A400 latest.. [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

ORAC

1st Apr 2002, 23:12

Unfortunately, the only thing agreed was delay everything again. No one else is willing to proceed until the Germans commit to financial liability for the last 73 aircraft. For which the Greens will not give backing. The decision is now due in .................

When did we say the RAF had a last, final, no..we really mean it, OK...just one last chance.........deadline?

JDW: JDW (http://www4.janes.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=/content1/janesdata/mags/jdw/jdw00941.htm&Collection=current&ViewTemplate=doc_view_jdw.hts&Prod_Name=JDW&)

Partners report further A400M progress
CRAIG HOYLE JDW Aviation Editor
London

Europe's multinational A400M transport aircraft programme has edged towards a production decision later this year, following the confirmation of an agreement reached during a multinational policy group meeting held in Paris on 22 March.

While noting that there is still "no specified deadline" for fully meeting the terms of the 18 December 2001 contract for 196 of the new aircraft, a UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson late last month told Jane's Defence Weekly that: "A mechanism was identified [during the meeting] that should secure early signature of the contract by all the countries."

This is understood to require full consensus within the next few months, with military and industry sources saying that delaying a decision until after German parliamentary elections in September is "not on the cards".

While the issue of securing German funding for the A400M project was finalised ahead of a 31 March deadline, the remaining partner nations have yet to make a final decision on whether to risk being collectively liable should Berlin fail to acquire all of its stated requirement for 73 aircraft. "That issue still needs to be resolved," said the UK MoD official, who underlined London's continued commitment to procure the A400M.

An Airbus Military SAS spokesperson declined to make any comment on the current programme status.

Lybid

7th Apr 2002, 22:04

See also Dominic O'Connell in the Sunday Times Bus. section today.
Boeing and Lockheed lobbying the US under secretary of defence to lobby the European ministers to buy American because the European product will never materialise.....

I hear the UK C-17s have exceeded their expensive lease hours and are now presumably in the 'even more expensive' category so the MOD is following the most cost-effective airlift solution for Afghanistan and chartering An124s..... Hmmmmm..

Mind you they are only doing what France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Poland etc etc have done and continue to do. Funny old thing how the An124 keeps on providing the solution but the whole world chooses to be blind.
One German military gentleman has actually calculated that the cost per hour is about one quarter of what it costs the Luftwaffe to operate a C160.

Lybid

MarkD

8th Apr 2002, 11:27

Lybid

do those C160 vs A124 costs factor in aircrew cost [mil vs civil]?

Lybid

10th Apr 2002, 20:12

MarkD

Sorry, can't help with the detail. Just repeating what the Antonov maquis in Germany is reporting. Someone who should know what they are talking about, a sort of Bosch BEagle you might say, has calculated the cost of providing C160s and was comparing it with the cost of An124 airlift.

Anyway, when did accurate detail come into this question? A DERA/DPA approved An124 solution at a 50% cost saving over C-17s didn't deter the Hoon monster from wasting more than 100 million pounds of our money with his decision on STSA. Plus the fact (that's F..A..C..T) that Boeing confirmed on UK national radio that by the time the C-17 lease is complete the MOD might as well have bought the C-17s. Joined up government? Just some/any government would be useful.

Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive. The point I was making by reference to O'Connel's article was the cheek of Boeing/Lockheed to propose that Europe buys C-17 and C130 because the A400M is not going to make it. This simply ignores the fact that the only way that Europe has gone to war in Afghanistan and various other places over the last decade has been courtesy of the An124. The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul less an unknown amount by C-17. Would be interested to know just how many sorties and with what payload the C-17 has operated?

The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....

Yours
Lybid

bootscooter

10th Apr 2002, 22:41

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but;
BEagle; just let the products compete on their own merit and to hell with politics and governmental meddling.

Absolutely, old chap, can't say fairer than that! Show me a more successful project, in terms of aims acheived, than the RAF C-17, in the recent past.

Lybid; Surely the fact that the extended hours now being used by he C-17 just prove its usefulness. The expense must surely be down to the fact that the a/c were leased as a short term solution to a problem NOW. The cost now reflects the speed at which the implementation system (both training and supply) has been addressed.
"The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul.." just simply isn't true. Fact.

Another fact is that the C-17 is here, now, and has been doing the job to a level far above any body's expectations for many months. I believe that if we were to buy the things now, then the costs (long term) would reduce greatly.

