiority of inward-rotating props for controllability & aerodynamic factors except in the P-38!

[pipertommy]

BBC News - Airbus sets test flight date for delay-hit A400M (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8383212.stm) :ok:

[Jig Peter]

:ok:
Yes, it will certainly be a great, and very welcome, event when the A400M first gets airborne. I hope that it will very soon be flying regularly, enough at the very least to clear enough of the flight envelope to be able to transit to Toulouse for the rest of the programme - followed by the other FTP aircraft of course.
While the partner countries' DefMins sort out some at least of the outstanding lumps in the porridge of the contract, there will also be a lot of internal bargaining about responsibility for the FADEC programming standards foul-up, which will be just as fierce, no doubt. This seems to have cost the programme a good 18 months of delay: if so, the FTP would have been well on the way to completion by now.
Fingers really need to be more accurately pointed, not just at "Airbus" in general, but towards what the French Senate report called the "headless" engine consortium, apart from any other difficulties in "upgrading" what was CASA's capabilities in so short a time.Strenuous efforts were already being taken to sort out the airframe side well before the FADEC problem surfaced.
I, for one, wish the aircraft and its crew a successful start to the FTP, and the whole set-up a safe emergence from all the turbulence.

[ORAC]

Britain In Talks With Boeing For Another C-17 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4394666&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Britain is negotiating the purchase of another Boeing C-17 airlifter to boost the Royal Air Force's ability to supply troops fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. If the procurement gets the go-ahead, the Ministry of Defence here said it hopes to complete contract negotiations by the end of the year. Approval of the purchase would see the RAF's fleet of C-17s grow to seven aircraft. An MoD spokesman confirmed negotiations were underway but said no deal had yet been done to acquire the aircraft.

"The U.K. has engaged in exploratory discussions with the U.S. Air Force and Boeing regarding the feasibility of procuring a seventh C-17 aircraft for the U.K. No commitments have been made, and no decisions have been taken," he said. "If the department decides to purchase a new C-17, then we plan to be on contract with Boeing by the end of December 2009, with a view to delivery in December 2010 and an in-service date of March 2011," said the spokesman. The rapid in-service date suggests the British will be given an early delivery slot earmarked for the U.S. Air Force.

The C-17 has been the backbone of an RAF's airbridge operation, which has been severely stretched supporting Britain's growing military presence in Afghanistan. The British have been operating C-17s since 2001, when they leased four aircraft. The airlifters were eventually purchased by the RAF and the fleet has grown to the point where the British took delivery of two aircraft last year and are now poised to acquire their seventh aircraft, subject to final government approval. Analysts think the RAF has hopes to acquire at least one more aircraft before the Boeing C-17 production line closes. Funding is likely to be an issue for the cash-strapped MoD. The MoD here is estimating line closure in 2011. However, a Boeing spokesman said there was currently no cut-off point and the production line was good until at least 2012.

A Boeing spokesman in the U.S. declined to discuss the possible deal with the British beyond saying, "We continue to see strong international interest in C-17s. Our customers, however, prefer to announce their intentions on their own timetable. The question is best addressed by the U.K.'s MoD."

The British said the purchase of the additional aircraft was not directly connected with delays to the Airbus A400M airlifter program. "A400M is the replacement capability for the Hercules C-130K tactical transporter. We have looked carefully at the intra-theater operational requirement after the C130-K goes out of service in 2012. Although a C-17 can be employed in a tactical role and will help to mitigate against operational losses of C-130J, analysis suggests that the current fleet of 24 C-130J can sustain anticipated intra-theatre airlift tasking on current operations until A400M comes into service."

The first flight of the A400M is expected in the next few days. The partner nations in the program are still trying to hammer out a deal with Airbus parent EADS on the revised timing and cost of the program, which is currently three years late and hugely over cost. French media earlier this month said Britain is expected to cut the number of aircraft it will buy from 25 to 19 aircraft in order to stay within funding availability. One British industry executive said earlier this week he thought the number the RAF get could be even less.

Asked if the C-17 buy could have an impact on A400M numbers, the spokesman said, "We keep our operational requirements under constant review, and we will look hard at the implications of the acquisition of any enduring capability. We continue to work with OCCAR [the European program office] and partner nations to find a way forward on the A400M program. It would be inappropriate to comment on these discussions at this time," he said.

[Uncle Ginsters]

The U.K. has engaged in exploratory discussions with the U.S. Air Force and Boeing regarding the feasibility of procuring a seventh C-17 aircraft for the U.K

...and more than just a 'seventh', maybe!

Well, it is a rumour network :ok:;)

[VinRouge]

French media earlier this month said Britain is expected to cut the number of aircraft it will buy from 25 to 19 aircraft in order to stay within funding availability. One British industry executive said earlier this week he thought the number the RAF get could be even less.

Hang on, a contract is a contract. 25 for the initial cost, or none. If the frogs want their military transport development, they will need to pay for it.

The other option should be us walking away, cost-free, as the South Africans have done.

Airbus will recoup losses once they get wider exports, perhaps from the middle east and more sales round europe. Why should the UK taxpayer pay for future airbus profit?

[ORAC]

VR, if you read back over previous posts it would seem the Brits, the French and the Germans have different negotiating stances - perhaps jointly agreed to keep EADS off balance.

The Germans are insisting on the given fixed price,

The French are after a split buy in 2 tranches, the fixed price for tranche 1, but a higher price for tranche 2.

The Brits are willing to accept a higher unit price, but a lower number of aircraft, as long as the extra cost is taken out of long term maintenance and support costs.

Cut and splice as required.

[mystic_meg]

The Brits are willing to accept a higher unit price, but a lower number of aircraft
possibly due to the fact that we now have 6 (7?) C17s and hence our requirement for 25 A400M can be reduced

[collbar]

There is no point buying more C-17s untill the people who task and load/unload the aircraft get thier game together and start using them sensilbly!!
4hr onload off loads while US C17s on the next pan take 90 mins!!
Taking big loads to the wrong destination!!
Taking pax to the wrong destination!
OHH and there is much more!!

[Biggus]

VR,

A military fixed price contract (at least a British one) is normally only fixed price until it goes wrong.

For example, I seem to remember the Nimrod MRA4 contract being re-negotiated with BAE when they said they couldn't deliver on it. A contract for 21 (wasn't it?) became a contract for 3 prototypes with a separate contract for development aircraft if my memory serves me right.

MOD hasn't got the gonads to enforce contracts, or even penalty causes in contracts, as the company (+ local MP, trade unions) usually play the loss of jobs/capability/etc card....

At least that is my opinion, looking in from the outside....

I could be wrong, but this is a rumour network after all :O

[Jig Peter]

Having seen Avweek's report of 24/11 that the JSF programme is 16 billion dollars over estimates and needs more flight test aircraft to get back on timeline, could be that it is in more real danger than the A400M ...

[Xercules]

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx)

[GreenKnight121]

Ummm... it can pull itself around ON THE GROUND with its propellers... which makes it a successful prop-driven cargo truck.

However, it is designed to be an airplane... so it has to get itself off the ground, tool around for a bit in a controllable manner, then put itself back on the ground safely before you can say "It Works"!

The first attempt to do this is scheduled for next month... we'll see then.

[Biggus]

The Equivocator,

I don't disagree with what you said at post 568, indeed I accept it, reluctantly, as the "norm".

I was replying to someone who said the A400M was a fixed price contract, so we (the MOD) should demand what it paid for, or simply walk away. I was pointing out that MOD has a history of not doing that!!

However, while accepting the "norm" as you describe it, it makes a nonsense of words from the MOD such as "smart procurement" and "fixed price" as political considerations will often override MOD's good intentions. What's more the companies generally know it!

How to make money in the civilian world, get a government contract!! :ugh:

[BEagle]

The A400M has progressed rapidly from power on, single engine runs, all engine runs, high power engine runs and taxying tests. Very quickly indeed, in fact.

Rather more so than Bubba Boeing has with that plastic pig 7-late-7 'Depressionliner' thing, it would seem.

[Flight Detent]

Quite surprised to see that probe/basket system for AAR refueling, rather thought the higher-transfer-rate 'flying boom' was the way to go.

You know, like the first airbus converted A330 tanker (for the RAAF) has got!

Not an airbus person me, so I don't really know!

Cheers...FD...:)

[Uncle Ginsters]

and C17 which is great but can't do anything you want it to do outside of the donkey work...all a bad idea....

Equivocator, whilst i agree with your sentiments in general re finance, your slating of the C-17A is unfounded and simply wrong. As i've said before, the aircraft is highly capable - as demonstrated by its other users - in the Tac role.

In many ways, the C-17 is a victim of its own success - UK Plc has limited the scope of its role because it has proved so valuable and reliable(something that the airbridge was craving for only a year or so ago) in supporting the Strat resupply to theatre. As a result of that success, trying to crowbar a single flying hour on the jet away from that task is nigh-on impossible.

If the C-17 was so tasked, it would, no doubt, perform.

:ok:

[Uncle Ginsters]

The C17B design is an admission of these identified areas of weakness by the ADA

Not strictly true either - the original design for the aircraft was completed in 1985 for the initial signing by the USAF.

A lot happens in aviation technology in 24 years! The C-17B upgrade, detailed here (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/08/19/314814/boeing-offers-c-17b-as-piecemeal-upgrade.html), upgrades solely avionics with some talk of an uprated engine coming along too.

I think that one upgrade in 24 years admits quite the opposite to your statement - the design is solid and remains solid enough to be built upon for the future.

I'm no expert on the C130 but look at it's upgrade history - are you saying that every upgrade or new model is an admission of its failings? I would hope not. It's called development, dear chap.

We should however remember, as you say, that the C130J and C17 were both labelled Damian at some point, and with time have developed into highly effective platforms...as i'm sure, in time, will A400M.

The question really in debate here is one of required future capability which, i'm sure, many fine chaps at Shrivenham will lecture you on for hours.
On the Tac-Strat scale you have C130 (far left), A400M(a middle-ground compromise) and C-17A(Middle-right). For current requirements, C17 is ideal. A400M fails to offer the Strat spin-offs that it really needs when there is no Tac role for it to fulfil - ask any K or J mate how often they are actually performing true Tac ops?

One thing does remain true - we must learn from the lessons of the C17's service so far and provide suitable ACHE and periferal eqpt to make efficient use of our most valuable assets.

Uncle G :ok:

[Modern Elmo]

...

"So they really think that they're going to take this thing into the Zagros mountains [in Iran] and land it on a dirt runway? Yeah, right." In the 1980s, that was the standard line used by critics of the C-17 transport.
At the Marines' Forward Operating Base Rhino near Kandahar, 3,300 feet above sea level. C-17s flew 43 missions in late 2001, delivering 1,450 tons of heavy equipment--including the bulldozers and graders which built the camp and kept the runway open, with the aid of a specialised dust-controlled product nicknamed Rhino Snot.

Typically carrying 45 tons of cargo, the C-17s--which had apparently forgotten that they were not C-130s --operated almost exclusively at night, with crews using night vision goggles (NVGs), performing tactical arrivals, assault landings and tactical departures, including steep climbs and rapid changes of heading.

The runway--a [ unpaved] strip less than 7,000 feet long on a dry lake bed, previously used by nothing larger than a Cessna--took a tremendous pounding, but the C-17's twelve-wheel main gear at least left it in a state where it could be repaired for the next night's operations. ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_664_57/ai_n28928490/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_664_57/ai_n28928490/)

[Modern Elmo]

I've landed Albert onto a strip that a C17 had been using previously and it had made a real old mess. We had to move the strip, it was that badly dug up. The next two weeks of multi-albert utilisation didn't do any where near the same damage. Not scientific, just my experience....

Equiv., if your air force had A400's, could it do anything "tactical' that a combination of C-17's and C130's can't do? It seems that the A400 may be too betwixt and between for an air force that already has the other two aircraft.

The best hope for A400 sales success may be that C-17 production ends too soon.

...

Does anyone know if the ground pressure of a heavily loaded A400's tires would be much less than the ground pressure of a C-17 landing with the same gross weight? I don't know the answer to that. I'm asking. I suppose one could look up the respective tire sizes and calculate the ratios of tire area on ground and kinetic energy at touchdown/tire area on ground of the two aircraft at equal gross weight.

[StopStart]

Whilst a lot theoretical sense is being spoken here I think one needs to look at how, where and if such "mid-range" airlift would be used. If we consider current ops we have two (Helmand area) main airfields and then a bunch of FOBs, none of which are served by tarmac/TLZ. Your C17 brings the outsize vehicles into the big airfields which are then driven to where they are required. In an ideal world these would "spoked" out to TLZs by the A400 and everyone would be happy.

Unfortunately, this is where theory and reality bid each other adieu. An aircraft is at it's most vulnerable when landing/taking off or offloading on the ground. Risk aversion, fear of litigation & all round arse covering amongst the Air Staffs has reached such heights that the use of TLZs is seen as being so risky it's not worth bothering with. If these vehicles can be driven to where they are needed then that will be pushed for. Unless we build another new, large Bastion style fenced-in, secure TLZ the A400 (or C17) will not be delivering anything to patches of dirt anywhere.

So where will our new, shiny A400 be taking all these heavy vehicles? I guarantee you that they will fall into the strat-trap that the C17 finds itself in. They will not be infilling vehicles into TLZs as their airships will be too fearful of losing one and they won't be doing airdrop because a) the C130 can deliver enough of that and b) they're much more useful stratting stuff into theatre.

The A400 may well be a very capable platform but the reason I would hesitate to go fly it is the same as I would never fly the C17: the only interesting flying either do, or will do, is NVG MOS circuits at Keevil. No slur intended on either platform, just an observation of reality.

[120class]

The reluctance to use TLZs is perhaps understandable given the loss of 2 C130s on operationally compromised TLZs in recent years. Of course, the burden of risk is then passed on to Land Forces as the number of ground moves is increased..

[collbar]

Interesting to see an under protected American C-17 trundling about Bastion on the news last night. Is the uk is restricted to... evening ops...... because of flow clash!!!

[Trumpet_trousers]

and they won't be doing airdrop
I think that that assertion will be proved wrong quite quickly

[120class]

I would be surprised if the UK C17 Force commence airdrops in the near future; the costs/demand on assets would surely outweigh any benefit given that the RAF already has an excellent airdrop capability in C130J.

[StopStart]

The reluctance to use TLZs is perhaps understandable given the loss of 2 C130s on operationally compromised TLZs in recent years.

Only to a certain extent. There are plenty of "easy wins" one can make in light ofthose event before one turns off TLZs completely. Sadly, the pendulum has swung to far the other way meaning we have effectively lost another choice in how we do things. One could argue that those two TLZ events (well, maybe one of them) proved to be an enemy victory in many more ways than just denying us an airframe. With that in mind, can you honestly imagine a C17 or an A400 being committed onto a strip?

I think that that assertion will be proved wrong quite quickly

Not doubting the capability, merely the military will or need to use it. The proven capability will be there but you wait and see how long it takes the RAF to "convert" an airbus clearance to drop x, y & z into and RAF clearance to drop x and possibly y. The C130J came with Lockheed airdrop clearances. It took the RAF about 9 years to work out they were right. I'm a fan of the A400 but I'm also a realist. The A400 will do airdrop I'm sure but what gap will it be plugging? (You're welcome to the 16AAB para role tho :D)

If one C130J can put out up to 60T of airdropped stores in one night (they can, have and regularly still do) then which air cdr is going allocate one of his big freight movers to a similar task? Similarly a C17 might well be able to chuck out all that lot in a oner but just how big is that DZ going to be?

[Trumpet_trousers]

SS: First of all, thank you for a polite, considered reply - they seem to be the exception these days on Pprune!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think that if nothing else, the A400M will be put to work asap in the AD role (notwithstanding clearances etc.) if only to alleviate fatigue/frame hours on the J. Strips/TLZs as you mention, is a whole different issue.

[StopStart]

TT - ah but will the "asap" be "s" enough to plug the gap that looms when we start needing to do the centre wing boxes on the J? Airbus may push the Mighty M out the front door in time (relatively speaking) but the QQ & trials work "required" on her before she starts hurling things at the countryside will be in the order of years rather than months :(
I'll be delighted to be proved wrong mind.

My money is on an interim purchase of 4/5 Js and another C17 to fill the gap.... :cool:

[Blighter Pilot]

I have to go with SS on the A400M/TLZ debate.

We need proven capability now and that must be more C130J and C17. Short-sighted maybe but as the Tac AT fleet is only training for the war and not the next war then that should be enough!

[Modern Elmo]

Could someone please give us a tutorial on LCN's and related matters? I don't understand 'em very well.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/273126-eswl.html

[LowObservable]

If you really want to get basic about it, the A400M has as many wheels as a C-17 and weighs half as much, and weighs twice as much as a C-130 but has three times as many wheels. It's an indicator of priorities as well as performance - landing gears are heavy.

As for the scintillating prose cited by Modern Elmo re "Rhino Snot", there are two points there. One is that the C-17 was at least good enough to do it at all (to wit, not a C-5 or an advanced C-141) and the other is that it wasn't really a sustainable operation.

[collbar]

I did hear a rummor that the new gps guided airdrop kit that Americans use from C-17s and the brits from C-130s is so acurate that if the same co-ordinates are punched into 2 pallets they are likely to land on top of each other!!.
If thats so, surely the Brits could drop ammo direct to customer from the UK in C-17's . Then land for a backload!!!!
How hard can it be, the aircraft works it all out. Punch in some numbers, open the door, push a button, load gone!
Then land for a backload....I know..... its not that simple!

[Xercules]

ME you asked for a tutorial on LCNs. LCN, ACN, PCN and ESWLs are merely different ways of telling you the same thing - measuring the requirements of an aircraft against the load bearing capabilities of a runway surface. They all apply to paved surfaces ie "real" airfields and their runways and taxiways. In the case of military transport aircraft the actual requirement can, occasionally, be improved by reducing the tyre pressures.

