A400M first flight

[Algy]

Four engines running. About to taxi.:ok:

[Denti]

Watch it live on LIVE A400M First Flight (http://www.airbus.com/en/A400M/)

[ORAC]

AWST: Meet the Guys (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%3af3f82f95-a1af-4405-be95-7af1f06a3e49&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Tomorrow, Airbus Military is putting its faith in the hands of six experienced flight test professionals as they navigate the A400M through its maiden flight.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/9/25863099-c68d-45cc-8978-7ba363e2c6ba.Large.jpg

Ed Strongman (far left), the chief military test pilot for Airbus, will be at the controls. A former RAF C-130 pilot (a few years ago, he'll be the first to admit), Strongman was also the first flight pilot for the A340-600. He's got a "meager" 11,000 flight hours under his belt, 7,000 of which have come during flight testing.

Strongman recently flew the TP400's C-130 Flying Testbed, giving him some turboprop airlifter experience again. And, owing to delays in the A400M program, he's had time for more than a few simulator sessions.

In the right hand seat will be Spaniard Ignacio "Nacho" Lombo (second from right), who was also involved in the first flight of the KC-30 multi-role tanker transport. He's got previous fighter experience on the way to logging 4,250 flight hours.

Eric Isorce (the gentleman in the back) is the senior flight test engineer. A former Colonel in the French air force, he brings perhaps the biggest bragging rights, having flown the nuclear-capable Mirage 2000N.

Jean-Philippe Cottet (far right) will oversee the TP400D turbofans and previously worked on flight test activities involving the GP7200 for the A380.

Dider Ronceray (second from left) is the flight test engineer overseeing aircraft handling qualities. He may be the most patient man on the crew: Airbus says he's been on the A400M program since 1998, which is before it was the A400M.

Rounding out the team is Gerard Leskerpit (second from right), another test flight engineer. He's flown the Transall C-160 and the C-130 when working for the French government.

The first flight aircraft has a unique feature: it is carrying an explosive to create an emergency escape hatch in the fuselage in case things go awfully wrong. The other four flight test aircraft (MSN2, MSN3, MSN4, and MSN6 -- MSN5 was stricken from the program) will not have the escape mechanism.

[Algy]

...at 10:15 local.

[mick2088]

YouTube - Airbus A400M first flight web-capture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX-kIUYRyDk)

[Kerosene Kraut]

FF Pictures:

A400M-Erstflug: Update 10:17 Uhr...A400M fliegt - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/militaer/fluggeraet-hersteller/a400m-erstflug-update-1017-uhra400m-fliegt.16221.htm)

[Trumpet_trousers]

Congratulations to the team! Some good background info here too: A400M Thrusting forward (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/11/336044/a400m-thrusting-forward.html)

"Nacho" Lombo (second from right) ..he's actually 3rd from right

[BEagle]

Brilliant news! I wish I'd put that bet on about the A400M flying before the 7-late-7 now!

Trumpet Ts, do give my regards to Gerard L when they get back!

[airsound]

Airbus Military's press releaseAM17/09R
11th December 2009
A400M, AIRBUS MILITARY’S NEW AIRLIFTER, TAKES TO THE SKIES

This morning Airbus Military’s all-new A400M took off for its maiden flight from Seville Airport in Spain. The first entirely new airlifter of the 21st Century took to the air from runway 09 at 10:15 local time (09:15 UTC).

At the controls was Chief Test Pilot Military, Edward “Ed” Strongman, 60, with Experimental Test Pilot Ignacio “Nacho” Lombo, 43, in the right-hand seat. Four engineers are also on the aircraft: Senior Flight Test Engineer Jean-Philippe Cottet, 43, who has responsibility for the powerplants; Senior Flight Test Engineer Eric Isorce, 52, with responsibility for systems and performance; Senior Flight Test Engineer Didier Ronceray, 54, with responsibility for the handling qualities of the aircraft; and Test Flight Engineer Gerard Leskerpit, 50.
Between them the multi-national crew has logged more than 31,000 total flight hours.

The aircraft, with a take-off weight of 127 tonnes, is equipped with 15 tonnes of flight-test equipment including two tonnes of water ballast and its performance is being monitored in realtime by teams of engineers in Seville and Toulouse using state-of-the-art air-ground telemetry. The crew will explore the aircraft’s handling characteristics in the various flap configurations, check the powerplant operation and make initial evaluations of the aircraft’s systems.

Its four all-new Europrop International (EPI) TP400D turboprop powerplants producing 11,000shp (8,200kW) each are the most powerful propeller engines ever fitted to a Western aircraft.

The duration of the flight will be at the test team’s discretion and will end with a landing back at Seville in front of more than 2,000 media, VIPs and Airbus Military staff.

Over the last four weeks the aircraft has been extensively tested on the ground in an increasingly challenging programme leading up to the first flight.

The engines have been run at full power, the electrical systems and on-board data network exhaustively tested, and numerous taxying runs at progressively higher speeds have been performed culminating in a rejected take-off test at a speed of 123kt (227km/hr) on 8th December.

Today’s first flight marks the beginning of a test campaign that will see some 3,700 hours of flying by an eventual five aircraft conducted between now and entry-into-service at the end of 2012. The A400M will receive both civil certification by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and military certification and qualification.