Who would have bet the enourmous sum of money involved, on having aircraft delivered, and crews trained, within a year of our political masters making the descision to obtain them, with any other of the consortiums?
Surely the C-17 purchase price can be negotiable, after all, what better advert is there than for the 1st foreign user to BUY some, after such a relatively short period in service.

bitsleftover

10th Apr 2002, 23:58

The RAF C-17s have been the most successful intro into service in RAF history. They are flying almost daily into Kabul and more besides. This is all despite the still extreme learning curve that all on 99 are on. The aircraft is selling itself, hence the constant demand and the overrun on its predicted usage.

opso

11th Apr 2002, 19:05

Lybid said:
I hear the UK C-17s have exceeded their expensive lease hours and are now presumably in the 'even more expensive' category so the MOD is following the most cost-effective airlift solution for Afghanistan and chartering An124s..... Hmmmmm..

You hear wrong; the C17 has not exceeded the lease hours yet - even the RAF contract team couldn't have bought so few hours that we could burn 5 years' worth in a year! UK PLC is still well within the hours already bought on the lease. However, it is true to say that they are operating well over their target because demand for their capability is so high and, that as a result, the bought hours are not going to last anywhere near the five years of the lease. Not even close.

The number of hours burnt also has nothing to do with the decision to charter An-124s. That call is because the total tonnage of frt needed to sustain so many peacekeepers, an increasingly significant war fighting force and maintain APOD/FMBs for ourselves and other nations - remember that we are still the lead nation - is so high that there is no way that the 4 ac of 99 Sqn could achieve it. In fact, with more personnel, 99 Sqn could increase the flow rate and PJHQ would gladly take the additional lift at the expense of the charter companies who are charging a fortune - more than the C-17 costs per kg delivered!

Also:
Would be interested to know just how many sorties and with what payload the C-17 has operated?

The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....

Unfortunately, whilst I know the answers to both of those questions only too well, I have not yet seen them in the public domain and so can't share them with you. If I see the figures accurately reported somewhere, I will be only too happy to cross-post to here. However, the bulk of the UK deployment has not been by An-124, but by a variety of RAF AT, C-17 included. Please remember that a lot of the An-124 flights in to theatre have been for other ISAF contributing nations. I'd happily believe that the bulk of the total airlift has been by An-124, but I KNOW that this is not the case for the UK kit.

As for the DAS issue - the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. Also, because of the most adavanced nav kit on the charter An-124s over Afghanistan being a window, they demanded day slots so that they could find the airfield, as did a number of the other nations. The night slots were all that the UK was left with for a time and unsurprisingly, the ac with the best nav kit are also the ones with DAS. Further than that I'm not willing to discuss on an open forum.

robspottydog

11th Apr 2002, 19:19

The C17 is the best aeroplane we've never owned, not a criticism, just a fact. It is monotonously reliable, enormously useful and the crews are slogging their guts out. I hope that the contract folk don't screw it up, or it will leave service before the venerable Vickers 'Whisper Jet' :cool:

4rackets

11th Apr 2002, 23:40

Lybid - You are so far off the mark it is simply funny!!!!! You don't have the faintest idea about the facts of the matter.

Opso has quite rightly put the facts straight as far as is possible on this public forum. The C-17 is still within hours, is doing a first class job and may become the platform of choice for more than just a few more countries around the world.

An124 - Well, where do I start? Field performance, tearing up tyres like nobodys business. And at vast expense to the taxpayer every time it flys, which is far, far less than C-17.

Lybid - please stop posting until you know what you're talking about.

Roll on C-17!!!

Lybid

12th Apr 2002, 00:55

bootscooter
My quote
Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive.
Unquote

I was not knocking the C-17. The point that wrankles with the Antonov lobby is the distorted acquisition programme which allowed Hoon to let legitimate bidders waste their time and effort proposing an An124 solution which met the specified UK requirement but Hoon was never going to go for. That is all water under the bridge.

My request for some govt/any govt was that the UK got itself into a ridiculous procurement situation where it has forced itself into a lease which will ultimately cost more than buying the aeroplanes. That is just not rational.

Now to my knowledge the An124s have carried lots of cargo for the UK, plus the contingents from France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands. By my count that seems to cover most of the European contributions other than the UK.

Bitsleftover
No argument - its a great aeroplane. But if the rest of Europe is struggling with increasing military commitments and reducing defence budgets then how are they going to afford them the C-17s and C130Js that Boeing/Lockheed want their govt to lobby for on their behalf? As BEagle was quoted, let there be an objective assessment. If you do so then Germany has already selected the An70, but the objective assessment was overruled by the politicians. More capable aeroplane at a lower price than the A400M. The UK has already made its own decision about the C-17 and that is a lost cause. But to lobby expensive US products into a market that cannot afford them seems crazy.