However, when you are talking about operations off and onto natural surfaces - grass, shale, mud, sand etc - California bearing ratios are used or CBR. As its name says it is a ratio and does not have a unit to go with it. From memory of Boeing's own figures the minimum CBR for a C17 is about 10 if it is to do anything at all. A400M is designed to be able to do a minimum of 120 passes at CBR 6 (a pass being a landing or take off) and 10 passes at CBR 4. Again from memory C130 is similar but I don't have any details. CBR 4 is a mid-winter sports pitch that even a landrover would cut up whilst CBR6 is possibly a spring time Rugby 7s type pitch.

At CBR 6 A400M 500 nm from main base could make about 140 landings and deliver round about 3,200 tonnes of freight etc before the strip needed repairing or moving.

I hope this helps your discussions.

[Shackman]

I look forward to the first A400 appearing at Chetwynd as a tourist attraction. We've only just got rid of the wheel tracks from the last C130 to have an extended holiday there!

[ORAC]

A400M set for imminent test flight (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11488)

The first test flight of the A400M transport aircraft is set to go ahead in the week beginning 7 December despite rumours online that the project had been scrapped altogether.

A German website had reported that the project was to be cancelled due to the scale of the cost overruns. It claimed auditors had said the project would cost €5.3bn more than was originally expected. EADS has denied the report as 'speculation'.

The A400M project is already around four years behind schedule, and European partners are currently renegotiating their commitments to ensure its viability.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton had asked for answers on the future of Britain's order for 25 A400Ms to be given by mid-December.

UPDATE 1-EADS denies to drop A400M military transport plane (http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSGEE5B01Z120091201)

FRANKFURT/PARIS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA) denied a media report that it was considering dropping the Airbus A400M military transport project over expected cost overruns.

Germany's Focus Online website reported on Tuesday without citing any sources that EADS could bury Europe's biggest-ever defence contract even before the aircraft takes its first flight, planned for next week. It said auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers had concluded that developing the aircraft would cost 5.3 billion euros ($7.98 billion) more than originally planned.

The 20 billion-euro A400M programme is already delayed by three to four years, and Airbus is pressing for concessions on the terms of the contract, saying it faces unaffordable losses in delivering the 180 aircraft ordered by seven NATO countries.

"Negotiations are ongoing. Everything else is speculation," an EADS spokesman said on Tuesday.

The seven nations buying the plane include Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey.

"We don't believe in the exit of the A400M project. The reputation risk is far too big for EADS," said one Paris-based trader. "We see this as the lobbying 'game' starting between EADS and the concerned states.".........


....

[Tester07]

The C130J came with Lockheed airdrop clearances.

Where did you get that idea from? That is not correct at all.

[Uncle Ginsters]

I must be bored!

C17 CBRs freely available here (http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf) on page 33 for an unsurfaced strip.
At max strip landing weight of 447klbs, you get a CBR of 8 (10 passes)and 12 (100 passes).
It's a bit outside my experience but does anyone know the typical CBR of some example airfields - Pendine Sands or something - to calibrate a simple brain?:uhoh:

The bigger picture, i fear, is that strip performance isn't really a factor given that we'll always have the J-model and live in a predominantly Strat era (for now, at least). I'll stand by for a slating from the Tac-wallers out there but it strikes me that what really counts is the ability to move sheer bulk to support Ops in a far away place for the foreseeable...more C-17s please.
Uncle G

[StopStart]

Fair one - "clearances" is the wrong word. I understood that Lockheed/USAF had conducted some airdrop serials at Edwards to prove that it could. Actual "clearances" for individual national chute/load combinations obviously rested with the trials organisations of the customer nations.

It doesn't really change the price of fish regarding the A400 and the time gap between delivery and its first cleared airdrop tho. Unless we have some uber joined up airbus/qinetiq pre-delivery trials arrangement then the arrival of the aircraft with a "clearance" to drop a French Jeep under a german chute reduces RAF airdrop trials by precisely zero days. It would be nice to hear that we did indeed have some UK pre delivery airdrop work planned but I shan't hold my breath :(

[4Greens]

The time of the UAV has arrived and will make ground attack by aircraft obsolete. Too costly and no pilots lost.

[ORAC]

Experts to Help in Airbus Contract Dispute (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574573770912048560.html)

BERLIN -- Countries planning to purchase Airbus A400M military transport planes will recruit industry experts to help them resolve a contract dispute with the European plane maker, Germany's defense ministry said Thursday.

A ministry spokesman said they will create a panel of industry experts with members from each contract country, which include France, Germany, the U.K., Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey.

The spokesman said deputy defense ministers from those countries ended a meeting in Berlin Wednesday without deciding how to resolve the conflict over cost and production delays. They didn't set a date for a further meeting, the spokesman said.

The A400M has been dogged with development problems and is now running more than three years late, costing Airbus and its parent company, European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. NV €7.4 billion ($11.13 billion) more than originally planned, according to a report in Tuesday's Les Echos edition, citing an audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Initially budgeted at €20 billion, the program to supply 180 aircraft to the air forces of seven NATO nations is now expected to cost €27.4 billion, including the €2.4 billion that has already been provisioned by EADS, the newspaper had reported.

Airbus said recently it expects its A400M military transporter to make its inaugural flight in the fiftieth week of 2009.

Hopes for Costly Plane Are Riding on a Test Flight (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/global/04airbus.html)

[ORAC]

Defpro.com: (http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/463/) ..........As confirmed by Airbus Military officials, the much-troubled A400M is scheduled to take to the skies on its first test flight late this week. If ground tests go smoothly and weather conditions are optimal, the aircraft will perform its maiden flight on Friday.

[ORAC]

UK confident U.S. will hand over F-35 fighter codes (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5B61L720091207)

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain is confident it will receive software code that controls Lockheed Martin Corp's new radar-evading F-35 fighter jet, despite the United States' insistence that it will keep the data to itself.

"The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is progressing well and the UK currently has the JSF data needed at this stage of the programme, and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data needed to ensure that our requirements for operational sovereignty will be met," the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said in a statement sent to Reuters on Monday.

"This remains the basis of the agreements reached with the U.S. in 2006."

The Pentagon last month said it would keep to itself the so-called source code, the key to the F-35's electronic brains, despite requests from co-development partners -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

Access to the technology had been publicly sought by Britain, which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it were unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without U.S. involvement and if they withheld such things as the software code.

The single-engine F-35 is in early stages of production. It is designed to escape radar detection and switch quickly between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions while still flying -- processes heavily dependent on its 8 million lines of onboard software code.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Airbus A400M to make first test flight - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/6745404/Airbus-A400M-to-make-first-test-flight.html)

[Scotteo]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01538/airbus_1538174c.jpg

Looks like they will be testing the new flying tent aswell.

Maybe the pigs will be next also, before the A400M enters service :hmm:

[Jig Peter]

Good videos on www.airbusmilitary.com (http://www.airbusmilitary.com) showing taxi tests getting faster & faster, before first flight set for Friday 11th December: worth watching, if only for the sound of the engines ...:ok:

Scotteo: A pig it ain't, friend, but a blurdy good airborne cart-horse in the making!
Could call it "Percheron" - " very willing worker":
or "Clydesdale" - "the Gentle Giant":
or "Suffolk" - "easy temperament, willing worker, superb endurance" (character refs from Shire Horse breeders).
Roman and Greek gods' names for heavy lifters seem to have been bagged by rockets, but this could be a new way to designate an aerial work-horse, "Pegasus" being one of those thin-legged sprinty things under the wings ...
:)

[Xercules]

re the above - this link only takes you through to the old website. We have reported the problem. The new site, where you will find the videos, is at: First Flight Channel (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/FirstFlightChannel.aspx)

by the by, RTOs this afternoon. If all goes well first flight Thursday or Friday weather permitting.

[Squirrel 41]

JP, Xercules,

Thanks for these. However, however pretty it looks and however well it is going to fly when it gets a chance on Thursday or Friday or whenever, I still come back to two small points:

- Airbus doesn't want to / won't stick to the Fixed-price Contract;

- It's something the other side of FOUR YEARS LATE at a time when it may be quite useful.... :hmm:

So by all means let's continue with the programme as long as Airbus / EADS honour the fixed-price contract for 25 aircraft and compensates the partners for the costs of covering for the non-availability of A400M in violation of the contracted specifications. If they can do it for commercial customers with A380, then they can do it for us!

S41

PS, it looks like it would be more elegant with a fuselage stretch. Are there any plans for it a la C-130K-30?

[Jig Peter]

Squirrel
Have you never been at a management meeting during which people reported smooth progress all along the line, only to discover that the line being followed was the wrong one?
The software programmers at Europrop didn't realise that the standards they thought they were meeting weren't the applicable ones, and getting onto the right track took - well, time.
BTW, Avweek reckons the programme is about 18 months late - you gotta better source?

[Squirrel 41]

Jig P,

The fact that Europrop were able to write the software to the wrong standards without someone (anyone!) in the Europrop / Airbus project management checking defies belief, frankly. It doesn't just take time, it's costing a lot of money - and one in which Europrop / Airbus expect the taxpayer to bail them out of.

Sorry, this sounds like a classic project management SNAFU, and I don't see why we should bail these companies out (and I'd have done the same to BAES on MRA4 before anyone accuses me of anti-Airbus bias).

I heard the four years on bar rumourint - so if wrong, I stand corrected. If your 18 months is right, then we should be seeing the aircraft in 2011/12 I assume - 18 months after the original 2010/11 timeframe. I'd be astonished if this was the case.

S41

[Jig Peter]

Agreed that the SNAFU is epic - like one on the US West coast that's about to get airborne in a week or so. As far as compensation goes, the taxpayers you're referring to are well spread out over the consortium (not that that makes it much easier, except that UK Gov's not been "asked" for anything - yet?). OCCAR's the management agency, as the programme is kind of structured like the Tornado & Typhoon programmes were. The "who reports what and to whom" chain's by no means simple - and since the confusion across the Pyrenees became apparent, EADS/Airbus and Europrop have been taking strong measures to sort things out. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some bruised egos in Spain, as well as among the German (?) programmers in MTU. But shouting to "hang 'em all from the nearest lamp post" (after first suing the evil-doers to the limits of their overdrafts) isn't a lot of help, though understandable.
The negotiations about penalties and such will be starting soon, and you can be sure that they will be painful. Meanwhile, I'm sure you hope (like me) that the flight tests will go well and then .... Quien sabe? :E

[Squirrel 41]

Jig P,

You're obviously much closer to this than I am - and I'm sure that the OCCAR / Airbus / Europrop mix is pretty unclear and I'm that there is plenty of bruising to ego all round.

And please don't misunderstand me, I think that the A400M will work very well in time, and that the RAF will be very happy with it when the damn thing arrives. It will also sell well internationally, given a straight fight with the C-130J.

Against this backdrop, and the long-term profitability of the support contracts, I just hope that the good people from OCCAR stick to their guns and that the contract is held to.

And yes, I'll raise a glass to the first flight.

S41

[Jig Peter]

Equivocater:
Agreed that negotiations have been going on for long time - I meant to say "the next intergovernmental meeting"; Sorry for my omission.
I'm located near where I say, a retired but still interested spectator who reads Pprune & the press.
Squirrel 41
Just to say that computer tech has baffled Boeing, Airbus and BAE in similar ways - the 747-8 rear fuselage is the same old 747 fuselage, designed when one drew the lines on paper: the mid-section (I think) was CAD-designed on one CATIA version, while the newest bits used a later CATIA, all are "accurate" but to different tolerances. Fixing this was hard because of the 787's need for more & more engineers' time (inter alia). Belated first flight is due very soon, I read.
Airbus Hamburg and Toulouse used CATIA 5 and 6 respectively, for economic reasons, and there was a big shock as you know when mating-up time came.
BAE found that the old Comet fuselage wing roots were all slightly different (though "accurate" in their hand-built way), and taking the mould lines from one didn't mean that the new CAD-designed wing would fit the other airframes. "New wine & old bottles" comes to mind - apart from "not shooting the pianists" ...
Trying times, specially for designers used to CAD reading straight(ish!) over to CAM.
Apologies to Mods for incipient thread drift - now back to watching for more & more good news (at last !) from the Home of British Marmalade .
:8

[ORAC]

EADS wants 5 bln euros from A400M buyers-Germany (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKBAT00499220091209)

BERLIN, Dec 9 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS is seeking 5 billion euros extra from the countries which have ordered the delayed Airbus A400M military transporter, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said on Wednesday. The spokesman said the German government was now assessing the request made by EADS. Earlier, a senior official said EADS had not made any additional requests for the A400M.

[Ritzctr]

A400M first flight will take place at 9am (GMT) on Friday 11th Dec. The 1 to 3 hour test flight will take place from Airbus Military site in Sevilla.

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

[mick2088]

BERLIN, Dec 9 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS is seeking 5 billion euros extra from the countries which have ordered the delayed Airbus A400M military transporter, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said on Wednesday. The spokesman said the German government was now assessing the request made by EADS. Earlier, a senior official said EADS had not made any additional requests for the A400M.And how will that be split? Equal ways (which seems unfair if you are only buying ten) or by the quantity ordered? If quantity ordered then the UK will have to pay an extra 700 million euros (@632 million in english money) or thereabouts. Great.

[Squirrel 41]

>If quantity ordered then the UK will have to pay an extra 700 million euros (@632 million in english money) or thereabouts. Great.

An increase of £632m the same day as the Chancellor indicated that Defence as not one of the exempted Departments (schools, health, police) will see its budget sink by 14% in the first three years of the next Parliament - or about £5.3bn p.a.

Nope don't see it!

And we say again, "B0LL0CKS"! Which part of fixed-price have I missed? :hmm: Tell Airbus to ram it and honour the existing contract.

S41

[Jig Peter]

@ Squirrel 41

Whatever your (and others') understandable frustration in very straitened times, I'm sure you'll be with me (and others) in wishing the crew and aircraft a successful first (and subsequent) flight tomorrow morning. :ok:

The to-ings and fro-ings of negotiations (including any "get out" clauses the UK government may have to deal with, let alone how to pay for substitutes) will happen in the Ministerial stratosphere, and we poor mortals will just have to view (and accept) events from afar.

While I'm happily retired from the daily round of toil, you're clearly much more directly concerned - me, I just hope that the RAF will eventually get the Transport fleet it needs - if commitments in sandy places aren't found to be too expensive as well ...

[ORAC]

Hmmm, the latest hearing on the JSF was suddenly switched from a public hearing to a secret hearing. See Sweetman in AWST below.

If you want to know why, I suspect it's the JET forecast in the second article, where they think there could be an up to 30 month additional slip as well as the additional 6 months already admitted.

That will put the price through the roof. :ouch:

JSF Hearing Closed (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%3aea5a77c4-799a-42b9-931d-eeaf538da3ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

At the last minute, the Senate canceled a public hearing on the Joint Strike Fighter program that was to have taken place today. Instead, the scheduled witnesses - including procurement chief Ashton Carter, JSF program director Mike Heinz and a representative from the Joint Estimating Team (in the role of Inspector Javert) - will brief the Armed Services Committee in closed session.

It's very generous of the Senate majority to spare program critics the humiliation of hearing witness after witness say that the program is in excellent shape, and that defense secretary Robert Gates' dismissal of the first JET report last year was an act of supreme foresight and wisdom.

Well, actually, my first response to the original hearing announcement was to quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "A spanking! A spanking!" But now we'll just have to wait for the leaks.

But the trade press will be breathing a sigh of relief - because the hearing clashed with the Aerospace Industries Association's big holiday luncheon at the Mayflower. Personal congratulations to Graham, by the way, on winning the AIA's Lyman Award - I would love to be there but I'm closing DTI's Defense 2010 special in New York.

By the way, yesterday marked a month since stealth paperweight BF-1 arrived at Patuxent River.
-----------------------------------------------------

Pentagon Eyes More Cautious JSF Test Plan (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Pl an)

Officials at the Pentagon appear poised to take a more conservative approach to the $300-billion Joint Strike Fighter program after design changes, parts shortages and out-of-sequence work severely delayed completion of development aircraft.

Officials at Lockheed Martin maintain the problems are finally under control and they expect a six-month slip in completing development deliveries.

But Pentagon leaders project this could slide six months more, while up to 30 extra months could be needed to complete development, now planned for October 2014. In this, they appear to be siding with the independent Joint Estimate Team’s (JET) “worst-case” projections.

[ORAC]

United Kingdom Announces Approval of Third F-35B Joint Strike Fighter Purchase (http://www.auto-mobi.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12635&Itemid=50)

The Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) program has announced that the United Kingdom has received financial approval to purchase its third Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II operational test aircraft, reinforcing the U.K.'s continued commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter program's upcoming Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).

"The U.K. this week received financial approval to go ahead and purchase the third U.K. STOVL OT&E aircraft that is planned within LRIP 4. Given the extremely tight financial climate in the U.K. government and the consequent impact across public spending, especially defence, this is a significant achievement," said Air Commodore Graham Farnell, the U.K.'s Joint Combat Aircraft Team head. "I believe it reflects well upon the JSF program and it is a measure of the confidence that the U.K. has in both the F-35 Lightning II and the program to deliver this capability."

This approval follows recent F-35 down-select or procurement commitments by Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and the United States. The strength of the F-35 business case has enabled program suppliers to obtain the capital financing needed to recapitalize the industrial base and produce the F-35 in high quantities over the next 30 years.

"The United Kingdom's participation in F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation, and the associated commitment to purchase F-35s in early production lots, help ensure production stability as we move from the current assembly rate of one aircraft per month to our goal of one per day," said Matt Maxwell, Lockheed Martin director for F-35 Low Rate Initial Production.......