[Hilife]

In the 90’s I used to do a little work for PP at Aerovision in Blagnac. He owned and operated an Aerospatiale Corvette kitted out for aerial photography and worked closely with Airbus, so hopefully they are up shadowing the A400M today getting a few PR shots.

[Trumpet_trousers]

so hopefully they are up shadowing the A400M today getting a few PR shots

Yes, they are :ok:

[Arclite01]

On the basis that I know Fark Awl Squared about the subject.

1. The A400M looks like a nice aeroplane and on the basis of 'if looks right it'll fly right' it should be OK..............

2. It looks smaller than a C-130J

4. On the basis of test flying starting now - what is the project in service date and how many are we supposed to get ???

cheers

Arc

[VX275]

Looks can be deceptive. The cargo hold is about half again wider then the Herc. The A400M has been designed to carry 37 tons to the Hercs 20.

[ab33t]

Looks very similar , bearing mind that the HERC has been around for a LOOOONNNGG time. Glad to see the plane off the gound

[FTE Pruner]

The live feed has just re-started for the landing!

[mick2088]

Arclite01 in answer question 4.

25 is what is wanted and what we signed up for. EADS want more money. We might get 19 according to one report to offset the cost increase, or 25 if through-life support costs can be drastically reduced (even if we have to pay more towards the programme on the old HM Government overdrawn credit card) - we might even get none, especially if no solution between the programme partners is found in regards to the cost increase. Deliveries? MSN001 flew today and is about to land as I write this. MSN002 and MSN003 first flights next year, MSN004 and MSN006 in 2011 (missing one MSN005 is static airframe). Deliveries to the French (launch customer) from end-2012. I think the RAF from 2013. That's if the test programme now runs smoothly.

[FTE Pruner]

25 miles away for a flypast into the circuit and land.

[Algy]

...at 14:02. 3hr 47min - not bad for a first outing.

[Dan Gerous]

Just been looking at a picture of it flying, and the due to the high shutter speed, the blades are only slightly blurred. Is it me and my poor eyesight, or do the props rotate in different directions?

[callsign Metman]

Yes....one clockwise and one anti-clockwise on each wing.

Well done chaps on a good flight!

[Gainesy]

First mission tick in the box then, POETS.:):ok:

[dangermouse]

787 next week

DM:ok:

[Ms Spurtle]

Great news.

Can we expect a few to be delivered to Hellmand on Monday morning then?
:E

[Squirrel 41]

Well Done to all concerned - will raise a glass tonight at Squirrel Towers.

Now all we need to do is to get the contract sorted out - against the background of a potentially 20% MoD budget cut, according to the non-partisan (and very thorough!) Institute for Fiscal Studies. Not so sure that a £600m+ bill - or a 30%+ unit price increase from taking 19 for the price of 25 will be so welcome in Main Building this afternoon....

S41

[kenparry]

And the good old BBC totally ignored the event. Not a word on the lunchtime news. Are we surprised?

[Lyneham Lad]

And the good old BBC totally ignored the event. Not a word on the lunchtime news. Are we surprised?

To be fair to the Beeb, their website does have it on the front page with a link to Take-off video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8407825.stm)

[billynospares]

Engines run in opposite directions ? Are they easy to convert or will we get sorry only L/H engines available run out of R/H mate ?:ok:

[Gainesy]

Its up to Airbus to meet the contract specs, not the customers.

[ian16th]

I see that there is still a South African flag on the side of the a/c.

Hasn't Seville been told that we cancelled?

[Squirrel 41]

Gainsey - quite right!

But watch the political-military leadership roll over and give in to another contractor who failed to deliver to time and budget.

S41

[Gainesy]

Too bloody used to dealing with Wastelands and BAeS, (who else builds self-igniting submarines FFS)?

Is the C-17 line still open?, I believe it is.

[beamender99]

To be fair to the Beeb, their website does have it on the front page


Well that did not last long cos I missed it 75 mins ago.
There are three items in minor sections, in Europe and in Business.
All have short video clips

BBC News - New military Airbus A400-M takes inaugural flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8407641.stm?ls)

BBC News - Airbus A400-M takes off on maiden flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8407825.stm?ls)

BBC News - Airbus A400M makes maiden flight after delays (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8407805.stm)

[Gainesy]

Too be fair, its a pretty minor event to the non-aviation/military world.

If it had suffered a "Death Lunge Shock for Kazillion Quid Plane" ie a burst tyre on landing, then it'd be all over the shop.

[Jig Peter]

What a good idea to have live coverage of the whole flight - impressive to have got live airborne shots as well, while the "fill-in" footage including the A330 MRTT showing off its "give and take" abilities on AAR kept this aged ex-aviator fixed to the screen until the post-flight speechifying was done.
Despite the clouds over the financial side, this was, for me and probably all those close to the programme, an "uplifting" (!) day.
Well done the flight crew, all the ground crew, engineers and, not least, the PR specialists !