Opso
You disagree at the beginning of the paragraph and then agree at the end. I would interpret what you write as meaning that the annual hours are being exceeded as I presumed and the MOD is hoping that things will quieten down so that the later years can be run at less than the average yearly rate so that the 7 years total stays within the hours bought. Its all a matter of presentation and whether pigs have wings..

I really wasnt expecting any answers to my questions on sorties and payloads.

Quote
'the charter companies...both hiked their prices..'
Unquote
To the best of my knowledge the UK has an enabling contract with a broker, Air Partner, (choosing to add commission to the taxpayers expenditure for some inexplicable reason) who use Volga Dnepr at a pitifully low fixed rate. Antonov Airlines has not, to my knowledge, done any UK outbound cargo having consistently quoted a more rational hourly rate. It has, however carried some cargo back at a substantially lower cost than was otherwise available.
An equivalent C5, when they were available, would have cost about 12,000 usd/hr ACMI plus DOCs of about 6k/hr giving total 18k usd/hr. My understanding is that the VDA ACMI rate is marginally more than half the ACMI rate of the equivalent US aeroplane. c.f. B747 ACMI rate around 5-6k if you need a reference point.
I have difficulty with your assertion about the cost per kg without knowing which set of numbers you might be using. Assuming that it is the programme lifetime cost used by Mr Hoon then the C-17 aircraft hours must cost at least 100% more than An124 and assuming the C-17 is carrying 55t to which it was supposedly restricted by the lease agreement and the An124 is carrying 80 tons in order to carry round trip fuel, then you can do the comparison and you will understand my puzzlement.

Quote
'...the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. '
Unquote

An undeserved jibe, Opso. Perhaps mine was also. Consider it unreservedly withdrawn. Bear in mind the civil operators of any nationality have supported the military for many a year. Yes its business. Its how these operators, Evergreen, Southern, HeavyLift in its day, Safair etc as well as our Russian and Ukrainian friends make their money so that they are around for the next time you need them. Dont knock it.

Daytime slots had nothing to do with nav equipment, the An124 is as well equipped as any other large transport. But it cannot operate in mountainous terrain with no navaids. But you will have seen no British civil operators in Kabul as they were unable to operate into an airfield with no ATC, no fire cover etc. Its those untrustworthy Russians and Ukrainians whose teams from their Dept of Transport did an evaluation of Kabul and gave exemptions for their operators to work there. I didnt see any CAA Flight Ops Inspectors hitting the road to Kabul.

Before anyone else loses slates from their roof, let me repeat, I am not knocking the C-17. Its a great aeroplane. My original point was the presumption by the US that Europe does not have an option and the blindness of most on this side of the Atlantic in failing to see that the An124, and IL76 for that matter, have been the mainstays of European military airlift for the last decade.

Stirring the pot, as ever.

Lybid

Lybid

12th Apr 2002, 01:01

4rackets

Welcome.
Did I really get you so wound up that you had to register to tell me so..?

There is a rational discussion in here somewhere... I just can't quite remember where we left it.

Yours

Lybid

Lybid

12th Apr 2002, 01:04

and then again..

the subject of this thread is the A400M and if that programme falls by the wayside then the obvious alternative, currently entering production, is the An70.

Yours
Lybid
:) :) :)

lids

13th Apr 2002, 06:05

A word about the C130k crews. Bearing in mind this is an open forum I would like to correct Lybid. With very little publicity the C130 k and I stress K crews have been doing a remarkable job in Afghanistan, surviving some very serious incidents in an airframe that is quite frankly shockingly short of defensive equipment. With very little support from our senior officers i hope that one day their efforts will be recognized.

Mike RO'Channel

13th Apr 2002, 12:14

Gentlemen

Please take care about what you say!

VMT for compliance

:eek:

BEagle

13th Apr 2002, 14:21

Quite right, Mike R'O. opso - suggest a bit of editing might be in order, mate.

My comparison of An70 v A400M was wholly derived from open source material - Flug Revue on line. Personally I think that the A400M will actually be more employable than the C-17 would in RAF service under current operating rules. The ac lies somewhere between C130J and C-17 in terms of capabilities, there is always the prospect of occasional charter of An124 or even An225 for certain very specific loads - but otherwise the payload/range, tactical employment and flexibility offered by the numbers of A400M compared to the more expensive but fewer C17 airframes will probably facilitate a better overall capability.

Whichever way, An124/225 apart, I just hope that we'll stop seeing these decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft operated by bottom-of-the-market 'flag of convenience' orgainsations on our bases. Known in the 'trade', I understand, as 'tramp steamers'!

Lybid

14th Apr 2002, 23:38

Oh dear, BEagle
I thought a glimmer of the rational argument had returned and then you threw in the 'tramp steamer' remark! How could you?