[VinRouge]

FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - Airbus threatens to scrap A400M aircraft (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfb12870-f9f1-11de-adb4-00144feab49a.html)

Airbus is threatening to scrap its €20bn ($28.8bn) programme to build the A400M military aircraft, Europe’s most high profile defence project, unless governments agree to come up with more money for it before the end of this month.
“We need to stop this constant drain on resources,” Airbus said on Tuesday. “We’ve asked the governments to take their share of the burden and this needs to be done as soon as possible.”
The threat is seen as a last desperate bid by the European aircraft maker to increase the pressure on the European partner governments that have signed up to the programme, particularly Berlin, to finance the cost overrun on the troubled project.
German is the largest customer for the aircraft and has so far taken a hard line in long-running negotiations to address the rising costs.
Analysts warned that abandoning the programme would be costly for the aircraft maker, which would have to repay €5.7bn in development funding under the original programme contract.
Cancelling the project would also prove hugely embarrassing for Airbus, which exclusively makes commercial airlines and is aiming to break into the defence procurement market via the A400M.
It would also prove a big setback for the main European partners in Nato, the transatlantic military alliance. The impetus for the A400M, which was first conceived in the early 1980s, came after the Kosovo conflict in 1999 which sorely exposed the lack of European military transport capacity.
The contract for the programme was signed in 2003 after Germany budgetary constraints had threatened to kill the programme. The US had strongly opposed the programme at the time in part to protect its near-hegemony over military tranport aircraft. Washington also argued that the funds would be put to better use in other areas addressing the large technology gap between US and other Nato forces.
Bad new for airbus, great news for more C-17 and 130J. Sounds more like posturing by EADS/Airbust TBH, turkeys dont vote for christmas and Politicians certainly dont vote for job losses in the middle of a recession.

[glad rag]

VR considering the incredible reductions in the skilled workforce in Airbus at present it is indeed likely that there may be a dramatic fall.

[VinRouge]

Is there any word on second choice for ze germans when it comes to AT? Are they going to be looking for the Spartan, 130J or C-17, or something else?

[VX275]

Has Airbus ever repaid the government loans for the development / start up of the airliners? ie the money that Boeing moan about (not that they've also had (diguised) government launch aid)
If Airbus hasn't repaid, maybe its time for the Governments to ask for it.
It was very frustrating to go to A400M meetings and be told that manpower had been transfered to the A380F and the A350 projects at a time when neither had orders and it was plain to all that the A400M was slipping.

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): F-35 Delays (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%3a0436edf4-2a48-403d-ab18-638316e6e7fb&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): Live or Let Die: the A400M Debate Continues (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%3a7ea44ad1-029f-43c8-94b8-6fff2a1210c6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The future of Europe’s military airlifter, the Airbus Military A400M, has been up in the air for so long, it may be surprising anybody still gets exercised over the issue.

However, with another meeting of government officials pending to discuss the way forward, and Airbus boss Tom Enders signaling he is starting to think about how to wind down the program if there is no future, Europe is stirring once again about what should be done. But, little surprise, there’s no consensus from the commentator circle.

For instance, the Financial Times’s Paul Betters, in his well respected European View column, today argues Airbus should ground “its military albatross.” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3c71d2b0-faee-11de-94d8-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_) Betts has an interesting argument: the A400M has been a drag on Airbus’s commercial business and getting rid of the program would allow the company “to do what it does best – building civil aircraft.”

But the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, in its A400M commentary today (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/974/499255/text/), argues that alternative procurements would likely not be cheaper and that the job losses would be considerable.

Government officials will meet mid-January to address the issue once more.

Although previous rounds have failed to bring about a resolution, Airbus is making clear it needs a decision either way, now. That, at least, is a fair position. The financial burn-rate on the program is considerable. And in the unlikely event governments would terminate the A400M, they do owe companies involved the courtesy of doing so promptly to minimize the considerable financial pain.

[airsound]

News from Airbus Military


8 January 2010

A400M flies for third time


The Airbus Military A400M airlifter has flown for the third time as the flight-test programme for the type picks up pace after the year-end break.

In a two hour 25 minute sortie from Seville, Spain on 7th January the test crew concentrated on exploring flight in different aircraft configurations.

The aircraft, known as MSN1, has now completed x hr y min total flying. (sic)

Test pilot Michel Gagneux became the third pilot to fly the aircraft, supporting aircraft captain Nacho Lombo. Airbus head of flight operations Fernando Alonso also flew on the aircraft for the first time, acting as flight test engineer.

Mr Alonso said: “It was a very satisfying moment to take part in this successful third flight. We made considerable progress in further exploring the aircraft’s behaviour in different configurations and were pleased with what we saw. The flight programme is progressing well and in the days ahead, now that the operational flight envelope has been cleared, we will be flying regularly further evaluating the aircraft's handling characteristics and doing initial systems evaluations .”

The rhythm of flight testing is expected to increase substantially in the coming days. Overall, this first aircraft is expected to fly for some 1,200 hours during the 3,700hr test programme involving five aircraft which will lead to first delivery of the type in late 2012.

[dolphinops]

EADS CEO: Clients Must Share A400M Funding Burden
By PIERRE TRAN


SEVILLE, Spain - EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois set a Jan. 31 deadline for agreement on a funding pact to finance cost overruns on the A400M, and he said the European aerospace group would not risk its future for the sake of the troubled military airlifter

link: Air Warfare - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/channel.php?c=AIR&s=TOP)



Jan 31st eh? Watch and shoot....

[dolphinops]

Disregard all after...
Seems I got beat on another thread. :ugh::O

[Finnpog]

Guardian story here MoD to slash jet fighter orders as it struggles to save aircraft programme | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/defence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget?CMP=AFCYAH)

Sowing the seeds for drastic cuts to the planes and the carriers - however it then suggests A or C for the RAF and even 'cheaper catapult launched' Fast Air for the FAA.

Obviously a good source, but not too much exact detail so they have had to pad he story with supposition.

Maybe ZNL should just announce that they are going to close down the military and turn the pilot light out on public service.

Still at least I was able to see the end of boom and bust :ugh:

[shiko]

The RAF will have no use for JSF. Let those good old chaps use their "ultimate" now rated, air-to-ground Typhoons for that and leave the Navy with either cat-launched or STOVL JSF.

If JSF is required from a land base, I'm sure the guys who are used to landing on a tiny carrier can handle landing on a non-moving, well-lit, "in the same place when I left it" 8000ft runway.

Navy can then specialise in CAS and air-ground, and RAF can sit and drink tea in crewrooms as per.

Ouch! No jokes aside. We cannot be a powerful country without control of the sea. We cannot do that effectively without carriers; and carriers don't serve much purpose without jets. If you don't get carriers what was the point in the 6bn worth of T45 destroyers.

I guess the simple fact is that losing carriers/JSF will mean losing massive capabilities - and therefore unless suitable alternatives are found cannot happen without narrow minded MPs focussing on the short-term. It happened before.... surely not again.

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares):

CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/chart-f-35bc-operating-costs-v.html)

A Pentagon briefing dated 4 January shows a larger number F-35B/Cs in 2029 will cost more to operate over dramatically fewer flying hours than today's fleet of AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds.

The presentation is authored by David E. Burgess, director of the cost department for the Naval Air Systems Command. The chart shows predictions that the F-35B/C fleet will cost more to operate from Fiscal 2020 to FY2045 than the aircraft they replace. The data could be significant as the F-35 program has been justified primarily as a cost-saving effort, with three variants sharing a common design.

JSF Jumping, but How High? (http://defensetech.org/2010/01/13/jsf-jumping-but-how-high/)

The F-35B STOVL test plane down at Pax has been busy since the new year, spooling up its lift fan and thrusting its nozzle in near-hover tests that engage the one of the most complex propulsion systems since the Yak-38.

We wish Lockheed Martin the best of luck in its tests, but as they go on, Defense Tech and it’s sister sites are starting to wonder if all this effort will be worth it. In a brilliant stroke, the Marine Corps maneuvered to get the B-version of the Lightning tested before the C model. In their quest for an “all STOVL force,” the Corps insists it needs the jump jet F-35. We understand the rational in the abstract, but practically, it makes no sense and sucks resources away from other efforts that could pay off much bigger.

And, ironically, the Navy was smart to shoe horn in their Super Hornet as a hedge against delays in the JSF program back in 1999. And now, as our boys over at DoD Buzz report (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/), the Navy is getting soft on the carrier Lightning as the technical delays mount and the costs soar.

“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”

As big a fan as we are of the MV-22, the analogy of an expensive, technically complex experiment being used for run-of-the mill operations has merit and can be transferred to the JSF as well. Why not replace Harriers with Super Hornets? Really, the Corps rarely operates its jets in true STOVL mode except for flights off an amphib. But that lack of jet capability can be worked around for ARGs (or whatever they’re called now).

Anyway, as the F-35B program progresses and the money people start to take notice of its complexity and cost, there’s going to be a fierce debate over whether giving the Corps its hovering toy is worth it. The Navy might have to abandon its F-35C ambitions (to the extent that they actually wanted that version of the Lightning) and go straight to the UCAS…?

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC,

Thanks for this. It's increasingly unclear to me what the strategic point of the F-35B is for the US, to be frank. I understand that the USMC want their own toy, and remember the battle when the USN took their carriers away, and the USMC said "Never Again" etc etc.

But why is the US taxpayer is being asked to fund the most expensive and least capable (payload / range) version of JSF? Presumably because in the depths of the USMC HQ, they can envisage a day when a MEU / ARG (or whatever it's called this week) will have to storm ashore against a credible air to air and double-digit surface to air threat without a CVBG to help.

Ummm....

It just doesn't add up. I get the scenario in which:

(a) a MEU would do its thing with AV-8Bs against the local not very impressive air force and (maybe) some low grade SAM threat.

(b) USMC assets would be involved in first night of the war high intensity stuff.

What I can't see is (b) happening without the support of one of the 11 CVNs.

If this is the case, why press on with the F-35B? Bin it now, and if this means that the USMC needs some new build AV-8B++, fine. But it doesn't need stealth and all the other gubbins from the JSF. For those capabilities, F-35C off the CVNs should be fine.

S41

[Lyneham Lad]

Article in the latest Flight newsletter (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/14/337134/usn-officials-raise-concern-about-f-35-affordability.html)

The US Naval Air Systems Command's top cost estimator has warned in a new internal briefing obtained by Flight International that the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C variants are getting harder to afford.

Lockheed continues to insist, however, that cost estimates within the programme have not changed since 2007, which it says is supported by its recent contractual performance.According to NAVAIR's cost department, the F-35's total ownership costs, including development, production and sustainment, has doubled to $704 billion since Lockheed won the contract eight years ago.

Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace.
My bold/italics.

I wonder how $30,700 per hour compares with figures in the UK MoD reckoning? More grist for the post-election defence cuts mill?

[Hilife]

AW101 Merlin Costs - Hansard May 2007

Adam Ingram

The total operating cost per hour is approximately £34,000 for the Merlin Mk 3 and is approximately £42,000 for the Merlin Mk 1.

At today's exchange rates, that's roughly $55,400 & $68,600 respectively and they'll be around until 2030. Those F35's are beginning to look like a bargain.

[Jig Peter]

The Depeche du Midi reports today that the extended meeting of EADS and partner governments has ended (22 Jan) without an agreement. The paper also says that various proposals are still being investigated; the German position remains that they are still interested, but "not at any price" - similar to the UK position (my addition).
It's still expected that a mutually satisfactory agreement will be reached at "a further meeting" before the end of January.
La Depeche also points out that if, for example, Germany agreed to take fewer aircraft "up front" and more (at a different price) later, they would lose their preponderant position (60 aircraft) in the customer list. This, it is suggested, would not be politically accepted in Germany. (There was a suggestion earlier that the order for 60 was placed to ensure that "die Franzosen" didn't have the upper hand).
Meanwhile, we can look forward to more pics of the A400M airborne - hopefully while doing its slow speed trials, with perhaps even a firing of the "kick up the butt" rockets, though the situation would have to be pretty hair-raising if that happened.

23/1. Avweek reports today that a further meeting is set for Tuesday 26th ... the reports of problems within the German coalition government may mean that Fr. Dr. Merkel will have a hard time getting Cabinet/Parliamentary approval for whatever is decided. With GM cutting jobs at Opel, for example, and other industrial problems, further job losses would be hard to justify. But so would extra expense ...
What's the betting this will go down to the wire, as all concerned seem to be in their own private "rock and hard place" situation ?
:E

[Squirrel 41]

JigP, Jacko et al;

All very interesting. But ultimately EADS / Airbus is in the stickiest position here: they're the ones in contractual default, irrespective of the position of the test programme. Again, my questions are about the contractual position:

- How much cash do we get back if we terminate the programme?
- What damages are due to the partners for the delays?
- What is the controlling law for the contract?

And on JSF.... the DOT&E report is interesting ready. Makes you wonder whether the Administration is gutsy enough to bin the F-35B; I hope that they are. Assuming that CVF dies in the defence review, the UK would do well to push its buy back to the point at which the full spec of Block 3.0 has been proved (ie, sometime around 2019/20).

S41

[Squirrel 41]

Equivicator

Thanks - and good. If this is the case, then the partners can go to the Court and request that the court order specific performance (Specific performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance)) - in other words, order EADS to implement the contract at their expense.

EADS would hate it, but that's the law under which they signed the contract. Ho hum.

S41

[kiwi grey]

I'm not a lawyer, but mightn't it depend on who the contract signatory is on the supplier side.

Was it "Airbus Military"? Isn't that a separate legal entity to Airbus or EADS?
If yes & yes, what would be the consequences of Airbus Military just declaring bankruptcy?
Apart from no money back for UK MoD, I mean.

Admittedly, it's the "nuke option", but I'll bet all the senior management would walk away and somehow find themselves still living the lifestyle to which they've been allowed to become accustomed, and the shareholders (EADS, CASA & ...) would just have to write off their shareholding values, which would be a minuscule amount compared to paying back all the money.

[Tom Laxey]

Quite agree with the doom-mongers about the F35B.

It must rank as one of the most over-hyped and unrealistic aircraft in military aviation history - a sort of a 'Aircraft design Masters programme group design project', that somehow made the leap into full-scale reality.

The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations form the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward. Now we know different. The development program is late, and getting later. Time is money, and of course it is way over-budget. Money is flowing as though the recession wasn't happening.

It is also true that the technical aspects, whilst almost 'engineers-pants-wetting' exciting, they are just about on the boundary (and perhaps beyond) what we understand about the engineering of hot & cold air flows, jets & turbomachinery etc etc. It will be a miracle if one isn't lost in development given the amount of flying, and once budgetary pressures start to bite. However, the idea that this will be the staple of UK expeditionary aviation is incredible - anyone for a VL with a plane that has had several hundred hours of sand through the various blades and holes of its Lift system (not to mention salt water)?

That's before we've even looked at cost; if the MOD is fretting today about £85k/hour for Typhoon ops, what will the UK's F35B's cost? My guess is that they'll hardly ever leave Blighty - they'll spend a lot of time being maintained, and as recruiting tools at airshows, after the pilots have perfected the Harrier's airshow 'nod'!

cheers!

[Tom Laxey]

for those in this thread that think that you can beat up Airbus about the A400M's failings, it almost ceratinly won't happen.

The UK (& prob European) military aerospace industry exists in a weird 'no man's land' where it works to what look like normal contracts, that stipulate delivery of a certain performance, at specified times and costs. However, even under the best conditions, the performance requirements align with the contractors wishes well in advance. Also the cost and time are entirely negotiable.

The whole military aerospace industry is currenty on the edge of viability, therefore one little nudge, from a contract that goes wrong, or some penalties that need to be paid, could send it off the edge.

Although MOD will try and beat-up the contractor, sitting above the MOD are politicians, the guardians of UK plc, who will ensure that the MOD does not do any real damage to the industry.

I believe that the Chief of Airbus has already said it would be better to 'end the horror' than have 'horror without end'

[Hilife]

Agreed, as the French, Spanish and UK appear willing to agree major concessions (75% of the platforms for 100% of the price – A bargain). However I believe it’s the Germans who are taking this one to the wire. If the A400M fails, then we could see the end of Airbus Military.

Just a thought, but the A400M test platform is far heavier than initial design and although deliveries will shed weight - but not as much as has been gained, this likely leaves the German’s with a predicament, as I suspect they will want to make the Stan without so much as a splash and dash.

If the case, they would likely include severe penalties to Airbus Military if the delivered product does not meet spec, penalties AM might not be willing to accept, so more than a little brinkmanship required.

I mean, which military would buy a product that doesn’t do the job? :rolleyes:

As is always the case, it’s more about jobs than the requirement.

[Tester07]

75% of the airframes for 100% of the cost does in fact seem quite a bargain compared to the Nimrod fiasco. What would be the equivalent figures for that programme? 30% of the airframes for 500% of the cost?

I do not suggest that what is happening to A400M is good, I am just surprised at the double standards applied to BAE systems and Airbus.

[chuks]

Here in northern Germany we see quite a bit about this program in the local papers because Airbus in general is an important employer. (I haven't bothered to figure it out but I guess the A400M figures into the local jobs picture in addition to the civil aircraft programs.)

If I am reading the tea leaves correctly then the program will continue without much regard to the end product's real capabilities, let alone when it will finally be available for use, just because it means jobs. Of course at the end of the day it will probably be seen that the real cost of each job was so high that it would be better to just end the A400M program, pay off the workers and send them into early retirement now, and then buy C-17s. Far too embarassing a solution for the partners in the program ever to adopt, that one.

The last article I read said that the Turks want their A400Ms for the fixed price with the promised capabilities. How odd! Do you suppose that they will get their money back from the other partners in the program so that it can continue?

[LowObservable]

S41 - Nail on head. Even if the F-35B Transformer Jet remotely works, the CONOPS makes no sense.

One is the reason you mention: if the adversary is playing at a level where stealth is essential, is the President really going to send an MEU in without a carrier?

Related issue: the Navy "amphib" at the heart of the MEU carries troops, vehicles, equipment, helicopters & all, so it can only carry a limited number of fighters - not enough to mount a defensive CAP and carry out offensive ops at the same time.

The USMC has been deluding itself in this area for some time, with the BVR/AMRAAM "capability" on the AV-8B Plus - which has never remotely been used, and given the age of the radar probably amounts to nose ballast.

Tom L:

"The spin from about 10years ago was almost that the STOVL kit was a module that was one of few deviations from the 'common' JSF layout, and the rest would be straightforward."

So it was. But it's more accurate to say that the STOVL is the central version. The F-35A is the STOVL version with the lift system pulled out, a 9g airframe and a gun, and the F-35C loses the lift system and gets a different wing and tail.