:ok::ok::ok:

[Toddington Ted]

I've been looking forward to seeing this aircraft fly for a long time (as have many other people I'm sure!) I recall visiting Farnborough in 1999 (I think) and there was a life-size mock up of the A400 (but I think it was called the FLA or something back then) and I wondered how long I'd have to wait until it actually flew! A shame that I'll probably never get the chance to fly in one to some distant sand pit as I'm now on resettlement! Never mind, as a spacey I flew in something that looked somewhat similar - The Belfast! Are we not sure that its just an old Belfast with some better donks bolted on?! ;) Seriously though, its great to see it fly and congratulations to all who have worked so hard to make it happen.

[Union Jack]

To be fair to the Beeb, their website does have it on the front page .....

.... and the A400M will also be on BBC1 West News between 1830 and 1900 if you can access it directly if in that area, or through Sky somewhere about Channel 970 onwards.

Jack

[airsound]

And the good old BBC totally ignored the event. Not a word on the lunchtime news. Are we surprised?

Actually, kenparry, I have been trying for the last three days to persuade the (national) Beeb to take an interest. I was planning to go myself (I went to the A380 maiden flight, it was fantastic) - but when I couldn't generate even a spark of beeb interest, I decided I couldn't really justify going to Seville at short notice and at my own expense.

However, I did badger News Channel again this morning, and eventually sent them the Airbus Mil presser, along with the Airbus streaming video url. They then realised they might take an interest, which was how they eventually got it on News Channel.

Quite depressing really - initially, they didn't even go for the idea that the captain is a Brit, and the wings are all made at Filton.

This was all despite much support from the excellent Defence Correspondent Caroline Wyatt, who was unfortunately in Germany with NATO this week.

Oh well.

I do agree, Jig Peter, about the live streaming from Airbus - very high quality, and the next best thing to actually being there. No free Airbus champagne, of course, which I'm sure those present will have got....

airsound

[FTE Pruner]

Quite depressing really - initially, they didn't even go for the idea that the captain is a Brit, and the wings are all made at Filton.

and not forgetting that the powerplant was first flight tested in Cambridge of course!

[barnstormer1968]

Congratulations to all involved
The 400 looks good in the air. This has been a long time in coming, and I hope all continues well.






I must add, now in flight in did remind me of the YC15, from some angles (but
only from some, and of course I am not commenting on its size, before anyone
gets upset)

[DADDY-OH!]

Assuming Crab-Air takes all the A400 airframes, & we close down Lyneham, meaning the C-130's will transfer to Brize' with the VC-10's, TriStars, C-17's, the A330MRTT's, the regular Antonov visitors, the increasing number of civilian jets operating MoD charters, I have to ask but... will there be enough room?
:ok:

[vernon99]

I cannot see how Airbus can wriggle any more money out of their buyers.

A friend works for Airbus and he has said time and time again that this time Airbus have used a standard commercial contract for the A400M, there is to be no delays due to the customer changing his mind half way through the programme. They will deliver what was ordered on day one. Any mods that are required eg strengthened floor can be done but will be done after delivery as a separate programme.

They cannot have their cake and eat it! The delay is all of their own making, for once the MoD changing the goalposts is not the reason for the delay, therefore no way the taxpayers should pay more. Airbus can learn from the experience and undoubtedly will do better next time.

[isaneng]

Daddy Oh,

For the hardware, yes. For everything else, ie the infrastructure and personnel that make it work, well, not yet........

[ArthurR]

Trumpet trousers


Quote:
so hopefully they are up shadowing the A400M today getting a few PR shots
Yes, they are http://1.2.3.11/bmi/images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Can you post any?

[BEagle]

See A400M In a Class of its Own (http://www.a400m.com/)

[Bigt]

Plenty of room at Brize........the VC-10s and tristars will be long gone before whats left at Lyneham transfers

[Blighter Pilot]

Plenty of room at Brize........the VC-10s and tristars will be long gone before whats left at Lyneham transfers


Not so sure about that - Future Brize timeline has the C130 fleet arriving Jul 11:ok:

Don't think there will be enough space on the pan, never mind in the hangars!

Just as well the A400M will be nearly 3 years late then:mad:

[West Coast]

A class of it's own?

Yeah I guess, most others put jets on their large cargo aircraft.

[bspatz]

Too late, too exspensive and too slow.

[indie cent]

A400M is the airlifter of choice if:

You require an advanced tactical transport in a few years and money is of no concern;

You do not operate fleets of C130J's or C-17's and

Your procurement decisions are led by Euro political considerations.

However, if you urgently need a proven airlifter, already have C130J's, C-17's and no money....

[BEagle]

Too late, too exspensive and too slow.

Whilst the programme is indeed running late and costs have risen, I dispute the 'too slow' comment.

The 300KCAS speed was defined by the European Staff Requirement for a future military transport aircraft.

MSN001 achieved that speed on its first test flight.

Presumably, the window-lickers on this thread will accuse the ESR of being somehow 'led by Euro political considerations'?

Incidentally the 'jet' option was binned from the specification years ago as it was too inefficient for the ESR specification.

[West Coast]

Beag's, old boy

Just looking to see who's cage I could rattle. Looks like it was yours.

Plane looks fine, sure it will fly just fine as well.







a little bit faster if it had jets tho...

[Algy]

West Coast, baffling really why Lockheed didn't put jets on the C-130. I mean, then it would go faster, what is it with these people????