And I would bet that the percentage of airframe parts that are common to all three versions is in the low single digits by now. The radome, perhaps.

[ORAC]

Financial Times: Talks to save A400M end in deadlock (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec7002a0-0baa-11df-9f03-00144feabdc0.html)

Talks to save one of Europe's largest defence projects have ended in deadlock, in spite of governments offering to pay EADS €2bn to help cover huge cost overruns on the A400M military transporter.

Several people close to the talks told the Financial Times that Germany, France, the UK and four other European countries had signalled they would be willing to help with extra costs.

The project is more than €5bn (£4.3bn) above the €20bn fixed price EADS subsidiary Airbus agreed to almost seven years ago. The 180-aircraft order for the transport plane, being designed and built by Airbus, is at least four years late. EADS has threatened to abandon the A400M if the seven governments fail to fund a large portion of the cost overrun, as it believes its civil business could struggle with new tasks such as the looming redesign of its A320.

While France, the UK and Spain signalled early on they would be prepared to pay more, or use other methods such as stretching delivery times, Berlin had until now dug its heels in about making changes to the original contract. Officials on both sides said Berlin had softened its line and joined its partners in offering to compensate EADS for €2bn in costs - although it remained open whether this would be through cash payments or by finding ways to reduce production costs.

Other people close to the talks confirmed that the seven governments had tabled a "global offer" but that EADS had rejected it because it was still "billions away" from a figure that would be acceptable to the company. Officials on both sides said EADS also had rejected an offer of state credit guarantees, which would have meant it could borrow to cover cost-overruns. But these people said a credit-guarantee could still be in a deal.

Government officials reported that EADS in effect had raised the amount of money it was looking for by adding a formula to the €5bn cost-overrun to compensate for raw material price rises and some other price increases. "We started the talks looking to bridge a gap of around €5bn," an official briefed about the talks told the FT. "However, we ended the talks aware that EADS was really looking for around €6bn-€7bn."

Government procurement ministers and the heads of EADS and Airbus, Louis Gallois and Tom Enders, spent the end of last week and Tuesday of this week pushing for deal before a self-imposed deadline of January 31. One person close to the negotiations said the talks had ended on "bad terms" and spoke of "a deadlock situation" but all sides were expected to attempt one more meeting before the Franco-German summit late next week.

Officials in Paris and Berlin said the issue was still being dealt with at defence-ministry levels, but that it was now possible Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, and Angela Merkel, German chancellor, would discuss the issue, at least informally.

[typerated]

Has seemingly been hiding under the radar all this time, but had its first flight this week.

It appears to be a poor man's A400M!

Presume the CF6 a convienient but non-ideal of choice of motor?


sorry for the wiki link - slim pickings from google!


Kawasaki C-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-X)

AIR International: For the best in modern military and commerical aviation (http://www.airinternational.com/view_news.asp?ID=1476)

[CONSTELLATION1]

Might be unrelated, but Antonov 70 has just flown into Brize Norton:=:=

[163627]

There are still some people who think its the future.

RAF man pilots Joint Strike Fighter - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11989)

[StopStart]

Might be unrelated, but Antonov 70 has just flown into Brize Norton

I missed that moment of excitement this afternoon. Was too busy waiting for the AN-12 to land... :cool:

[Tom Laxey]

hi

typerated
Just interested why you say the CF-6s would be a non-optimal choice?
the plane could be designed (sized) around the engines. Looks like it means business


http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=18381


On JSF, they'll likely be queue to test fly it. Actually test flight indications are good so far, though for scpetics, that was never the main issue. Lots of complicated planes make it through dev programmes, it is the in-service experience and particularly the costs that may be difficult.

[Jig Peter]

In all this A400M imbroglio, it seems that things have been being handled, at least in this latest round of brinkmanship, on a direct contractor/government (MinDef & above) basis. Where then does this OCCAR thing fit in ?
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?
And what was it doing as the programme costs rose and the timeline stretched out?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?

:8


(Dons full body and head armour and retires to bunker).

[RETDPI]

As a mere piece of pond-life who represented a putative sub-contractor on FLA in the early 80's (and who was asked to get his company to put money into the pot), can anybody explain to me the real reasons for the move to and, more significantly, the continued adherence to the UDF power plant concept on the A-400?
U.S. Industry had dumped it by the end of the 80's.

[Sgt.Slabber]

J P

Where then does this OCCAR thing fit in ?
Is it a set of MinDef minions from various lands who perhaps swap hats as their function changes from "OCCAR" to Ministerial rep. ?

Yes - sort of. Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (French: Organisation conjointe de coopération en matière d'armement ;OCCAR) is a European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) intergovernmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmentalism) organisation which facilitates and manages collaborative armament programmes between the nations of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) and the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).

See here: Welcome to occar (http://www.occar-ea.org/) and here for the shorter version Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Joint_Armament_Cooperation)

And the A400M talks continue next week; no agreement today:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/01/29/01.xml&headline=A400M Talks Drag Into February&channel=defense


LONDON — Despite urging by industry for talks on the future of the A400M military transport aircraft to be wrapped up this month, negotiations will continue in February.
After a series of talks in recent weeks failed to resolve differences over how to split the 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in additional cost required to see the program through, government and industry officials are to convene again in Berlin on Feb. 2 to settle the issue... etc., etc....



And what was it doing as the programme costs rose and the timeline stretched out?
Seems like an ineffective multilingual quango ... But then as a total outsider, who am I to judge?


...I couldn't possibly comment... No need for the body armour, etc., J P - I'm with you.

[indie cent]

Franco-German push could unjam A400M talks | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60S2Q020100129)

Specifically:

"...The price of each plane would rise 20 percent to about 130 million euros."

Accepting these latest figures, you could procure roughly 18 C-17's for the price of the 25 A400m on order. Some other figures that are available:

The A400M can lift a maximum of 37 tons.


Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)



Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)The C-17:

With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,800 nautical miles.

Aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent.

Based on these figures, we need only procure approximately 9 C-17's to match the airlift that 25 A400's could provide... Thereby halving the total procurement cost.

At a conservative estimate, you would save circa £1.4 Billion.

£1.4 Billion...

Not taking into account the fact that we already operate the Boeing.

Without any bias, the simple sums on A400m, do not add up.

[jez_s]

Comparing figures is surely not the same as comparing capability.
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose? :)

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Comparing figures is surely not the same as comparing capability.
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose? :)

10 C17 and 15 C130J No contest

Infrastructure already there!

[indie cent]

jez,

Check the numbers. You would get 18 C-17s for your 25 A400m's.

I posted the figures to provide a simplistic cost comparison. I would not go down the capability road if i was arguing for the A400m over the C-17. Halving the number of C-17's in a direct comparison was a neat, if incorrect, trick.

What would you rather have? 18 C-17s or 25 A400m...?

Ottb is correct to point out that the real solution would involve both J and Globemaster, types we already operate.

Without stating the bleeding obvious, can we now afford to waste such a huge sum of money propping up a failed contract. If we opt for A400m, the money is not going to come out of social security. Therefore, paradoxically, an insistance on its procurement could harm defence.

Sad to say it but; nice aeroplane, wrong time, poor contract.

[BEagle]

The so-called 'C-17 / C-130J' solution is not politically acceptable to certain A400M customers. Neither is the C-27J an adequate alternative.

Even if the UK were to pull out and turn cap-in-hand to Uncle Spam yet again, who would pick up the UK's share of A400M costs? And don't forget the cancellation penalties which may well exist....

The UK has confirmed its support for A400M; France and particularly Germany now need to agree the way ahead. Which will not include any American alternatives.

[jez_s]

I posted the figures to provide a simplistic cost comparison. I would not go down the capability road if i was arguing for the A400m over the C-17. Halving the number of C-17's in a direct comparison was a neat, if incorrect, trick.
You have a fair point there sir, I stand corrected, you've also summed up the A400M project in a nutshell :

Sad to say it but; nice aeroplane, wrong time, poor contract. One wonders if they've discussed the Eurofighter model of payment in Tranches or is this still the development costs they're talking about?

My own belief is that the UK will pay their full share plus a bit more and get the full 25 airframes but perhaps in a quicker timeframe than the other customers. The Germans however won't be getting the full 60 and may have them delivered over a longer period.

[Jig Peter]

After a quick look at the OCCAR references it certainly does have a lot on its plate, what with ships, missiles helicopters and ground vehicles as well as the A400M. Serious stuff, indeed.
I wonder how the various programmes other than the A400M
are doing/did, in terms of cost and timescale - and how much the OCCARy staffing levels and adminnery cost ... Seems they didn't have much of a "handle" on what was happening down in Seville and Toulouse.
Now that February's here, let's hope there's some sort of agreement between Mr. Sarkozy and Frau Doktor Merkel when they see each other at Davos (or wherever) and that they will tell their "minions" to agree something (which could always be re-agreed later, no?).

Cynique, Moi? Nein, nimmer ...

:E

[Grabbers]

Nigella for me. Every time. :ok:

[BEagle]

Kylie or Nigella?

In my imagination, there is no complication...

I should be so lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky......

:E

As regards the C-17, does anyone really believe that Bubba Boeing won't up the price significantly if Europe cannot agree about the A400M?

By the time the A400M starts entering RAF service, the C130Js will be getting pretty well shagged out after Afghanistan. So it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see them being flogged off to the highest bidder and replaced 1-for-1 by A400Ms....:hmm:

[Low Flier]

BBC NEWS (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8492430.stm?ad=1)

F-35 general sacked by Pentagon

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has sacked the marine general overseeing a $40bn (£25bn) project to build the next generation strike fighter jet.

Mr Gates said the F-35 programme had been plagued by problems and failed to hit performance targets.

He also said Lockheed Martin, the US corporation responsible for building the jet, would not be awarded $614m in performance-related payouts.

The Pentagon wants the F-35 to replace most of its ageing fighter jets.

"The progress and performance of the F-35 over the past two years has not been what it should," Mr Gates told a news conference on the Pentagon's proposed budget.

He added that "a number of key goals and benchmarks were not met".

[moosemaster]

The RAF already run 3 fleets. Be under no illusion, the Js and Ks are totally different aircraft, that happen to share a name and an overall appearance, but different none-the-less.

As the A400 was ordered to replace the K's, there will still be 3 fleets, except the "new" 3rd fleet will be more serviceable and more capable than the "old" 3rd fleet.

The argument over sims is also a moot point. The RAF could never buy a C17 sim, even the USAF don't own any, they merely lease them from Boeing, who run them under contract.

Buying more C17s would only increase our dependence on the USAF training system, which is quite stretched as it is. I mean, they do have rather a lot of C17 crews to keep current themselves.

At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)

The basic fact remains that we do not have enough J's to simply scrap the Ks and transfer tasking to the J fleet. Nor would buying more J's help because they lack the outsize load capability needed to deliver some of the army's newest equipment to the front line.

The C17, great as it is, is really not suited to unprepared strip ops. It can do it, don't get me wrong, but those donks really to take a hammering with all the dust ingestion. Add to that the servicing requirements that will be incurred by hammering them in the Tac role, and over the longer term, A400 still wins. (Obviously this is opinion, and I have no figures to back it up)

[OFBSLF]

At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)
So the RAF can afford to rent or purchase A400 simulators, but not to rent more or purchase C17 simulators? You can afford to set up A400 training, but not C17 training? Why would the cost for one be so different than the cost for the other?

[Cobra98]

Problem: We need more ground handling equipment.
Answer: Buy more C17s.:rolleyes:

Problem: We need more movers to better support our extant fleet.
Answer: Buy more C17s.:rolleyes:

Problem: I need to paint my front door.
Answer: Buy a C17.:rolleyes:

Problem: We need more Tac AT.
Answer: Buy more C17s.:rolleyes:

Indie Cent puts forward a seemingly unbeatable comparison model and on the top bunk says that our infrastructure is already in place to support a further acquisition of extant fleet aircraft, both of which are massively simplistic.

Notwithstanding the simple fact that we wouldn't get anywhere near 18 x C17 for the same money as the A400M contract (please show how you get to these figures and I will try and show where you are incorrect)is a load more C17 something we need? Regardless of the cost, you would need to look long and hard at the C17 as a capability. Like it or not, we are already doing a serious amount of civil charter and have historically always done so. We can always get into the additional cost of trying to put the C17 into the tactical role if you want to expose more of the cost argument....

You asked 'What would I rather have 25 x A400M or 18 x C17' which is, frankly, a nonsense question...It depends what I was going to do with them, what capability they had, what threat environment we were operating in, what clearances they had, what the load was, etc etc etc. The answer to this could clearly be either, but the question MOD asked some time ago was 'What shall we replace the C130K with?' Unfortunately some can only see that great strategic asset, but Holy White Elephant, as the answer.

What would you prefer, a Porsche 911 or a Tractor...? Kylie or Nigella? Spoon or Knife.....?

The argument that we already have infrastructure for the C130J and C17 is also facile. Not quite sure how you define infrastructure, but I'll take a guess that you mean more than just 'hangarage'...

Clearly running a third fleet has a cost, but this doesn't disappear just because you're not buying A400M.

Your 'infrastructure' costs include a whole load of stuff we don't already have and need to use/buy for acquiring any more aircraft, European or American. Sims, crews, movers, ACHE, hangars, fuel, spares (and different spares), etc etc etc..

I've said it before but this argument isn't about us buying C17 and C130J to replace an A400M contract, it's about us justifying A400M to the treasury as something we need. If we don't win this argument, we won't be getting anything to replace the K.

One would not have to wait 3+ years to get the C-17 (or the J) in service and 5+ years to reach a level of maturity for squadron service. In other words, you can wait 5+ years to get what you can receive within the next 12 months, for a cheaper price.:ok:

[John Farley]

Kindly check your PMs

JF

[BEagle]

JF

DCO

.

[VinRouge]

Moosemaster,

Want to point out what the K is doing at the moment aside from getting towed from one side of LYE to the other?

We have 2 AT fleets. The K lost a lot of its engineers to the J a while back.

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

;)

As the A400 was ordered to replace the K's, there will still be 3 fleets, except the "new" 3rd fleet will be more serviceable and more capable than the "old" 3rd fleet.

I think you will find that the A400M will come in two shades. I believe that 2 of the aircraft will be development aircraft ('cos we can have them cheap!!!). Unbelievable eh ? So we will have 4 fleets.

[Madbob]

Equivocator, your PPRuNe callsign is mis-leading! Far from having a doubtful or double meaning your last post was very erudite and obviously well informed :ok:.

I totally agree with what you say. The sad thing is that it reminds me of the old Irish joke..... Seamus asks Paddy the way to Dublin and Paddy replies "Seamus, if I were going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here!"

The problem is that through inept decision-making/procurement compounded by lack of funds military procurement (like almost everything else this government is responsible for) is a case of crisis management.

The sad truth is that long-lead procurement projects (of whatever type be they Nimrods, T45's, Astutes, FRES, A400's, Chinook Mk3, or Tankers.....the list goes on) have a tendency to run late, go over budget and suffer from additional delays due to the Treasury using cuts to the Defense Budget as a means of balancing all its other budgets which are less politically easy to cut. In short, the MOD gets the short straw time and time again and our senior "top brass" are powerless to prevent this or too focused on protecting their own service/career/pension....

It would be oh so different if the views expressed at the coal face, (and here on PPRuNe) were listened to by those is charge of such decisions....then perhaps we wouldn't suffer the "capability chasms" (I can't call them "gaps" anymore) such as lack of MPA/long range SAR, SHARs for the RN's air defence, Elint or strategic reconnaisance....

A little bit of "Quantative Easing" directed at the MOD would be a start....I'm only glad that I jumped ship after 10 years in the RAF and that my sons haven't set their hearts of following my footsteps too closely. Seeing the post and YouTube videos of "Fighter Pilot" which was being filmed when I was going through Linton I can't help but reflect on how much things must have changed - for the worse sadly :(.

My admiration and respect goes to those still putting up with the frustrations of life in the armed forces who are collectively being dealt a pretty crap hand. The sad part is that even when the "pack is shuffled" (May 6th?) I don't think things will get any better - at least for a long, long time.:ugh:

MB

[airsound]

Well, things may be going down to the wire at Airbus, but they're still pressing on at Seville.
Airbus Military News
3 February 2010
Airbus Military fourth A400M assembly process begins
The final assembly process for the fourth Airbus Military A400M military airlifter has already begun in Seville (Spain). The wings for the aircraft, known as MSN4, arrived at the final assembly line of the aircraft, known as MSN4, on January 21st on board an Airbus Beluga. The vertical tailplane manufactured in Stade (Germany) is expected in mid-February followed by the fuselage and nose one month later. A400M MSN4 will have its maiden flight before the end of 2010.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Perhaps we wouldn't suffer the "capability chasms" (I can't call them "gaps" anymore)

Too right, and, heaven forbid, we see a Capability Holiday become a capability sabatical but, for sure, several of our current platforms are close to collecting their capability bus pass:}

[ORAC]

Center for Defense Information: No Surprise in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4583&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm)

Some have remarked that the cost overruns, management screw-ups, performance failures and schedule delays on the F-35 were surprises, unexpected or unanticipated. This would be the case only if you are new to defense as an issue, willing to mindlessly follow empty-headed conventional wisdom as it wriggles its way through the corridors of power in Washington, or wake up each morning believing in the tooth fairy. Friend and military reform colleague Chuck Spinney explains and documents his more than decade-old prediction from the past of what is now happening in the F-35 program. Needless to say, all of Washington's national security elite ignored Chuck's predictions back then, just as they will hope to ignore his reminder and his broader lesson today.

Chuck Spinney's comments follow below:

The recent publication of the 2010 QDR reveals once again, in typically leaden and mind-numbing prose, how the Pentagon is incapable of coming to grips with the mismatches among strategy, programs, and resources that its decision makers create for themselves, even when budgets are at the highest levels since the end of WWII. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (also called the JSF) has become a metaphor for the larger mess of the Pentagon's self-destructive pathological behavior.