[West Coast]

Pssss. the C130 isn't there to do strategic airlift. Besides it was prolly designed by the same people that designed the A400

[BEagle]

Westie, it's interesting to compare the 'Euroflag Solution 20' concept version of the 'FLA' (which had 4 turbofans) with the its descendant, the A400M.

Both were designed for a 300/M0.72 max speed requirement.

The jet version had a smaller cargo bay (length, width and height all smaller), it had a 32% smaller max payload, a 22% smaller MTOW, carried about 12 tonne less wing fuel....

I think the chaps with the computers have optimised the present design pretty well - the FLA Solution 20 concept was rather a dog.

[VinRouge]

Beags,

3 questions.

What is the max altitude with cabalt restrained to 8K?

what is the expected Mach in the cruise at this level?

Do you think eurocontrol are going to have A400M holding up civilian traffic at this mach and alt, or do you think it will get held down like the J does?

[West Coast]

.72!!!!

I back out of my driveway faster than that.


The jet version had a smaller cargo bay

Really, I always thought the C17 was larger.


Oh, that version.

[rjtjrt]

Surely the real issue with the A400 is the price.
If the original price was 100MEuros, and now will go up (UK looking at getting 19 for the same money as originally supposed to be 25), then projected price now is 131MEuros. That is only 10% cheaper than a C-17. And who believes that Airbus will stick to current projected price.
Europe makes good stuff at times but mostly (always) too expensive?

[rjtjrt]

OK Equivocator.
I have a more accurate figure.
A400 13% cheaper than C-17!
By any measure A400 is very expensive compared to it's competition.

[VinRouge]

And not forgetting the cost of tidying up any extra snags that are yet to be ironed, cost of training infrastructure, cost of admin (IPT, logistics) cost of seperate eng sections and associated executive....

I would really like the 400M in service, but it doesnt exactly look cost effective at a time we are seriously short of moolah.

[Dan Winterland]

"West Coast, baffling really why Lockheed didn't put jets on the C-130''.

They did. It became the C141.

[BEagle]

It didn't.

As for M0.72 being 'too slow', the A400M has a cruise TAS 100 kt higher than the C130 and is as unlikely to be 'held down by Eurocontrol' as, for example, a Nimrod.

Not that much slower than a C-17 at altitude (M0.76?) but way faster than a C-130.

[herkman]

I have heard two prices for the A400m

One is that it is 90% and the other is 87% of the current C17 price.

If the statement is true and I have no reason to doubt the figures the A400M seems a liitle bit on the expensive side.

The source for the pricing comes from the USA Herky Bird site.

Regards

Col

[Gainesy]

And not forgetting the cost of tidying up any extra snags that are yet to be ironed, cost of training infrastructure, cost of admin (IPT, logistics) cost of seperate eng sections and associated executive....

Vin,
doe's not all that apply to any new bit of kit from the Vickers Victoria onward?

Aarboose could pull off a marketing coup here, just put their hands up say:"OK we Effed up" and pay up/deliver as per contract.

Price? Dunno, their problem. I'd guess they can afford it

Gain in future client relationship/sales? Dunno, good I'd think, can they afford not to?

Herkman,
Are you a Colin or a Colonel or a Colin who is a Colonel or some sort of mountain feature?:)

[herkman]

Col is shortened over the years from Colin.

Regards

Col

[West Coast]

Curious Beags. You seem to compare it to the herk when it suits your needs, the C17 at other times.
If it's built primarily for theatre transport and thus filling the same role as the 130, then it's a better plane. If its role is strategic airlift, it fails to compare favorably against the C17.

If its designed for both then it's a compromise and has issues attributed to trying to be a jack of all trades.

[BEagle]

Westie, the A400M spec was driven by a European Staff Requirement for an aircraft with the following operational characteristics:

Strategic mission performance:
- Long range
- Large cargo hold dimensions and volume combined with high payload
- High cruise speed

Tactical mission performance:
- Short, soft field performance
- Good low speed characteristics
- Autonomous ground operation

It is designed to provide excellent strategic and tactical capabilities. Which is why it does indeed bridge the gap between the C-130 and the C-17.

[ian16th]

it does indeed bridge the gap between the C-130 and the C-17.........only time will tell if it bridges the gap or falls between the two stools.

[Green Flash]

If it is to fall between two stools, which one would we like it to fall closer to? Should it out-Herc a Herc or out-17 a -17??

[Linedog]

It's European..................! Gotta be better than buying spam! :)

[Algy]

Comparing prices with the C-17 misses the point. If you buy C-17s then you will also have to buy Herks, or a Herk-like thing. And if you buy Herks then you will also have to buy C-17s. All assuming that you want to perform the missions that the major European nations have decided they want to perform.

If you buy A400Ms then there is a plausible case that you don't need to buy Herks or C-17s. At some point you have to opt for the solution that comes closest to doing the mission, given the cash you're prepared to spend (or change the mission of course).

If A400M ever got stopped, you'd be able to hear the champagne corks popping at LockMart and Boeing from Wiltshire. And there are very good reasons for that.

[VinRouge]

Gainsey, my point which you missed completely, was that operating c-17 and 130J with additional aircraft would be much cheaper than adding a third type in the mix.

Yes, a new piece of kit, that can be covered by additional aircraft that are already in service.