Consider the first sentence in the Wired.com report attached below - "If the Pentagon doesn’t get its Joint Strike Fighter just right, the U.S. military is screwed." Just right? Give me a break.

The JSF, like all Pentagon procurements, is in deep trouble, and Secretary Gates just fired the two-star program director and will replace him with three-star - apparently operating under the assumption that pumping up an already bloated bureaucracy will get the JSF problem "just right." That is more nonsense - this disaster was written in the wind: the seeds were planted in the early 1990s, and the outcome was perfectly predictable - the simple fact is that the JSF was doomed not to be the "right stuff" from the very beginning...............[more]

[Jig Peter]

Silence from all concerned now that the 31/01 deadline has passed: the Ministerial minions seem to be letting Mr. Enders "twist in the wind", though various "leaks" have suggested what seems like a "reasonable" solution.
However, in all the argy-bargy before the end of January, as well as fellow Pruners' comments, the costs mentioned per aircraft only apply to the current production run. Surely the market is not just the "launch customers" (for any aircraft), but the percentage of the potential market it can expect to gain. Mr. Enders has some erudite market analysts and forecasters at his disposal, who must know that wherever there's a C-130, there's a potential A400M sale, sooner or later, and should be talking about that, in true Airbus style.
Boeing people have already said that as the A400M "slips to the right", sales prospects for the C-17 open up.
There has been some talk about "Airbus should not be getting involved in military aircraft", as if the A400M was a death-dealing scatterer of nasty things that go bang, rather than a lifter of goods and people into rough fields - cue Haiti anyone?
There's a pretty good market for the A400M out there. It would be good for all if that were being stressed even more strongly than the cost problems to date.

PS Nice to see the news that MSN4 is in final assembly ... Good on yer, lads & lasses in the team !

[dolphinops]

EADS To Ground A400M if No Deal By Monday: Report - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4494233&c=AIR&s=TOP)

Monday now!

[chuks]

I wonder if this will end with some arrangement that sees everyone just walking away in a dignified manner, all eating their individual losses, no compensation to be paid by Airbus or whatever you call it, just to be shut of this program that has turned into such a vast money pit. There seems to be enough pain to go around now without creating more by pouring billions of euros more into this project which is nowhere near delivering usable airlift, the original stated idea.

Okay, perhaps it was much more about job creation and new technology development since there must have been cheaper ways to get the airlift but it really does look as if we have now got to the point where the hole is deep enough for everyone to agree to stop digging.

[Jig Peter]

Analogous to the old Airframe fitter's "Get a bigger hammer", the "Big Hole" solution used to be "Get a longer ladder". However, it feels horribly as if "the" decision has already been taken to wrap up the project, but EADS and the MinDef minions are just waltzing around each other to avoid any perceived "responsibility" for pulling the plug. And, while EADS says "Monday's plug-pull day", DefMinions seem to think that the wire is dated 28/2. As Monday 15/2 is the start of the week MSN 1 was expected to start the second phase of flight testing ...
When (Ok, let's keep the optimism tap open for a bit) IF the project is abandoned, there's still the important matter of a capability gap that neither the C-130 nor the C-17 seems to fill. So ... What next? Hand the whole thing to e.g. Lockheed Martin, for them to pick up and sell to the (once) A400M "launch" customers ??
Plus, with Opel in Germany + Vauxhall in UK, the Big Greek Problem and Spanish unemployment at nearly unbearable levels, European governments must surely be looking for some way to avoid several thousand more skilled workers in the job queue... Perhaps the parties concerned can't find a "form of words" ...
Frustrating as it is for onlookers like Yrs Truly, I feel deeply for all involved hands on in the project so far. Best of European luck, ladies and gents ...

[mole man]

Will MSN 1 fly on the 15th??????

Mole Man

[Squirrel 41]

Jig P / Mole Man

Well, let's see how the kabuki dance continues. Given the amount of work that the civil side of Airbus have, I'd be surprised if any jobs were to go if A400M were to bite the dust.

However.....

If I were Airbus, I'd be much more concerned about the fact that their inability / unwillingness to meet contracted capabilities and timescales at the time that the KC-X RFP is being discussed. As a result, it is much more "acceptable" for both sides for it to continue on until the USAF has started to make a decision.

It seems that the only things that is certain is that the RAF won't receive 25 A400Ms for the contracted price at anything like the original timescales: and no amount of spin can get Airbus away from these pretty stark facts.

S41

[ORAC]

Hmmm.

You wouldn't be thinking that someone might drop a quiet word that, if the Pentagon/Congress divide the KC-X contract in half between the KC-767 and KC-45, EADS might walk away from the A400M and leave the AT market to LM (C-130) and Boeing (C-17)? :cool:

[BEagle]

Such a 'solution' would be wholly unacceptable to the French, for one.

If KC-X comes down in favour of the ageing Boeing Frankentanker 7-arse-7 (by the way, any luck with the pods or centreline hose yet, Bubba Boeing? It's been a few years now...), then it will prove that Spam military procurement is completely and utterly driven by politics.

[ORAC]

then it will prove that Spam military procurement is completely and utterly driven by politics. Well, duhh! So what's new? And what's different to everyone else procurement policy? :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Since Airbus originally won the KC-X competition with the KC-45 until the rules were bent yet again, the tanker programme wasn't always dominated by jingoism. 'Best for America's warfighters' (who invented that ridiculous term?) or whatever other puff Bubba Boeing wants to spin, the KC-767 still hasn't been delivered to Italy and 75% of the Italian tanker fleet is still in flight test. Lower risk than the KC-45? I hardly think so.

Anyone unfortunate enough to endure the 'rendition-class' comfort of travelling in a KC-767 will surely wonder why the A330 has vastly superior levels of passenger comfort. A minor point perhaps, but pretty significant for any 'warfighters' travelling to wherever the self-appointed World Policeman decides to invade next.

[ANW]

The RAF are already using AN124 aircraft for outsized cargo movements.

It seems obvious to buy new production models of AN124; at the same time, look at the AN70.

While we are on the subject, a few hundred MiL helicopters wouldn't go amiss.

And maybe the new Sukhoi 50 instead of the JSF ?

Time to take the whippet for a walk ..........

[airsound]

More stuff from Germany


(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued Feb. 12, 2010)

Thousands of Europeans are employed building the 180 A400M military transport planes ordered by seven countries. But the project is billions of euros over budget, years behind schedule and in urgent need of funding.

Messy negotiations between European governments and Airbus manufacturer EADS have recently drawn into question the future of the company's beleaguered A400M military transport plane.

Delivery of the 180 planes ordered by seven countries in 2003 is now three years overdue, and what was a 20 billion euro fixed-price contract has [increased] to 27.6 billion euros ($37.4 billion). Mismanagement and technical difficulties have been blamed, and the company estimates it is spending between 100 and 150 million euros ($135 to $200 million) per month on the program.

Tens of thousands of European jobs are hanging in the balance, and EADS may lose 7.6 billion euros ($10.3 billion). The company has offered to continue the project and absorb 3.2 billion ($4.3 billion) in losses if governments cover 4.4 billion ($5.9 billion). Instead, nations have offered to cover 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion).

An EADS spokesman in Germany did not comment when asked about the negotiations on Thursday, but the company has threatened to renege on its contract. In that case it would have to repay some 6.4 billion euros ($8.6 billion) in advances.

Company under pressure

Zafer Ruzgar, an analyst with Independent Research in Frankfurt, told Deutsche Welle he is convinced European governments will extend financial support to EADS. "There are hardly any alternatives available to the countries involved. They won't want to wager approaching Boeing; they'll prefer to avoid that," he said. "And EADS certainly won't want to give up on the project because it's a prestige project, and they want to expand their military business."

The question which remains is how much money will be lent to EADS, according to Ruzgar. Pressure to resolve the issue quickly is mounting because EADS will likely publicize its 2009 financial statement in March.

"At that point investors will want to know what risks are associated with the program and how significant its expenses are," he said. "So long as we don't know for certain what direction things are moving in – whether they continue the program or cancel it – that absolutely will depress the value of EADS shares."

Controversy in Germany

Germany has ordered 60 of the planes, and a domestic controversy took place recently when the newspaper Handelsblatt reported Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was planning to use funds earmarked for supporting mid-sized businesses to lend EADS nearly one billion euros.

A spokesman for Germany's Federal Ministry of Defense denied the claim. "There is no relationship or connection to (those funds)," he told Deutsche Welle.

The spokesman did not believe negotiations with EADS will collapse, and said the A400M is unparalleled in its combination of capabilities. It can fly long distances and very high and fast for a propeller plane, and it can carry a lot of weight and land on rough terrain. The German military needs new transport planes, but the A400M is "not completely without alternatives," he said.

"All of those capabilities concentrated into one platform are singular," he said. "At the moment no other individual platform can provide what this plane can. Of course we are talking about a three- to four-year delay to the original timeline. Should this project fall through, then we would have to look into the alternatives, which absolutely do exist. It is possible this could lead to further delays."

Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey have also ordered A400M planes. A NATO spokesman contacted by Deutsche Welle declined to comment on the strategic value of the planes.

-ends-

[StopStart]

And so it goes on...

Representatives from Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey on Monday submitted the proposal to EADS, Airbus's parent company. EADS must now respond, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said.

"The buyer nations are thereby confirming their firm intention of continuing the A400M project. It's now important to see how the industry will react to the proposals," the ministry spokesman told a news conference.

He added that it has been agreed by the parties to remain silent on the details of the funding plan. The partners have been at odds for months over how to resolve a funding shortfall on the A400M troop carrier.

The €20bn (£17.4bn) project faces estimated losses of €7.6bn, of which EADS has so far pledged to absorb €3.2bn. EADS has asked buyers to share some of the losses to prevent damage to Europe's airliner business and safeguard around 10,000 A400M jobs.

Sources familiar with the talks said in addition to offering to cover €2bn, buyer nations were now prepared to put up guarantees worth €1.5bn, leaving an outstanding funding gap of around €900m.

Late last week Airbus threatened to start winding down work on the troubled project within days if long-running talks with national buyers do not yield results.

Tom Enders, chief executive, told unions in Spain that he was ready to stop work on the aircraft if no agreement on funding is reached with European governments.

The discussions have already dragged on beyond the January 31 deadline laid down by Airbus.

The A400M is costing EADS between €100m and €150m a month while talks have continued with Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey.

The seven countries have together ordered 180 of the planes.

Airbus has 52,000 employees around Europe with about 10,000 working on the A400M. The plane is designed to carry troops, armoured vehicles and helicopters. It would replace Europe's ageing fleet of transport planes.


Telegraph 15 Feb 10 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7245120/Airbus-A400m-buyers-submit-joint-proposal-on-funding.html)

[ORAC]

Did someone say we needed the A400M for it's tactical role, as the C-17 wasn't certified for them?

Well think again... :ouch::ouch:

Airbus May Build Simpler A400M to Speed Introduction, FTD Says (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aeuKbHBmc9SM)
By Benedikt Kammel

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS is set to build a simpler version of the A400M military transport and initially seek only civil certification of the plane as part of an agreement with the governments involved in the program, Financial Times Deutschland reported, citing unidentified people close to the negotiations...............

[ORAC]

PAK-FA analysis and high level advice point to JSF crisis (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/02/16/pak-fa-analysis-and-high-level-advice-from-the-pentagon-point-to-jsf-crisis/)

About now Defence Minister John Faulkner is having tea and biscuits with William Lynn, the deputy secretary of the US Defense Office, who is breaking some awkward news about the JSF Joint Strike Fighter project. Namely, that March is going to be a very difficult month for the troubled project.

But if the Minister had already read the very long and detailed analysis (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html)released early this morning by Airpower Australia of the Russian answer to the JSF F-35, the Sukhoi PAK-FA, which made its first ‘public’ flight on January 10, the conversation might have been even more fascinating, and difficult, for Lynn. The analysis has very grim implications for the JSF project.

But first, Lynn and the Defence Secretary Robert Gates are according to sources in DC doing the rounds of JSF client states bringing them up to date over the issues befalling the project in March

The anticipated unfavourable review of the JSF program by the US Government Accountability Office report to Congress next month will trigger the Nunn-McCurdy amendment to the Defence Authorization Act of 1982 which will force the government to get reauthorization to continue its funding because of unit cost overruns.

This embarrassment will occur less than two months after the official audit review into the project by Mike Gilmore, the US Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which lead to the firing of the head of the project and the cancellation of $700 million in ‘progressive’ payments due to be made to the lead contractor, Lockheed Martin, this year.

In their report the co-founders of the Air Power Australia defence think tank, Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon say:

“Analysis of PAK-FA prototype airframe aerodynamic features shows a design which is superior to all Western equivalents, providing ‘extreme agility’, superior to that of the Su-35S, through much of the flight envelope. This is accomplished by the combined use of 3D thrust vector control of the engine nozzles, all moving tail surfaces, and refined aerodynamic design with relaxed directional static stability and careful mass distribution to control inertial effects. The PAK-FA is fitted with unusually robust high sink rate undercarriage, intended for STOL operations.

“The available evidence demonstrates at this time that a mature production PAK-FA design has the potential to compete with the F-22A Raptor in VLO performance from key aspects, and will outperform the F-22A Raptor aerodynamically and kinematically. Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015."

"Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs.”

They warn that, “if the US does not fundamentally change its future for the planning of tactical air power, the advantage held for decades will soon be lost and American air power will become an artefact of history.”..........

[Jig Peter]

So it's not "fat lady time" yet ... Offstage a chorus of DefMinions has sung, but only the few have been able to hear the words: onstage, the protagonists are huddled, deciding what their next bit is to be ("Cor Dammerung " ?) Perhaps it's to be a short duet, followed by Exeunt omnes to alarums and trumpets. Suspenseful, like Bayreuth, though an old phrase about jokes and pantomimes lurks in the dark bits of the mind.

In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape).
:confused:

[StopStart]

So it's not "fat lady time" yet ... Offstage a chorus of DefMinions has sung, but only the few have been able to hear the words: onstage, the protagonists are huddled, deciding what their next bit is to be ("Cor Dammerung " ?) Perhaps it's to be a short duet, followed by Exeunt omnes to alarums and trumpets. Suspenseful, like Bayreuth, though an old phrase about jokes and pantomimes lurks in the dark bits of the mind.

In the distance, the writers of the next Act (called "March Financial Report") are getting restive, as there's a big bit they don't know what or whether to write. And the Fat Lady still waits in the wings for her cue, while the object of affections (?) stays grounded ... (no aspersions cast on the A400's shape)

Delighted to see you're maintaining the ole french tradition of smashing one's way through a case of vin rouge at lunchtime...... :}

[ORAC]

FT: Governments put 'final' offer to EADS over A400M (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19d18ca0-1b64-11df-838f-00144feab49a.html)

European governments have demanded a share in any future export profits from the troubled A400M military transport programme in return for providing a €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package.

The seven customers - France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey - who have pledged to buy 180 of the turboprop aircraft yesterday delivered their "final and best" offer to EADS, parent of the A400m's maker, Airbus.

In a letter sent by Rüdiger Wolf, German junior minister for defence procurement on behalf of all the client states, the governments agreed to offer €1.5bn in advance payments in return for the promise of a share in future export profits. A further €2bn in support will be made up of a combination of cash and cost cuts to the programme. The governments have also indicated that they would be prepared to talk about absorbing future price rises caused by external factors, such as increased raw material costs.

The €3.5bn package still falls short of the €5.2bn funding gap identified by EADS on the programme, one of Europe's largest defence projects. It is already running four years behind schedule and some €11bn over its initial €20bn estimate.

The future export potential of the aircraft is also unclear as it faces competition from successful US programmes - Lockheed Martin's C-130 Hercules and Boeing C-17s. The future of the C-17 programme is, however, in some doubt after the Pentagon recently halted further orders for the aircraft. Boeing must find export markets to keep the line open.

EADS was last night examining the offer and people close to the talks suggested it could be accepted if the governments accepted a few further changes "at the margins". EADS is reluctant to accept any further large writedowns on the fixed price contract, which could wipe out its profit for 2009. EADS has already taken a €2.4bn provision against the programme. The current offer could leave the group facing further provisions of about €1.7bn or more, against profits forecasts of roughly €2bn.

An announcement, at least on an agreement in principle, is expected in the coming days. EADS is under pressure to agree a deal before it closes its accounts ahead of its results next month.

Defence procurement ministers from the customer governments are due to meet with company representatives later this week.

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): JSF - 13-Month Delay Is Official (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%3a77ae572b-b6d3-412a-a667-889f5bbeda75&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Two official sources have now confirmed that initial operational test and evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be completed before November 2015, 13 months later than the previous schedule. That schedule itself was adopted less than two years ago, in early 2008, so the program has now slipped two years in five since 2005, when the previous schedule was set.

So much for the "four to six months" we've been hearing from Lockheed Martin.

Dutch state secretary of defense Jack de Vries notified Parliament of the delay yesterday. Also, US deputy secretary of defense William Lynn told Australian audiences early this week that the program would be 13 months late. He's also reported as saying that the delay would have been 30 months - with testing dragging on until early 2017 - without the latest corrective measures, transferring money from production to development.

Lynn also told the Australians that the production price had gone up, but that he could not say by how much. De Vries, meanwhile, has told Dutch lawmakers that he will get them a revised price by May, after the Pentagon releases the Selected Acquisitions Report (SAR) on the JSF - which is expected to result in a Nunn-McCurdy critical breach, which in turn will delay the contract for the next low-rate initial production batch of aircraft.

Next question for the Pentagon: will the US services still hold their initial operational capability (IOC) dates? All three operators, under the new schedule, will be declaring IOC before development is completed.

[Jig Peter]

Just a sniff of the cork's all it takes these days ... Santé !!:ok:

[airsound]

Umm, mods, could we think about splitting threads on JSF/F35 and A400M? They don't really seem to have much in common (apart from humungous lateness and unbelievable overbudgetness), and having them in the same thread just seems, well, perverse. And we don't want people thinking that about PPRuNe, do we?

airsound

[barit1]

They don't really seem to have much in common (apart from humungous lateness and unbelievable overbudgetness)

...and common reasons for the above.

Namely, specifications that push the state of the art, forcing great technical risk-taking; diverse technical and industrial requirements by multiple customers; ... I'm sure we can identify more common drivers for the cost and delay.

If mods wish to split the two, fine; but at least consider what the two have in common.

[airsound]

Of course you're right, barit1 - I plead guilty to being slightly flippant. And obviously the factors you offer were the good reasons for starting the thread this way.

I feel we've moved on, though, and both aircraft are now at even more risk, perhaps, than when the thread started back in 2008. But the projects themselves are so different, and affect such different parts of the military spectrum, that they each deserve their own coverage.

Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way - perhaps it's not the mods' job to split threads. Should we start another 2 threads - anyone else feel supportive? Although as far as A400M is concerned, I suppose it could all end soon anyway.

Wallowing in a morass of indecision
airsound

[ORAC]

Looks like the deal is done...

FT: Airbus uneasy over A400M rescue deal (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad302f3c-1cf5-11df-aef7-00144feab49a.html)

A deal to rescue the A400M military transport aircraft was getting closer, the head of the group struggling to make the aircraft said yesterday.

However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position".

"We've made progress. It is undeniable," Mr Enders told the Financial Times. "I call it the bare minimum of what we need to continue the programme. There are still quite a few important questions and clarifications needed. I think there's a good chance that we can come to an agreement. But you won't see me being enthusiastic. It would be good news for suppliers and employees, but financially and resources-wise it would remain a burden for years to come."

A final decision on the deal could be taken when it is discussed at a European defence ministers' meeting in Spain next week.........

[green granite]

However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position".

Obviously not enough to pay for his bonus for this year.

[ORAC]

Defense News:

USAF May Shift F-35 In-service Date (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4506723&c=AME&s=AIR)

ORLANDO, Fla. - Just weeks after the Pentagon announced a restructuring of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Air Force is now re-evaluating when the plane will be considered ready for service, Air Combat Command chief Gen. William Fraser said Feb. 19. "We're taking a look at and we're re-evaluating our [initial operating capability] date and what our definition of that is," Fraser told reporters at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.

The general said that the restructuring, which was announced Feb. 1 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will extend the plane's system design and development (SDD) phase until 2015. That's two years after the air service had planned to begin operating the aircraft. "Whenever there are adjustments in any program, you've got to go back and take a look at if all the requirements are going to be met by timeframe X or Y," said Fraser.

The general said the service is also looking at how that extension will affect the number of aircraft, trained aircrew and spare parts the service has available by 2013. "The IOC focus is on combat capability, not on a date," he said.

Earlier this week, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the SDD phase of the program would be one year behind schedule. And yesterday, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that the F-35 program is likely to breach Nunn-McCurdy limits on per-unit cost growth, which would likely require a formal notice to Congress.

U.S. Navy Takes Aim at 'Fighter Gap' (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4506896&c=AME&s=SEA)

Each U.S. Navy strike fighter squadron will lose some of its 10 or 12 aircraft between deployments - one of several details emerging about the service's plans to ease an upcoming shortage of strike fighters.

The so-called fighter gap is coming as older F/A-18 A through D-model Hornet aircraft reach the end of their operational lives, not enough new E and F Strike Fighters are built to replace them and production of the later F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) lags. In a draft version of an upcoming statement to Congress obtained by Defense News, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, writes that the reduction in squadron size to "the minimum required" will take place during "non-deployed phases."

Navy Hornet squadrons already have been reduced to 10 aircraft per squadron. Super Hornet squadrons flying E and F models generally have 12 aircraft each. The service will accelerate the transition of five F/A-18C squadrons to E or F models using available Super Hornets, the draft statement said, "and will transition two additional legacy squadrons using Super Horner attrition reserve aircraft." Navy officials would not comment on the impact of using spare aircraft to fill out operational squadrons. "We will not discuss information in a draft," said Roughead spokesman Cmdr. Charlie Brown.

The fighter gap, forecast to peak around 2016, has been a matter of debate for a couple years, and was a major focus for requirements and budget planners over the past year. Planners, according to Navy Undersecretary Bob Work, had "pretty much eliminated any perceived strike fighter shortfall" in developing a new aviation procurement plan. But a Pentagon restructuring of the JSF program announced Feb. 1 pushed back the service entry dates for the plane, which is being built in separate versions for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. The move reopened the gap issue for the Navy.

"We felt very comfortable that we had a good, solid plan prior to the JSF restructuring," Work said Feb. 2. "And the JSF restructuring will cause us to look at it one more time."....

[Naked_recommiting]

In their report the co-founders of the Air Power Australia defence think tank, Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon say:

Does it really matter what follows that?

[Finnpog]

It was an interesting read - particularly the point about the rugged undercarriage being suitable for STOL & rough field ops as well as the potential for being carrier borne.

Seeing as how Russian Naval Aviation tends to pass over catapult assisted launches in favour of brute thrust from the engines - perhaps 1SL should be seeking to support a wider european option for securing FAA fast air and trying for these and banging out from the F35.

Now there is a thought - F35 versus PAK-FA in AD, CAS & Strike?

Hmmmmm?

[mole man]

Any news on A400M MSN 1 flying this week ?????????:confused:

Mole Man

[BEagle]

I gather that MSN001 is undergoing routine maintenance and is planned to fly next on Feb 26th, at the end of which it will land at Toulouse.

I see in Flight that EADS has, at the request of Air Mobility Command, offered a plan for the US Air Force to purchase 118 Airbus A400Ms using savings from retiring most Lockheed Martin C-130Hs and all C-5As.....

See: EADS: USAF can buy 118 A400Ms with savings from C-130, C-5 retirements (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/19/338623/eads-usaf-can-buy-118-a400ms-with-savings-from-c-130-c-5.html)

[GreenKnight121]

OK... so, EADS wants us to replace some 300* C-130Hs (USAF, USAFR, ANG) and some 59 C-5As with 118 A400Ms?

118 A400M to replace ~359 C-130 & C-5A... 3x118=354.
That's just about a ratio of 1:3... 2 A400M to replace 5 C-130 & 1 C-5A.

Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-130H): 36,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (C-5A): 291,000 lb
Maximum Allowable Cabin Load (A-400M): ~66,000 lb current; 82,000 lb planned

Just what do they think their aircraft can do?

The Mods would take exception were I express my true opinion of EADS' mental state and recreational chemical use.



*Factsheets : C-130 Hercules (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92)
Site last updated Oct. 2009

Active force, 145; Air National Guard, 181; Air Force Reserve, 102
Of these, 69 are J models, leaving 359 H & earlier, including special-purpose models.

[BEagle]

GreenKnight 121, it was your Air Mobility Command which asked for the maximum cost saving solution......:rolleyes:

You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.

So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!

[ORAC]

Buyers resubmit "final" A400M offer -Germany (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6771:buyers-resubmit-qfinalq-a400m-offer-germany&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107)

Buyer nations presented a final funding offer for the A400M military transporter plane to Airbus parent EADS on Friday without changes to a previous rescue plan, a German defence ministry spokesman says.

The spokesman said seven European NATO buyers were ready to accept a cost increase of 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) for the transporter and to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros. However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.

EADS has been in negotiation for months for a rescue package for the troop carrier after technical problems and delays pushed Europe's largest defence project deep into the red. "The buyer nations put forward their final offer on February 19th," said the spokesman.

"They are sticking to the position they took on February 15th. They accept price increases of 2 billion euros and said they were prepared to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros."......

[GreenKnight121]

GreenKnight 121, it was your Air Mobility Command which asked for the maximum cost saving solution......:rolleyes:

You've also forgotten about the KC-45A capability, it seems.

So, put your silly comments to AMC, not EADS!

Which aircraft? The one that likely won't even be offered for this time around on the KC-X bidding?

Besides, it was EADS that said that 118 A400Ms (with no mention of any other aircraft capability... KC-45A or KC-767) could replace most C-130H & all C-5A... nearly 3 times the number of aircraft.

It is this response to AMC's RFP that I am ridiculing.

[BEagle]

Do read what has been written with a bit more care:

EADS North America has offered a plan for the US Air Force to purchase 118 Airbus A400Ms using savings from retiring most Lockheed Martin C-130Hs and all C-5As.

Just in case you didn't spot it first time.

[MacBoero]

The article also doesn't say that EADS are intending to replace capacity or capability. It suggests that the savings that AMC make from having to retire most of their C-130 and C-5s would be enough to purchase 118 A400Ms.

[ORAC]

France warns EADS not to expect more aid on A400M (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E1B0KO1.htm)

European defense and aerospace giant EADS should not expect any more government money to help salvage the over-budget A400M military transport plane, the French defense minister said Monday.

Herve Morin said customer governments had responded in writing Friday to EADS CEO Louis Gallois, after the company made a new offer to help resolve that funding issues that are plagued the plane's development.

"(The letter) said simply to Mr. Gallois, 'Here's what we've said, here's what we've confirmed, and don't expect any more,'" Morin told reporters of the latest to and fro communications between the two sides...........

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): Stunning Reversal -- Schwartz Expects a Cost Breach on JSF (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%3abeeb2766-2716-4993-a106-92de8bb38bd9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

In a stunning reversal Feb. 19, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters that a Joint Strike Fighter cost overrun is "possible, maybe even likely." This is only a few short weeks after he expressed more optimism that a breach of the Nunn McCurdy statute was not likely. Apparently, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during his Feb. 1 budget briefing, Schwartz says he now knows more about the program.

Lockheed Martin officials continue to say the cost of the aircraft is coming in under the predicted costs of the most recent selected acquisition report (SAR -- a cost report that informs Congress of major shifts to pricing of Pentagon programs).

The next SAR goes to Congress in March, and it is looking more and more likely that a "critical" breach will occur. This means that either the APUC (average per unit cost -- the total procurement cost divided by the procurement quantity) or the PAUC (program acquisition unit cost -- the cost of procurement, development and construction divided by the total procurement quantity) exceeds the original baseline price by 50%. The PAUC is the troublesome piece for the F-35. The cost predications Lockheed cites refer only to the flyaway price, which does not include the rising cost of development. According to a December 2009 CRS report, development cost about $47.1 billion. The Fiscal 201 budget request boosts that by about $2.8 billion.

So ... assuming the Nunn McCurdy is breached, what is next? Typically, the secretary of defense must certify that:

*the program is critical to national security
*no alternatives exist to provide equal capability at a reduced cost
*PAUC and APUC are reasonable, and
*program management is adequate to control PAUC and APUC.

The first two should be relatively easy for DoD,especially given the momentum behind the program. What is tough are the final two elements: are the prices reasonable and under control? It will be interesting to see how DoD defines reasonable (compared to what?) and how they are able to prove that management is sound enough to control future costs.

Gates has fired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Heinz ... and his replacement, a three-star admiral, is coming. But, Lockheed has not changed its management structure - Tom Burbage and Dan Crowley. During his press briefing Friday, Schwartz said that "Dan Crowley doesn't work for the SecDef," but that "he's short $600 million," referring to Gates's withhold of $614 worth of award fee from the company for its poor adherence to the test schedule and production of flight test assets. Schwartz did not, however, call for a change in leadership at Lockheed. "What occurred with the F-35 program was only a start," though, he said.

What could happen after a Nunn McCurdy declaration, however, would be to catch the interest of a lawmaker who could order a full review of the program. Remember what happened with the USAF plan to lease tankers to Boeing in 2001-2002 and what that sparked. One inquisitive lawmaker could put a major strain on the program. It will be interesting to see whether Congress delves further into its oversight role in the massive program.

[GreenKnight121]

Ok, BEagle... I'll bite.
What percentage of ~300* C-130Hs do you call "most"?

Hint: 51%-75% = "over half".

So, lets say 75%... that's 225 to be replaced... so that's down to 4 C-130H & 1 C-5A replaced by 2 A400M.

Still ain't gonna come anywhere near replacing capability.
So for the US to keep up capability we would need to either buy a lot more A400M or keep well over half the C-130Hs... either one would cost a lot more than just keeping what we have & slowly exchanging C-130H with C-130J.

We've got all the heavy transport we need.


*Air Mobility Command (who the study is for) runs all transports & tankers in the USAF, USAFR, & ANG... not just the USAF.

[ORAC]

Agreement reached on A400M military plane costs (http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-agreement-reached-a400m-military-plane-costs)

AFP - European aerospace giant EADS has accepted a proposal from seven partner governments to finance cost overruns of 5.2 billion euros (7.1 billion dollars) on the A400M military transport plane, French Defence Minister Herve Morin said on Thursday.

"We received a response yesterday night from EADS to the letter sent a few days ago by the participating states. There are no more financial demands on the part of EADS," he said at an informal meeting of EU defence ministers.

The seven NATO nations -- Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey -- had offered a total of two billion euros in additional financing as well as an additional 1.5 billion euros in credit guarantees.

To cover the rest of the cost overrun, EADS will book another 1.7 billion euros in charges on top of the 2.4 billion euros it has already booked. Last week EADS said it was ready to book only 800 million euros in additional charges.

Before the deal is finalised, EADS wants to ensure that the seven nations do not sharply reduce their orders for the aircraft, Morin said.

The seven nations ordered 180 of the highly innovative planes which can carry troops, armoured vehicles and helicopters for 20 billion euros (27 billion US dollars).

[moosemaster]

At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)

So the RAF can afford to rent or purchase A400 simulators, but not to rent more or purchase C17 simulators? You can afford to set up A400 training, but not C17 training? Why would the cost for one be so different than the cost for the other?

Sorry for the late reply OFBSLF.

It's not that the RAF can't afford to buy the sims, it's that Boeing don't sell them, they run them, staff included. Because they cost so much, Boeing will only set them up in locations of their choosing, depending on the number of aircraft at a given location. As the A400M sim would be bought outright, it could be staffed by our own personnel as well, much like the Herc OCU is now. A C17 ground school and sim would have to be staffed by Boeing employed civilians. Not, in my view, the best option for the service, given the alternative.

Want to point out what the K is doing at the moment aside from getting towed from one side of LYE to the other?

We have 2 AT fleets. The K lost a lot of its engineers to the J a while back.

If it hasn't been disbanded, it's still a fleet, and while there are still frames, and personnel attached, it's still a fleet. Just because it's not an effective fleet, it doesn't mean it isn't using resources.

I think you will find that the A400M will come in two shades. I believe that 2 of the aircraft will be development aircraft ('cos we can have them cheap!!!). Unbelievable eh ? So we will have 4 fleets.
I heard this was an option, but I believe EADS have decided to keep those aircraft "in company" rather than selling them on. It wouldn't have been too big a deal anyway, more like having different 'Block'. Some differences, but nothing major.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Moosemaster et al,

Nearly right. Although Boeing don't sell the C17 sims, the do sell c17 sim hours.

It's another fallback to the original 'short-term lease' mentally with which a lot of the jet's operations were set up.

The trouble is that we're coping now, so why spend cash on a sim that we don't need and wouldn't use all of the hours on our own. It's cheaper for now to continue sim training in the US.

The good news is that now there are more Europe-based operators - Ramstein, Papa - there might be nearly enough custom for Boeing to justify a UK sim in terms of hours usage....we'll see!:ok:

[Jig Peter]

In a follow-up report to its earlier short piece about the latest A400M agreement, the Dépêche du Midi today (25/2) notes that while EADS has no more financial demands to make, some other points haven't yet been cleared up. One potential hiccup is that only France has actually stated the amount it will pay (€400 mio). Germany hasn't said anything openly, while UK is noted as "having budgetary difficulties". This doesn't concern EADS directly, but is still a (maybe slight) shadow over the programme.
An earlier report mentioned that Germany in particular was very keen on the super Navigation and Terrain Avoidance system "at least equal to what other aircraft in the Luftwaffe have" said to be part of the initial contract but, according to a reoprt of the French Senate a while back, seems not yet to have been invented.
What Hervé Morin, France's Defence Minister called a "new, revised contract" is supposed to be ready for 8th March, the day before EADS' 2009 Annual Report is due to be published. Perhaps when EADS' "Matthew Mattickle" , the Wizard Accountant and his staff have done their sums, it really will be "Fat Lady Time" - at last ...

Meanwhile if stroppy Air Traffic controllers don't object, the local sky could well be hearing and seeing MSN1 before the week-end ... Bring it on !!!
:ok::ok:

02/03. After the 200+ kph winds that hit the central Pyrenees a few days ago (overshadowed by the storm damage further up the Atlantic coast), it was perhaps over-optimistic to expect No.1 A400M to be in the skies of southern France already, but the continued silence from Seville makes me wonder if "continued discussions" are going well ... Perhaps EADS will have something more to say on 8th March, and also indicate a first flight date for MSN 2 .
(Also sprach the incurable optimist) :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[OFBSLF]

It's not that the RAF can't afford to buy the sims, it's that Boeing don't sell them, they run them, staff included. Because they cost so much, Boeing will only set them up in locations of their choosing, depending on the number of aircraft at a given location. As the A400M sim would be bought outright, it could be staffed by our own personnel as well, much like the Herc OCU is now. A C17 ground school and sim would have to be staffed by Boeing employed civilians. Not, in my view, the best option for the service, given the alternative.
I'm just a lowly non-mil SLF, so you'll have to excuse my naivete. While Boeing has not sold C17 sims in the past, don't you agree that if the UK committed to buy X C17s and insisted that a simulator be included part of the deal, that Boeing would agree to sell the simulator to the UK? If the RAF turned up at Boeing HQ in Chicago and announced "we want to buy a dozen C17s and we want a sim, too, " do you really think Boeing would say "no, we won't sell you the sim," thus jeopardizing the sale of airframes?

Isn't it also likely that the cost of a C17 simulator would be similar to that of an A400M simulator? If not, why would a C17 simulator cost significantly more than an A400M simulator?

The figures that I found put the cost of a C17 simulator at around $35M. With a new C17 costing in the neighborhood of $250M, the cost of the simulator seems to be rather inconsequential. So even if the C17 sim costs double that of the A400M sim, $20M is lost in the wash when you are talking about $250M for a single airframe.