[VinRouge]

Crap. Your figures for both are wrong.





http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf


just over 200 mill dollars for the 17, without the bulk discount. Oh, it works, is proven and is in service.

J is around 50 million quid per pop, and performs admirably.



Where you get those figures from? Airbus?

Quite frankly, the only reason I see us remaining in the project is European jobs. Which, in face of the cutbacks that are coming up, is not the MODs problem. Despite the airbus's fantastic specs, I believe it is a cost we can ill-afford. Anyone doubting this needs to appraise the economic status of the UK again.

We could afford 18 C-17s for the equivalent (current) cost of A400M, at 2.4 billion Euros, at current exchange rates, alternatively, we could buy a whopping 8 C-17s and another 22 Js. And have change. We already have established IPTs, training, procedures and support elements for both C-17 and C130J, know the platform and have no developmental risks. Lets face facts, the time line is thus:

Tories get elected. Call emergency budget.

Chop A400M.

Buy 4-5 new C-17
Buy 5-10 new J.

Use the rest on plugging our gaping budget deficit.

[rjtjrt]

Equivocator
I've been asleep so just read you learned piece.
You sound tired and emotional. Get a little sleep, relax, maybe even take a Valium. It will all be OK.
Yes the A400 is reasonably priced and will be a wonderful success. And yes UK should continue to buy it. UK has no financial problems, seems to be well governed and floating upright (for the moment). No need to be especially concerned re value for money spent or risk of sticking with buying one thing leading to scrimping on equipment for the people who are actually dodging bullets/IED's.
By the way A400 looks to be a potentially and almost certainly desirable piece of kit. Price seems to be a touchy point.

John
PS Before anyone launches into any comment on Australian Government or Aust Military procurement policy/successes, I readily admit we are imperfectly governed.

[Old Fella]

Dan Winterland. Don't know what makes you think the C141 was a C130 with jets. About all they had in common was that each is a high wing four engine aircraft built by Lockheed. End of story.

[West Coast]

At some point you have to opt for the solution that comes closest to doing the mission, given the cash you're prepared to spend (or change the mission of course).

I guess if war on the cheap is part of the mission specifications then march on. Understand the limitations it comes with for the war fighters however. That said, your argument is invalidated as the RAF has committed to multiple types.

I do have to ask however, what makes you think a single platform approach would be better served by a A400 rather than the C17?

[VinRouge]

Seeing as FRES is expected to come in at 10 tonnes over the max payload of A400M?

[Dan Winterland]

"Dan Winterland. Don't know what makes you think the C141 was a C130 with jets. About all they had in common was that each is a high wing four engine aircraft built by Lockheed. End of story"

The C141 was a farily short notice requirement for a strategic jet transport. Lockheed thought it best to develope their existing design. The C141 has the same fuselage section as the C130 and has the same loading and pallet system. This was from a USAF exchange pilot in the RAF I used to fly with and who was a C141 instructor. It's backed up by a couple of websites I googled.

[Old Fella]

Dan the fuselage section of the Starlifter is the same dimensions as the C130 and they both used the Brooks and Perkins loading system, however there the similarities pretty much end. The C141 has a 25 degree wing sweep, pylon mounted TF33's, "T" tail, Clam Shell rear cargo doors and MLG mounted in external gear fairings, all features which differ substantially to the C130. One could hardly say the B707, B727 and B737 are all the same, however they too share the same fuselage and cockpit dimensions.

[NutLoose]

Odd to see the South African flag over the door considering they have cancelled their order stating it is to expensive.

[BEagle]

Re the C-141:

In the 1950s, the US Air Force's Military Air Transport Service (MATS) was reliant on piston-engined cargolifters, such as the Douglas C-124 Globemaster. By the end of the decade, MATS had decided that they needed a more capable cargolifter, and in the spring of 1960 the USAF issued a request for proposals under the designation "Specific Operational Requirement 182 (SOR 182)". SOR 182 specified an aircraft with a cargo capacity of 27,200 kilograms (60,000 pounds) and a range of 6,480 kilometers (4,025 miles). Lockheed's proposal was selected, with an initial contract for five "development, test, and evaluation (DT&E)" aircraft awarded on 13 March 1961. The aircraft was given the designation "C-141 Starlifter".

The Starlifter incorporated ideas from Lockheed's earlier C-130 Hercules cargolifter, including a high wing; a loading ramp under the high tail; clamshell rear doors that could be opened in flight for airdrops; and main landing gear that retracted into fairings alongside the fuselage to ensure an unobstructed cargo hold. The Starlifter differed from the Hercules in having wings with a sweepback of 25 degrees and a tee tail, instead of straight wings and a conventional tail; and four Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-7 turbofans with 43.2 kN (9,525 kgp / 21,000 lbf) thrust each mounted in pods on underwing pylons, instead of turboprops mounted on the wing. There were typically five flight crew.

In practice, MAC found that the Starlifter's cargo hold volume was small compared to its weight-lifting capability, meaning the aircraft often ran out of space well before it met its weight limit. To resolve this problem, in 1976 the USAF began a program to "stretch" the Starlifter with fuselage "plugs" in front of and behind the wing, increasing the length of the aircraft by 7.11 meters (23 feet 4 inches) and providing space for three more standard pallets, for a total of 13. The upgrade also involved the addition of a boom-refueling receptacle behind the cockpit.