I understand the arguments against the C17/C130J combination as not providing some capabilities of the A400M. I understand the arguments against buying the C17/C130J combination based on preservation of jobs and capabilities. I don't understand the argument that C17 training would be more expensive than A400M training. So I've got to be missing something vital.

[highveldtdrifter]

Equiv,

When we signed the A400 contract we agreed to purchase the training aids (sim etc) from AMSL, rather than direct from the manufacturer. Since the program is a loss maker, we can expect price hikes and high markups for the peripherals. I expect the A400 sim will come it at roughly twice the price of a C17 device.

[OutOfThisWorld]

Didn't the Aussie Air Force just buy a C-17 Sim from Boeing, to be operated by Boeing trained RAAF Sim Instructors (IPs)?

On that basis it must be possible to buy a Sim from Boeing. The question is whether the purchase would be a financially viable option given its usage.

[Jolly Green]

The USAF didn't buy the sims because they view buying the training as more cost effective. After all they want the training (manned sim hours) not the gadget. If they owned the sim they'd have to man it, maintain it, update it as the aircraft changes, etc. They'd have more property on their books, more hassles for management that is only manned for managing aircraft and airfields, and therefore they'd have more targets for the next round of budget cuts.

Sometimes budget cuts take people off the job, sometimes budget cuts take resources away, but budget cuts never take away training requirements directly. You're supposed to be able to do more with less. By leasing the training, they've put any budget cuts directly to sim hours, making them less likely to be cut.

If the people working the sim are military, then the whole mess gets even worse. The USAF is still working under the fallacy that when an airman is deployed, his job back at home base doesn't need to be done. But of course it does because they never shut down the home base. The people left work longer and harder. So the sim has to be manned by civilians, and the easiest way for the USAF to hire civilians is to just hire a contractor to do the work.

[moosemaster]

OFBSLF, I'm not 100% certain where the assumption that C17 training is more expensive than A400 training came from, however, as I said in my previous post, it's not down to cost of training.

I also disagree that if the UK agreed to buy X aircraft then Boeing would rethink their "non-selling" position and sell us a Sim. The USAF have over 200 aircraft and they still don't own a sim. It's just not something that Boeing do.

They do have an agreement with the USAF to provide a "local" training facility within a region where there are a pre-determined number of aircraft permanently based, hence why there is now a C17 sim in Hawaii, but not in Germany.

It is possible that once the UK reach the required amount, Boeing may concede that a Sim is beneficial there, or somewhere nearby, but there would be no way to force them into it if it wasn't financially viable for them. As the Equivicator said, they sell hours. If the site isn't financially viable, ie sells enough hours, then they won't do it, or they force the UK to stump up the price for a fully utilised sim.

Also, under Boeing rules, all their instructors must be US qualified (not military quals, but US accredited, civilian instructional qualifications). This is not ideal if we wanted them to teach our guys, our way. The UK guys who currently go through the course do an abridged USAF course, then undertake further UK training upon their return.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that once you start looking at the logistics of it, a Boeing run C17 sim in UK may not be a better option, practically speaking, than a UK run A400 sim.

[OFBSLF]

Boeing is in the business of selling things. If the RAF went to Boeing for a multi-billion dollar aircraft purchase and insisted that they wanted to own the simulator, Boeing would find a way to sell one to them. If Boeing can find a profitable way to build a simulator and rent it to the USAF, then they can find a profitable way to build a simulator and sell it to the RAF.

I'm not 100% certain where the assumption that C17 training is more expensive than A400 training came from, however, as I said in my previous post, it's not down to cost of training.
C17 training costs more but it isn't the cost of the training? Err, what? If the training cost doesn't cost more, than how does the training cost more?

Anyway, all I'm saying is that once you start looking at the logistics of it, a Boeing run C17 sim in UK may not be a better option, practically speaking, than a UK run A400 sim.
So you buy the bloody thing rather than have Boeing run it! Boeing isn't going to turn away an order for 25 C17s because the RAF wants to own its own sim.

[herkman]

The Australian Air Force discovered the hard way, when our then Labour government failed to allow the purchase of a 707 simulator.

After the sad loss of one with all crew deceased, they suddenly came to the understanding that they were one of the greatest users of this aircraft. So in record time one was found and commissioned.

After that it was policy for at least large aircraft a simulator would be part of the purchase package for any new product. So even though we have only four C17's (which are not enough) we do have a simulator which is far more cost affective.

One of the reasons the 707 were taken out of service, was their number of cycles, which could have been greatly reduced if the 707 simulator had been procrured much earlier.

The long term concept of using other location simulators was not attractive, at least we are now masters of our own destiny, a concept that we are very comfortable with.

I guess from a concept of reducing cycles etc on your C17 a case could be worked up for purchase.

Regards

Col

[ORAC]

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Documents detail serious problems with F-35 program (http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/02/28/2003601/documents-detail-serious-problems.html)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other Pentagon officials have made it clear in recent weeks that they are unhappy about the F-35 joint strike fighter program. The reasons are likewise clearly evident in the contents of internal government documents reviewed by the Star-Telegram.

Monthly reports prepared by the Defense Contract Management Agency show that as recently as mid-November, development of the F-35 was in serious disarray. Lockheed Martin and other contractors were producing key components and completing airplanes more slowly, not faster, documents show. The reports are heavily redacted to prevent disclosure of detailed financial information, but indications of major problems leap off the pages. They include:


Nine flight test aircraft, all of which were to have flown by the end of 2009, were behind schedule by 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 months when the report was written, in November. Only one of those planes has flown since then.

The next plane expected to fly is now 11 months behind the schedule that was rewritten in early 2008.

"Initial production" aircraft, a number of which were to be delivered and flying this year for training and further testing, are running months behind schedule and falling further behind each month.

On-time deliveries of parts and components by suppliers, which was 88 percent in April, plunged to 71 percent by September. But the blame isn't just with the suppliers. The reports say many of those delays are caused by Lockheed's many design changes.


One subcontractor that has done reasonably well is Northrop Grumman, which builds the center fuselage section of the F-35. Northrop was told to delay fuselage shipments in November and December because Lockheed could not fit them into the assembly line. Lockheed was "cannibalizing" parts from fuselages being built by Northrop to repair aircraft on the assembly line and in preflight testing.

Lockheed has already spent several hundred million dollars in reserve funds, money rounded up two years ago by cutting out two test airplanes and 1,400 test flights, which the company and program managers agreed would not be needed. The Pentagon now plans to add test planes to speed up testing..........

AWST (Ares): JSF IOC - Slip Slidin' Away (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%3a38d9dc26-e763-4439-b2f2-8c294637603e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[LowObservable]

It looks like the naysayers and deniers were right...

[ORAC]

HASC Chairman Says Pentagon ‘Near-Sighted’ on JSF Alternate Engine (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13462/)

WASHINGTON, D.C. | House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) released the following statement on the U.S. Department of Defense’s update of the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 competitive engine cost-benefit analysis:

“Yesterday, I was finally provided with a copy of the ‘business case’ upon which Secretary Gates based his decision to oppose the development of the competitive engine for the F-35. While the committee is still reviewing the analysis, it appears that the Department’s approach focuses on near-term costs to the exclusion of what the committee sees as the long-term benefits of this program. The costs of the second engine in the next few years must be balanced against the fact that life-cycle costs of having two engines are comparable to having only one. The Department’s analysis does not consider the risk that a single engine would present not only to our fighter force, but to our national security, given that the F-35 will account for 95 percent of our nation’s fighter fleet. With this program, as with all others, we cannot use near-sighted vision when long-term security is at stake.

“I look forward to continuing the dialogue on this program with my colleagues and the Department of Defense. But I remain unconvinced that terminating the alternate engine program makes sense.”

AWST (Ares): New Doc: Biz Case Analysis for Killing F136 (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%3add8c551f-29ca-4a6e-9090-1436c715ef8d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

In a Feb. 24 report (http://aviationweek.typepad.com/files/hascaltengine.pdf), the Defense Dept.'s CAPE director, Christine Fox, outlines the department position on terminating the F136.

This report was long-sought by lawmakers, who have been adding funding for F136 back into the budget since February 2006 (when the Fiscal 2007 first deleted money for F136). The total Congressional add is about $1.3 billon since the Pentagon walked away from the program.

This copy is incomplete. Other pieces of the report were deemed proprietary or for official use only. Also, you'll see some points included from Hill staffers -- including that the decision lacked inclusion of non calculable factors, including the risk of a grounding if an engine problem crops up and a back up isn't ready.

Bottom line -- even the Pentagon acknowledges that two engines or one is cost neutral.

----------------------

First 2 comment responses to the above:

1. So the business case for canceling the F136 ignores:

Hedging risks.
Greater responsiveness from contractors as a result of competition.
Providing alternate growth paths.
Industrial base preservation.
Potential for innovation from a 2nd contractor.


And ignoring all that, the Pentagon says that it is cost neutral.

Sounds like an argument FOR the F136.

2. Which makes for an interesting story to tell JSF partner nations that have been briefed all the time since the start of the program, alleged value of the F-35 program because one of the reasons is engine choice.

Then there is the issue of the JSF Memorandum of Agreement (updated Dec 2009) which states this:

"6.2.2 The Participants may designate the F135, the F136, or both in their PPRs in such quantities and in accordance with such delivery schedules as they require."

Funny how Gates never brings up that issue. Why?

Interesting also is a past (gone native) head of the DOD JSF program office General Davis who started all of this with the real reason being so the program wouldn't brake Nunn-McCurdy.

Seems like there is more reporting to be done.

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): Bill Sweetman: JSF - Mid Year Check (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%3a94c52fc2-e98a-42ad-8e0e-f18efe120da7&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

If February was a bad news month for the Joint Strike Fighter, with the program boss fired, a 13-month delay in test and a two-year slip in Air Force initial operational capability, look out for March. A Government Accountability Office report is rolling down the tracks, along with a Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) which, as we told you in Defense Technology International a month ago, is almost certainly going to record a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach.

Meanwhile, the flight test program continues to log an all-time slow record. In the first half of FY2010, as of Friday, the JSF program logged 35 sorties, and progress to date looks like this. (Thanks, JoBo.)

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/13/ff2c201b-1d2e-4c0b-bdaf-3f4013b5d689.Large.jpg

That's a small improvement over the 51 flights in the whole of FY2009, but hardly encouraging in view of the 5,000-plus test missions yet to be flown. In its March 2009 report - based on data that's now a year old - the GAO noted that 1,243 test flights were planned for FY2010. (At that time, we accurately predicted that the program was not going to hit its FY2009 goal.) The total sorties flown now stand at 155 - and almost two-thirds of those were performed by AA-1, the non-representative and now retired first prototype.

The core of the problem could be what Lockheed Martin says it is: simply delays in building aircraft. Bob Cox of the Fort Worth Star Telegram has a detailed story based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) reports. They portray a manufacturing disaster, with tasks running months behind schedule and suppliers unable to meet deadlines because they were not given final designs in time. To get airplanes in the air, parts were removed from airframes further back on the production line - which in turn have to be repaired in the same time-consuming out-of-sequence manner. And the delays are already rippling into low rate initial production, with the first two deliveries slipped into the last quarter.

The DCMA reports also confirm comments here a few weeks ago.

Lockheed Martin says things are getting better - but then a lot of people, apparently including Defense Secretary Gates, are beginning to take the program's official pronouncements with this:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/14/d4b2ebae-9033-4297-be4d-75fe3eb379fa.Large.jpg

After all, for every month's litany of problems in the program, you'll find a Lockheed Martin or government program boss assuring the customers, Congress and the taxpayers that everything is going fine. "On track", as they like to put it.

Remember this distinction: The Donner Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party) was on track. They were not on schedule.

But the trouble with the "it's all late deliveries" argument is that the program has accomplished so little with the aircraft that it has managed to complete.

Comparison 1: Three years after starting flight tests, the F-22 - in most ways a more challenging design than the F-35, had supercruised and flown to high angles of attack and zero airspeed, performing throttle snaps throughout the envelope. It had logged 830 hours. (High-alpha testing on the F-35 won't happen until late 2011.)

Comparison 2: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away - towards the end of 1995 - the Eurofighter EF2000, as some Pollyanna had named it, had notched up 81 flights in 18 months of testing, about the same rate as JSF today.

That was when I started hearing reports about show-stopper problems with the so-called "carefree-handling" jet: it could get itself into flight conditions that took a lot of time and altitude to get out of. I was talking to people who knew that the in-service date was going to be 2005 at the earliest. I was working with the BBC's Panorama news show on the story. BAE Systems was very far from gruntled, and sicced one of London's top libel lawyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Carter-Ruck)on us. Our sources went to ground and the story that emerged was milder than what we knew to be happening.

The Typhoon did enter service in 2005, after the very difficult qualification of the automatic low speed recovery system (http://www.eads.net/800/fr/pressdb/archiv/2004/fr_20041104_low_speed.html).

So, the last time that a major program moved as slowly as this, there was at least one show-stopper problem that nobody knew how to solve, and that had been swept under the rug successfully and at great expense. And it involved more than forgings and bolts.

[SSSETOWTF]

ORAC,

I think the phrase that describes your 'facts' is 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. Could I humbly suggest you check your numbers? And when you've got some accurate numbers, you might want to look at the underlying reasons a little more closely - you may be surprised to find they explain things really quite well. Or you could just be negative like all the cool kids I suppose.

I'm sure you just forgot to mention that AA-1 has gone supersonic and done a whole load of throttle snaps. Curiously enough BF-1, being a STOVL airplane and instrumented for STOVL parameters, has been focusing on STOVL testing and not chasing high alpha test points. I would have thought that would make sense to most people? And I suppose it's convenient to your argument to avoid talking about the hundreds and hundreds of test hours flown by Catbird, the Sabreliner and the BAC1-11 etc that have made huge reductions in risk for our mission systems.

Best wishes,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[ORAC]

SSSETOWTF,

May I suggest you address your remarks to Bill Sweetman, Editor in Chief at Ares, a part of AW&ST? (http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/04/welcome_bill.html) :hmm:

[ORAC]

'Data deluge day' for F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/03/data-deluge-day-for-f-35.html) By Stephen Trimble :ouch::ouch:

Carter Orders JSF Changes (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/01/carter-orders-jsf-changes/) :ouch:

CEOs, Armaments Directors to Meet in Ft. Worth on JSF (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%3aacc2d3a6-7e79-4d23-afe1-453a9c154b80&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[mole man]

Any news of the A400M flying again????????

Mole Man:ok:

[BEagle]

Not sure, mate. Weather has been terrible in Spain and France for the last week, so perhaps not. I may know more tomorrow......

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF -

Good rant but misses the main point: Flight testing has set an all-time slow record, and an unprecedented surge is essential to even hit the revised schedule.

LM and the JSFPO have been talking for years about how modelling and simulation and labs have reduced the risk and uncertainty in flight test, but that argument is rather undercut when in actual fact they can't successfully predict their own schedules three months ahead.

Mach 1.05. On one sortie. With an airplane with different vertical and horizontal stabilizers and flaperons.

And the last time I looked, Dr Gates didn't report to Bill Sweetman, so presumably he had his own reasons for booting the program director.

[ORAC]

Spain in bid to move Airbus jobs from UK -sources (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6232K420100304?type=marketsNews)

PARIS, March 4 (Reuters) - Spain and Britain are heading for a clash over the location of hundreds of aviation jobs as European governments complete a bailout for the delayed Airbus A400M military plane, people familiar with the matter said.

Spain is putting increasing pressure on the UK to surrender high-skilled production jobs if it fails to contribute its full share of a 3.5-billion-euro ($4.8 billion) aid package assembled by seven nations to rescue Europe's largest defence project. In a written proposal, Spain has suggested relocating jobs, tools and machinery from Filton, near Bristol, to Spain if the UK weakens its commitment to the troop plane, the sources said.

Technical problems have pushed the heavy airlifter billions of euros over budget and delayed delivery by about four years.

The proposal was put forward as Britain wavered in recent weeks over its share of a top-up package of loans to Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA), to be provided alongside international aid of 2 billion euros to combat cost overruns, the sources said. Britain is expected to take part in a bailout which buyer nations agreed in principle last week, but it has yet to agree on what form the extra financial boost should take.

"The (Spanish) suggestion is as a result of the British not wanting to join in the same type of solution that other buyers have selected," a person familiar with the matter said. The sources, who asked not to be identified, said Spain had aired options including shifting work on the plane's advanced composite wings to Spain if Britain blocked part of the deal.

Under the most sensitive option, Madrid would agree to pay for the cost of transferring the massive jigs, or cradles used to hold the wings in place during production, out of Britain.........

[ORAC]

AWST (Ares): JSF Full Rate Production Slips Again (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%3ad741de33-642c-41ac-8880-b7d8baf5ac92&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) :ouch:

Pentagon acquisition boss Ashton Carter has just amended his acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) delaying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, slipping the start of full-rate production by another six months. Milestone C approval to exit low rate initial production and start full-rate, multi-year buys is now planned for April 2016, if (unlike every comparable program in the last 30 years) nothing else goes wrong.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/11/a80c44cb-2ac6-4631-ab9c-4833a42ad9e8.Large.jpg

The change reflects the fact that it's not enough to finish initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) before declaring Milestone C. There has to be an IOT&E report that details the fixes for any problems that turn up in testing.

It is not certain whether this change will mean yet another batch of LRIP aircraft. However, even before that, the latest restructuring has put the JSF program above the normal limit for LRIP - ten per cent of the total US production run. If the aircraft put on contract in 2016 are added to LRIP, well over 600 aircraft will be on order - making "low rate" something of a misnomer. Whether Congress will tolerate concurrency on that scale remains to be seen.

[VX275]

From my experiance of the A400M project a lot of its problems stem from the enforced lack of iBritish involvement. In the early days the UK involement was greater than it is now and it was between the UK, German and the French that most productive work was done, the other nations were just other faces around the table.
This stopped when a new broom arrived at the MOD and insisted that the UK involvement was reduced to the 12% of the project we deserved because we were only buying 25 (I still fail to understand why Germany, other than getting more workshare that is, needs 60 of the things, as they don't go anywhere).
The real villans in all this though are EASA who will not certify a piece of equipment with capability above the civil requirement (ie military) :ugh: and Airbus management who would insist on continually taking engineering staff off the A400M and putting them on the A380F and A350 projects.