So OK, ideas from the C-130, but not much else.

Payload of about 78% of that of the A400M, incidentally.....

[barnstormer1968]

In terms of looks, I cannot see the C130-C141 connection. The C133 cargomaster always looked like a larger C130 to my eyes.



OK OK, so it's roughly the same age as the first herks, and from a different company, with different technology:ouch:

[Old Fella]

The C130 does not have Clamshell rear cargo doors. It has a Cargo ramp, hinged at the bottom and a Cargo door which is hinged at the top. The ramp comes down and the door goes up for loading, unloading and airdropping. Unlike the C130, I can't see more than 2000 A400M's being built.

[Gainesy]

Gainsey, my point which you missed completely, was that operating c-17 and 130J with additional aircraft would be much cheaper than adding a third type in the mix.


Vin, I missed it because you didn't say it. I can't read what is in your head untill you put it on page. Perhaps you might have made that point earlier in the thread, but my PC will only do searches as far back as 2001.:)

As for the aircraft itself, I am becoming dis-interested.

Now FRES, there is a cock up of exceptional proportions.

[Nopax,thanx]

"Odd to see the South African flag over the door considering they have cancelled their order stating it is to expensive. "

Yeah, but you're still going to be be charged for the prototype....:}

[blandy1]

FRES - 47 tonnes ? - What are you smoking

A lot of comment is being made about a 3 type AT fleet. At the rate the ..Js are working theyll be knackered by the early twenties anyway so just buy another 20 A400M s - back to a 2 type fleet in no time!

[Algy]

All war is done "on the cheap' Westie, because of tedious other stuff like education, health systems, transport, social care... Not as sexy but do help make the wars worthwhile. Last one not done on the cheap was WWII, a period not known for major social advances.

I repeat my point, a fleet of A400Ms beats a mixed fleet anyway you look at it. And particularly from the taxpayers' viewpoint.

[The B Word]

Latest costs from the FY10 (May 2009) estimates are at: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-090.pdf

205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).

84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).

So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.

As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.:{

Sack the jugglers in the EP office :ugh:

The B Word

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Latest costs from the FY10 (May 2009) estimates are at: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-090.pdf

205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).

84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).

So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.

As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.:{

Sack the jugglers in the EP office :ugh:

The B Word

If I was a betting man my money would be on someone challenging those costs :ok:

[West Coast]

All war is done "on the cheap' Westie,

No, actually it's not.

Adequitely providing for the military means you give them what they need or you scale down the mission to avoid over reaching. If you can't provide the assets (helo's perhaps) then you don't fight a half ass effort with an inadequite number of them. That only gets people killed.

Now before your chest swells out, that statement has at times applied to cockups in the US military as well. That said, it seems the US is doing a better job of providing for its troops than the UK is doing for thiers.

Its not a matter of spending all the nations wealth on the military while neglecting other obligations. It's about balance, try to understand the difference.
One only need look at some of the examples given here. Granted they are simple in the comparisons but I'd say some willy waving is going on, buy Euro and all that when it would seem a mix of C17's and J models would work better.

[rjtjrt]

Dear dear Equivi (may I call you Equivi?).

Don't take it all to heart. Not everyone is against you. Paronoia can be corrosive.
I don't know how may Mastiffs have been lost by UK (and I wont employ juvenile tactic of belittling you by asking you the exact number).

UK should buy the loverly A400 and keep all those wonderful EU people in work. Full steam ahead I say! It's all going swimmingly at present. No need to review any past decisions in the light of current information.

Kind Regards
John

[rjtjrt]

Eqiuvi
Thanks for the slow explaination. It is appreciated from such an erudite respondent.
I say again - by any measure A400 is very expensive for what you get, especially when compared to the competition. The information in this thread almost exclusively supports this contention.
A400 is desirable but a mix of C-130J and C-17 much more useful in the real world of Mastiffs etc.
The UK can thank God you don't have a role in procurement but if you do God help them - the lunatics have actually taken over the assylum known as Whitehall. Fixed ideas despite the facts is what has made the mess most of us are in.
John
PS at least I sign my posts!

[BEagle]

Don't forget that there was originally supposed to be a Future Large Aircraft (FLA) which was intended to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA).

Although the C130J was ordered as Tranche 1 of FTA as a tactical AT replacement for most C130Ks, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the 'real' FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA will hence become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA.

So:

C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA....

:confused:

[Fortissimo]

And if Brown has his way, both will end up officially as FA...

[rjtjrt]

Eqiuvocator (sorry to revert to such a formal salutation)
What fun all this repartee!

Let me see. First you complain indignantly when I have the temerity to opine re relative cost of A400 using publically available info. If I or anyone wasn't an insider of said company any post was to be dismissed. Now it is a rumour network and we can all use our individual facts. Also re the jibe "insults" - look at your early posts compared to mine.
Hyperbole and inconsistent thinking/posting weaken your position.

On the available info A400 not competitive in price with available and proven solutions to tactical and strategic airlift. If you have information to dispute this post it.

As I have already said by all means buy the aircraft which does sound to potentially be a very useful airlifter - just the price that seems to be getting ridiculous in comparison.

Again at least I sign my posts

John
PS Perhaps this is getting out of hand and wasting time and bandwidth.

[Hueymeister]

Call me cynical...maybe the design guys at Boeing might like to do a dyson vs hoover on the lookeeelikeee'ness of the A400M to some big jet I that fly:eek::eek:..come one give me 0.5% of the out of court settlement for noticing!!!:}:}:E:cool:

[West Coast]

C17 is the answer for Strat flying.


By it's absence in your tactical category one could reason you think the C17 serves a singular purpose.

Take a long look at it's theatre capabilities and you might be surprised. Iffin I had to pick a stablemate for the J, it would be the C17. It crosses the boundry between missions currently in a proven manner, in a war time environment. Meanwhile, has the 400 even retracted its landing gear? Excuse me, undercarrige.

[Blighter Pilot]

Does it really matter?

The RAF will shortly not have enough manpower to train,fly and service the aircraft is has - never mind 25 'new' A400Ms:mad:

[BEagle]

Meanwhile, has the 400 even retracted its landing gear? Excuse me, undercarrige.

It certainly has. On its first test flight (about 3:45), not only did it retract the landing gear, but also explored handling qualities, low speed and max cruise speed as well as both 'normal' and 'direct' control laws. All of which went just fine.

[collbar]

Are you kidding me! even the yanks dont do that. They sensibly ship their gear to a middle east hub and then hop it into theater with C17s. The RAF should be doing the same(outsize loads exempt). It might even reduce flow clashes at the, extremly busy heathrow like, military AT hub!
A 747 carries two C17 loads of pallets and burns much less that C17s carrying the same weight. The UK should stop flogging its fleet and crews and put them in cyprus/barhain/the deid/UAE/omam somewhere where they can use there potential!!

[Rory57]

Well someone is flying C17s due East / West over Herefordshire, regular as clockwork these last few years.......

[VinRouge]

[QUOTE]I would bet my mortgage that treasury wouldn't sign off any additional spend with the millstone of an uncertain Airbus money deficit around our necks.[/QUOTE
]

It was my understanding that under the current contract, we could walk away from the project at any stage due to A400M potential not meeting the original specs?

[rjtjrt]

Equivocator
Whatever. This has long since become a waste of time (much like you).
J

[collbar]

Equivocator, so many Sqn Ldrs and above in 'the deid' keep telling me they are 'In theater'. I thought it was a move within theater!!!

[ORAC]

A400M negotiation deadline extended (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11652) :hmm::hmm: Quelle surprise.....
Thursday, December 17, 2009

The deadline for financial negotiations over the future of the Airbus A400M transporter aircraft has been extended until the end of January 2010, according to a French newspaper.

In an interview with La Tribune, French defence minister Hervé Morin said: "We are going to give ourselves until the end of January and the moratorium will be extended till then."

He described negotiations as "naturally difficult".

The A400M had its first test flight on 11 December, and European defence ministers were reportedly negotiating the future of the contract while the plane was on its three-hour maiden flight from Seville.

Britain's Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton had previously said Britain would "stand firm" and determine the way forward for the project by mid-December.

The partner countries in the project had hoped to reach a deal by the end of 2009.

[Jig Peter]

Any news from Seville about a second flight for the A400M before the Christmas break ?:8

[BEagle]

So, roughly when the UK's Armed Forces are back from hunting stone age religious zealots around Afgh...sorry, 'The Stan' as it seems to be known, the RAF will have about about six dozen Chinooks and will be wondering what the heck to do with them, all the Herks will be shagged out, those VC10s which haven't fallen to bits will be going out of service, Arfur Daley Aviation will be scouring the deserts of the US to find anough spares to keep the TriStars going for a few more years - and the A400M will be about to make an appearance in RAF service. Oh, and there'll be 6 or 7 C-17s looking for a task....

At a guess I'd say that the C130Js will be flogged off and replaced one-for-one with A400Ms, the TriStar C2s will be scrapped and the Ks will start to disappear once 50% of the A330MRTTs are in service.

So, about 40 modern transport aeroplanes (including A330MRTT) and 70 Chinooks by about 2016?

To be used for what, exactly?

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

;)

So, about 40 modern transport aeroplanes (including A330MRTT) and 70 Chinooks by about 2016?


The war in 'the Stan' should be over for the UK before then so the Chinooks can be cancelled !! More money saved - bingo !!


Aaron

[Lyneham Lad]

Courtesy of Flight International, a very positive report on the A400M's first flight:-

Flight report (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/17/336259/airbus-test-pilot-ed-strongman-describes-a400m-first.html)

[Nomorefreetime]

Beagle - To do what

To take us on what most of us have been missing for the last 5+ years. Exercise programme, decent sectors for crews, Rescue stuck cows from flooded rivers.

I can't wait to have a completly modern AT fleet.

[Algy]

The aircraft flew for the second time yesterday, three-hour sortie which went very well. Complete normal flight envelope now opened up, flew to 30,000ft, Vmo (300kt) and Mmo (M0.72) reached, down to stall warning clean and flaps, and went rather further afield to northern part of Spain. Nacho Lombo captain with Ed Strongman in RHS - reverse of the first flight - otherwise the same crew.