[Jig Peter]

For VX25
Surely it's possible that Airbus put "A400M" people on other projects while Europrop tried to sort out the problems with their enigine's software, rather than "let them go" ?

For ORAC
Sounds as if Britgov would like their bit to be financed "off balance sheet" - PPI system again anyone? (That is, if the Spanish report is what's going on).
Meanwhile the many sub-contractors in the south-west of France are reportd to be breathing again as a "definitive" agreement draws near, especially Ratier at Figeac in the Lot. They all stand to lose a lot if the whole project collapses, and not all of them are big enough to absorb such a blow, with a big increase in local unemployment. The Regional Authority is reported to be keeping a close watch on developments - not surprisingly, with Local Elections due on 12 and 19th March, with the Left well ahead in the polls

While the optimistic winds are blowing, local paper reports that MSN2 is due to start low-speed taxiing trials shortly, while MSN1 is expected to resume flight tests "next week", landing in Toulouse to start "Phase 2".

[Jig Peter]

Among the many reports about the latest EADS/Partner governments agreement is this from the Seattle Times dated Friday 5th March:

>> EADS and the German Defense Ministry said the two sides had reached basic agreement, with the idea of amending the original contract in the coming weeks << (my bold).

While this sounds like good news at last, I just hope that "Captain Tom" (aka Mr. Enders) will agree to Phase 2 of flight testing starting right away, rather than waiting for all the t-crossing and i-dotting to be finalised ("ASAP" leaves too much leeway as an expression of urgency, I feel). Otherwise even more weeks will be lost, which is something the programme can very much not afford ...

[Algy]

MSN1 is flying again.

[Jig Peter]

Glad to hear that MSN1's flying again ... With the continuous light to moderate snow covering the area between Tououse and the Pyrenees today, it'll be a big surprise if it lands anywhere but where you are !!!
Best wishes for the rest of the flight test programme ...

:ok::ok:

[ORAC]

A400M Cost Overrun Set at 10% (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4529774&c=EUR&s=AIR)

PARIS - An agreement by customer nations to provide 3.5 billion euros ($4.8 billion) of financial support for the A400M represents a 10 percent cost overrun on the airlifter program, with Britain expected to cancel two or three aircraft, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin said March 8.

The prospective cut in orders by London is smaller than expected, with previous estimates going to six fewer units than the original 25 planes purchased, because of the cost overrun. As part of the overall pact, Britain is expected to cancel "two or three aircraft," Morin told a press conference on the A400M agreement reached March 5. Those prospective cancellations came under the agreement which limits the maximum cancellations to 10, he said.

No other country has signaled an intention to cancel, he said.

A 10 percent overrun was "extremely reasonable," given that many arms programs run over budget, Morin said, citing the Eurofighter Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter programs.

That 10 percent figure comprises the funding that each of the seven clients will contribute on a pro rata basis based on the number of aircraft ordered, he said. For France, the extra cost will be 550 million euros, based on the 5.5 billion euros budgeted for acquisition, he said. The overall base figure for France rises to 7 billion euros when the development costs are included, he said.

Under the agreement reached March 8, the countries will accept a 2 billion euro increase over the contract price and contribute 1.5 billion euros in export levy facilities. The 10 percent overrun funded by the customers compares with EADS' own estimate of around 25 percent excess on the program budget.

EADS had asked the customers to pay 24.39 billion euros, that is 5.2 billion extra on the original contract price of 19.19 billion agreed in 2003, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCooper prepared for the contract agency OCCAR. EADS is due to report a 2009 net and operating loss when it publishes results March 9.

Under the agreement reached, the customers waived 1.2 billion euros of penalties for delays and will speed up pre-delivery payments between 2010 and 2014 to ensure a "minimum treasury" for EADS. The exact amount of those payments remained to be negotiated, along with a clause covering cost inflation on materials for industry, said the procurement chief, Laurent Collet-Billon of the Direction Générale pour l'Armement (DGA).

France would contribute 400 million euros of the total 1.5 billion of export levy facilities, Morin said. The countries would be repaid from future export sales, which Morin estimated at 300 units over the next 20 years. The export levy facilities fall outside the contract terms.

EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois said last June before the Paris Airshow the company was making the A400M at a loss and would only make money on export orders.

The overall agreement also provides for a staged delivery of capabilities, with an initial operating capability of the basic transport mission, followed by air drop, aerial refuelling and finally low-level flight and automatic terrain following, with a year needed for each new capability.

France will get its first aircraft delivered in 2013, seven units by 2014, 35 in 2020 and the last in 2024. As a stop-gap measure, France will buy eight Casa CN235 light transport aircraft and extend the life of Transall planes to 2018. The cost of buying a mix of C-130Js and C-17s as interim solutions would have been 15 percent more costly than buying the A400M aircraft at the higher price, Morin said.

Belgium, Britain, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey ordered 180 of the A400M in 2003 under a fixed-price commercial contract with Airbus covering development and production.

[Jig Peter]

On a clear, sunny and snow-covered day, the A400M is scheduled to arrive at Toulouse at 1530 local time today 09.03, after a fly-past over the area. TV and video coverage, presumably to follow as Airbus releases it.:ok::ok::ok:

[airsound]

9 March 2010
First A400M ferried from Seville to Toulouse

The first A400M is flying today from Seville to Toulouse following a test flight performed in the Seville area. This flight is the tenth performed by A400M MSN1 since its first flight on 11th December 2009. In total and until yesterday the aircraft has logged 39 hours of flight test. Very poor weather in Seville prevented the aircraft from performing more flights, as the sensors installed on the turboprop blades for the initial flight test campaigns, are sensitive to humidity.

During the initial testing, MSN1 has flown at the type’s maximum operating speed of 300kt (555km/hr), maximum Mach number of M0.72, down to the stall warning, and at an altitude of more than 30,000ft. It has operated extensively in both direct and normal control laws, and in different configurations.

The first A400M is equipped with heavy test instrumentation, as is the second aircraft which was handed over to Flight Test on 6th March and is due to fly in the next few weeks. MSN 3 is undergoing final production ground tests before engine installation. The aircraft is due to fly by the middle of this year. Sections for MSN 4 have arrived in Seville for final assembly, with the main fuselage due to leave Bremen and be flown to Seville at the end of this week. MSN 4 is to fly in the second half of this year.

While MSN 1 and 2 are fitted with heavy test instrumentation, MSN 3 and 4 will have medium test instrumentation. The fifth aircraft, MSN6, which is the first built to production standards, is going to be fitted with light test instrumentation only. The five aircraft will perform a planned 3,700 flight-hours before first delivery of the A400M in late 2012. Trials with MSN1, 3 and 6 will be performed in Toulouse, while those with MSN 2 and 4 will be done in Seville, providing greater flexibility and taking advantage of best weather conditions where available.

About the A400M

The A400M is an all-new military airlifter designed to meet the needs of the world’s Armed Forces in the 21st Century. Thanks to its most advanced technologies, it is able to fly higher, faster and further, while retaining high maneuverability, low speed, and short, soft and rough airfield capabilities. It combines both tactical and strategic/logistic missions. With its cargo hold specifically designed to carry the outsize equipment needed today for both military and humanitarian disaster relief missions, it can bring this material quickly and directly to where it is most needed. Conceived to be highly reliable, dependable, and with a great survivability, the multipurpose A400M can do more with less, implying smaller fleets and less investment from the operator. The A400M is the most cost efficient and versatile airlifter ever conceived and absolutely unique in its capabilities.
***

[Xercules]

MSN001 landed in Toulouse yesterday at about 1600 French time - I couldn,t be more precise as I was too busy watching. For you sceptics - the aircraft looks great and really does mean business. I am only sorry that I will not get a chance to fly it (anno domini preclude) but it will be a great day when it does arrive at Brize.

[TEEEJ]

Some images of the latest flight on the following link.

Search results | Pictaero (http://www.pictaero.com/en/search/search?a3=4195)

TJ

[WASALOADIE]

So why does it still have a South African flag on it?

[VX275]

Because they haven't yet held the round of multinational meetings to decide who pays for the paint to cover it up. Then there will be all the meetings to decide who does the work. :=

[ORAC]

Ares: JSF Engine "Competition" Story Rises From The Grave (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%3ae1ed3402-7ead-4af7-b823-c2a33ddf69f1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Donley: No JSF Alternatives Exist (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/03/08/AW_03_08_2010_p28-208867.xml&headline=Donley:%20No%20JSF%20Alternatives%20Exist)

[ORAC]

About That Austere-Base Thing... (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%3a27103ee8-d867-4e32-a619-92297fa29cf3&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

In operations around Marjah in Afghanistan, the Marines have been using AV-8B Harriers as they were designed to be used, flying the jets from runways that are too short or ill-prepared to accommodate a conventional fighter. Kimberly Johnson is reporting on this for DTI's April issue.

The Marines say that the the AV-8B's replacement, the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, will be able to do the same: “The flexibility that the STOVL variant of the F-35 will add to the contemporary Marine Air Ground Task Force is amazing,” Marine commandant Gen James Conway said when the first F-35B was rolled out, more than two years ago. “This generational leap in technology will enable us to operate a fleet of fighter/attack aircraft from the decks of ships, existing runways or from unimproved surfaces at austere bases."

But a Navy report issued in January says that the F-35B, in fact, won't be able to use such forward bases. Indeed, unless it ditches its short take-off, vertical landing capability and touches down like a conventional fighter, it won't be able to use land bases at all without some major construction efforts.

The newly released document (http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf), hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)

Not only does the VL pad have to be made of heat-resistant concrete, but currently known sealants can't stand the heat either, so the pad has to be one continuous piece of concrete, with continuous reinforcement in all directions so that cracks and joints remain closed. The reinforced pad has to be 100 feet by 100 feet, with a 50-foot paved area around it.

By the way, any area where an F-35B may be stopped with the engine running - runway ends, hold-shorts on taxiways, and ramps - also has to be made of heat-resistant concrete to tolerate the exhaust from the Integrated Power Pack (IPP), which is acting as a small gas turbine whenever the aircraft is stopped.

This follows the revelation that the US Navy is worried about the exhaust damaging ship decks.

Lockheed Martin pooh-poohs the report, saying that it was based on "worst-case" data and that "extensive tests" conducted with prototype BF-3 in January (after the report was completed) showed that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."

What do "very small" and "significant" mean? In VL mode the main engine on the F-35B is producing some 15,700 pounds of thrust, while a Harrier's aft nozzles deliver about 12,000 pounds of thrust. (The fore-aft split is roughly equal.)

But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.

So maybe the F-35B is not shaping up to be the best anti-runway weapon since the RAF retired the JP233. However, it may still not be what the Marines got when they first acquired the Harrier in the early 1970s.

Having clung tenaciously to the WW2-era AU-1 Corsair until the late 1950s, because unlike early jets it could use minimally improved fields, the Marines had finally entered the jet age with the help of the Short Airfield for Tactical Support (SATS), an astonishing set of equipment that included a portable water-brake arrester system and (I am not making this up) a catapult powered by J79 jet engines.

The original Harrier allowed them to get rid of this kit. While the first justification for land-based STOVL - that it provided a dispersal alternative when air attacks shut down major bases - has a Cold War feel to it, the idea of using STOVL as a more expeditionary force has remained somewhat valid, and has been used by both the UK and the Marines: the RAF's Harriers were able to operate from Kandahar when other aircraft could not.

Again, the question is how well the F-35B will be able to do that, and what "significant " means. Worst case or not, there is a very big difference between a solid slab of high-grade concrete and the kind of surface you are apt to find anywhere ending in -stan.

[NoHoverstop]

About That Austere-Base Thing...

Hmm... So what might be required would be some sort of ability to land slowly, so as not to need farsends of feet of perfick runway to stop on, without actually landing vertically. Just in case no-one has ever thought of doing this with the F-35B, I hereby claim all rights to the idea. Come to think of it, if it hasn't already occurred to Harrier operators, I hereby claim the rights there too. Now, if only someone had thought put some effort into engineering it that the F-35B's FCS would make the piloting task of such 'slow', 'rolling-vertical' and 'creeping vertical' landings really jolly-easy, they might even be a practical proposition and result in lots of that 'operational flexibility' sort of thing...

[John Farley]

I offer for the consideration of those who choose to think two simple facts:

The Harrier has rubber tyres

The JSF B version has rubber tyres.

[LowObservable]

And for further edification:

Remove right shoe.

Take running start, kick tyre.

Take second running start, kick equal-sized piece of concrete.

While hopping around on one leg and screaming, contemplate elasticity and brittleness.

[Modern Elmo]

Look at this and despair, F-35B haters:

Video: March 10 F-35B Landing (video:%20March%2010%20F-35B%20Landing)

... almost vertical.

[glad rag]

What's the bring back figures :}:hmm::rolleyes:

[Father Jack Hackett]

... it would be a lot cheaper, simpler, quicker to produce and give you a stovl capability while concentrating development effort on the ctol f35 variants. That's if you really need this niche capability. A cynic might argue that the usmc are only currently using their Harriers off austere strips to demonstrate that the capability is still required.....

[BEagle]

A cynic might argue that the usmc are only currently using their Harriers off austere strips to demonstrate that the capibility is still required.....

Perhaps your cynic should try telling that to the Marines?

If he's brave enough.....:\

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle

We've been through this before (earlier on this thread, too) - FJH is fundamentally right. AV-8B+ / Harrier II++ would be good enough for a MEU/MAGTAF/MEB (or whatever) for the vast majority of times that the MEU/MEB/MAGTAF weren't operating against the first night of the war against late model SAMs and credible BVR shooters - for which the US would almost certainly send a CVN with F-35C / Dave-C. Dave-B is a massive waste of money as the CONOPS make no sense - scrap it now and go with Dave-C.

S41

[LowObservable]

2 free internetz for Squirrel 41... and here is where the Marines admit it (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%3a1768c409-2c24-408f-aa05-da7687130c7d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest).

Responding to a question about the air combat capability of the F-35, Thiessen said that was "no concern. If you are in a fight like that there is a complex air defense system, one element of which is the aircraft - and if we're in that kind of fight we're not going to be there by ourselves."

[Jig Peter]

Now that the A400M MSN 1 is ensconced at Toulouse, I found myself wondering whether the callsign "Grizzly 1" is a gentle Airbus Military in-joke, obliquely referring to the Bear's mighty Kuznetsovs ...



(Coat, getting ...)

[Modern Elmo]

About That Austere-Base Thing...

That austere base stuff is a phony issue. Here's the principal base for F-35B's:

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/#lha-r)

...The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier. ...

[ORAC]

ME, that's not true.

Whilst the main platform for an F-35B might be an LHA-R, as with with the AV8-B it needs to be available within 5m of the troops o the ground.

The usual means of doing so is to cycle forward to an onshore FOB where you can refuel re-arm near the FEBA. That's normally done on a PSP or quickly laid concrete platform.

If there's a larger length strip it will be used by forward deployed USN or USAF units with greater payload and sensors.

If you assume an LHA-R within effective range, you must presume a CVA to protect it, in which case why the LHA?

[Modern Elmo]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShizQv5hXhoN8l6qZyYwidMmF-3nNXYNPUPrIzoHFANj1KkOYoFcWEUzy3lBqCXEJ1VKyGKqgbL_DrZ8mubc4v vRJKiqScBmqDpK20C6E4QolQrT-fAzFcLCgkd9WwtGNhu3jhn&q=cache%3ANGW79Bz0e0cJ%3Ahandle.dtic.mil%2F100.2%2FADA512200 %20lha(r)%20concept%20of%20operation&docid=fb0f0cec3e6e3454c4c44db25e07b59d&a=bi&pagenumber=14&w=874http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShizQv5hXhoN8l6qZyYwidMmF-3nNXYNPUPrIzoHFANj1KkOYoFcWEUzy3lBqCXEJ1VKyGKqgbL_DrZ8mubc4v vRJKiqScBmqDpK20C6E4QolQrT-fAzFcLCgkd9WwtGNhu3jhn&q=cache%3ANGW79Bz0e0cJ%3Ahandle.dtic.mil%2F100.2%2FADA512200 %20lha(r)%20concept%20of%20operation&docid=fb0f0cec3e6e3454c4c44db25e07b59d&a=bi&pagenumber=11&w=874
...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShizQv5hXhoN8l6qZyYwidMmF-3nNXYNPUPrIzoHFANj1KkOYoFcWEUzy3lBqCXEJ1VKyGKqgbL_DrZ8mubc4v vRJKiqScBmqDpK20C6E4QolQrT-fAzFcLCgkd9WwtGNhu3jhn&q=cache%3ANGW79Bz0e0cJ%3Ahandle.dtic.mil%2F100.2%2FADA512200 %20lha(r)%20concept%20of%20operation&docid=fb0f0cec3e6e3454c4c44db25e07b59d&a=bi&pagenumber=15&w=874

Powered by Google Docs (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NGW79Bz0e0cJ:handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA512200+lha(r)+concept+of+operation&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShizQv5hXhoN8l6qZyYwidMmF-3nNXYNPUPrIzoHFANj1KkOYoFcWEUzy3lBqCXEJ1VKyGKqgbL_DrZ8mubc4v vRJKiqScBmqDpK20C6E4QolQrT-fAzFcLCgkd9WwtGNhu3jhn&sig=AHIEtbRAIbQpsplmbNs-X8icCJC14IDToQ)

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShizQv5hXhoN8l6qZyYwidMmF-3nNXYNPUPrIzoHFANj1KkOYoFcWEUzy3lBqCXEJ1VKyGKqgbL_DrZ8mubc4v vRJKiqScBmqDpK20C6E4QolQrT-fAzFcLCgkd9WwtGNhu3jhn&q=cache%3ANGW79Bz0e0cJ%3Ahandle.dtic.mil%2F100.2%2FADA512200 %20lha(r)%20concept%20of%20operation&docid=fb0f0cec3e6e3454c4c44db25e07b59d&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=874