The delay has been due to dire weather in Seville - at one point we had something like 36 hours of constant rain ranging from moderate to torrential. And it's been like that on and off for days. This is a real problem because the strain gauges currently on two blades of each prop do not like being wet. A big frustration but apparently no way round it until they're no longer needed.

Next flight likely to be after the Xmas break in Spain.:ok:

[BEagle]

Good news indeed, Algy!

Presumably the speed limit changed from 300KIAS to M0.72 at around FL250?

Cruising at M0.70 and FL260 equates to 286KIAS, well within the cruise envelope limit, so the A400M will be a useful AAR platform (both intra- and inter-theatre) as well as an excellent airlifter.

Glad to hear it's all going well - hope the weather improves after Christmas!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

If this is "it's all going well" :eek:

[West Coast]

Beag's
What type of range does the acft have with a maximum cargo load, no reserves at an optimum altitude, no wind?

[BEagle]

Sorry, I don't have the current figures - but from a brochure of a few years ago:

(Includes the ESR requirement of missed approach, 200nm diversion, 30 min hold at 1500 ft and landing with 5% mission fuel remaining):
30 tonne - 2450 nm
20 tonne - 3550 nm
Ferry - 4900 nm

From the brochure graph, with max payload (37 tonne) and assuming a 2.25 g load factor limit, with the same ESR reserves, about 1720 nm.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Beags,

If a certain ex OC 24 Sqn and Proj O is to believed then if you put all the max figures together the beast cant take off from the secret Wiltshire airbase, hence it's closing :(

[BEagle]

Since the MTOW balanced field limit must surely have been a key ESR requirement, I would certainly hope that it would be a non-negotiable pass/fail criterion.

According to the press reports, the on the first flight the aircraft took off at a weight of 127 tonnes, carrying 15 tonnes of test equipment including two tonnes of water ballast, compared with its maximum take-off weight of 141 tonnes. I note that the original MTOW was only 130 tonne, so it seems that the aircraft has put on a bit of weight.... However, on the first take-off the crew were pleasantly surprised by the excellent take-off performance.

[West Coast]

Beag's

Hope with those relatively short legs that the UK AAR fleet is up to speed as any extended range det is gonna be a multiple leg affair or require a few AAR's.

As it's a prop job, will a AAR be a reverse toboggan affair? Especially with something like an older -135 or KC10?

[BEagle]

The A400M is not just a strategic airlifter, it is intended to fill the gap between strategic and tactical.

On this website Specifications (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Specifications.aspx) the radius of action from Europe shows that at least 20 tonnes can be delivered to most areas of interest without AAR.

AAR from a KC-10 would be no problem; however the KC-135 does not have a centreline hose.

[VinRouge]

What is the max payload at 141K and are there any limitations on wing relieving fuel/Speed limitations at this weight?

[Jig Peter]

So the song IS wrong then, and the rain in Spain's been making up for lost time in the plain ... Good to hear of such a successful second trip - even heading close-ish to Toulouse, whre I'm sure a welcome is waiting ... Mebbe even sooner than one might think ???
Happy Days to all the team down there. Here's to an even more successful 2010 to the test crews(air and ground) and hopefully, to the sales teams as well.

:ok::ok::ok:

[cessnapete]

I read somewhere that Air Tanker Ltd had a clause in their contract that the RAF A400 were not to be used for AAR to protect the A330 order.

[BEagle]

Hmmm - and there was I thinking that it might be a tad tricky to refuel a helicopter using an A330....

Yes, I do recall there being some rumour of politics surrounding the UK's use of the A400M in the AAR role to prevent avaricious bean counters from querying the A330MRTT requirement.

[West Coast]

AAR from a KC-10 would be no problem

In level flight?


at least 20 tonnes can be delivered to most areas of interest without AAR.

Not much really for a strategic lifter, or at least one masquerading in that role. Hope the AN124's are available to supplement that day.

[West Coast]

Keep chipping away West Coast, keep chipping!

How do you eat an elephant???

One bite at a time!



we still aren't buying the A400M for a strategic role

You might want to inform your military of such. The MOD says it will be used in that role as well as a tactical lifter. You'll forgive me if I believe the folks buying the plane rather than an anonymous poster.

RAF - A400M (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/a400m.cfm)


Maybe that's why the USAF bought them

There's this gigantic airplane called a C-5 in the USAF inventory, you might have heard of it? Just slapped some new engines on it, gonna be around for awhile. Something about some other grouping of aircraft available to the USAF, goes by CRAF. Ever heard of it?

Yes I do believe the USAF has rented some lift on the -124, some times you just need a wee bit more than you have. Any time you want to compare (even relative to size) airlift capability of the US and the UK, lemme know. You will lose.

Only they didn't as they wanted to keep a handle on the indigenous aerospace industry

Appreciate your lot helping out a good cause. I'm sure it was done for altruistic reasons, nothing to do with C17's capability. Remind me to add Canada, Australia, with the UAE and a bunch of others to the Christmas card list for helping out as well.



Who do you work for by the way?

An airline.

[Dan Winterland]

"AAR from a KC-10 would be no problem".

"In level flight?"

Shouldn't be a problem. It has no problems refuelling A10s at the same speed. Just has to do it with the first stage of flaps deployd. And C130s refuel from jets regularly in the RAF.