On the rational argument. This thread is about the A400M which is a European project for an aeroplane to meet a defined European spec. The question is, what happens if the A400M project fails to come to fruition for any reason? One would presume that the nearest alternative aircraft would substitute assuming that it met the spec. Lets not forget that this is for a ~200 aircraft European requirement and not just the UK.

In this case, my last comment holds true that the An70 is within a cats whisker of the FLA spec and outperfoms it on every parameter. At a price which might be conjectured to be around the 50million usd mark with western equipment then its cheaper than the A400M, the German MOD evaluation was that "The An70 is technically, operationally and financially better for Germany than the A400M", hence the argument going on in Germany. And at that price you could have at least 4 x An70 for every 1 x C-17 thereby carrying out four missions simultaneously or carrying about 150tons to one destination instead of 55 (or 76 tons if the limitations are ever removed).

The UK is obviously sold on the C-17 with the only difficulty being the number of airframes to fulfill simultaneous tasks as identified by BEagle. However, in a Europe in which the politicians are driving on towards further military cooperation, then the sharing of resources is something which is inevitable and in the greater scheme of a European requirement, there is sense in a larger C-17 fleet being operated by the RAF while smaller aircraft of the A400M/An70 size are provided by other European nations, once they have got their hands on them! In the spirit of compromise, and getting your hands on what you want, I am sure that the RAF would accept some task sharing with Europe if it justified getting more C-17s for the RAF and without the operational limitations imposed by the lease. Politically, this also puts the UK in charge of European foreign policy. Mr Bliar simply refuses to provide the airlift if he does not like the policy desired by the rest of Europe.

A European fleet comprising of the right mix of C-17s from the UK for the larger loads and An70 for multiple tasking makes sense for organic airlift on the balance sheet.

That leaves two questions. What to do in the meantime, and what to do about surge requirements? The answer is to go on doing what the UK and all other nations all over the world have been doing for the last decade which is to charter the An124.

The problem always arises with surge requirements when there is never enough airlift and then the An124 comes into its own carrying more cargo over greater distances than anything else in the inventory. (and every pilot can be confident that the wings don't fall off like Lockheed products). Whoops! sorry, Lids, reference is to C5 re-winging and C141 wings falling off on the ground c.f. robust structure of Antonov products - no reference to the C130.

The 'packaging' of the product to provide greater compatibility with NATO standards both in the cockpit and in its product support is a relatively minor issue which could be managed in the manner proposed by the An124 bid in STSA. But that is only ever going to come about after the order is placed for some specified service. We cannot expect the likes of Antonov to invest the sort of sums required on spec, especially after they have won the objective analysis of two European procurement processes in the UK and Germany and then been turned over by the politicians.

Lids
I never said a word against the C130 or any of its crews. The point I was making was about the demonstration of willingness to commit shown by the operators and crews of civil aircraft which have no DAS at all and whose political environment counted against them in some quarters in the STSA process.

BEagle
Pleased to see you seperate the An124/225 from your comment about 'decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft '.
There is nothing decrepit about the An124, or the IL76 for that matter. Bl**dy good aeroplanes, especially for the task for which they were designed. To improve the level of understanding by our dear reader(s), both Antonov Airlines and Volga Dnepr have been audited by the UK CAA and have been judged to have operating standards equivalent to those required under JAR OPs and both are designated as national cargo flag carriers so the 'flag of convenience' does not refer to them either.

Tramp steamers? Well, if not often going to the same place twice, (except Kabul of course), is called 'tramping', then you could be right. Alternatively, you could call it providing customer service as required.

Yours

Lybid

BEagle

15th Apr 2002, 06:40

Tovarich Lybid - sorry that you didn't like the 'tramp steamer' comment - it's a bit of a personal thing, I'm afraid. A certain cheapo Il-76 operating airline caused over £40K worth of damage to property at a Secret Airbase in mid-England and, despite this being witnessed, are refusing to admit liability! Not, I hasten to add, our friends at Volga-Dnepr or Antonov Airlines.... I've seen countless incidents of dangerous operation displayed by some 'flag of convenience' operators - ridiculously fast taxying, barely comprehensible RT, unapproved runway entry.... Not just from former Soviet bloc operators, but from cheap and nasty outfits operating Western aircraft under contract.

An70 is indeed a good competitor to A400M - but I don't think that there's a cat in hell's chance of the politicians accepting the loss in jobs that would result if A400M were ditched in favour of it.

Lybid

15th Apr 2002, 21:47

BEagle

..on the nail. Politics!
Whatever happened to objective assessment?

Of course no one will ditch the A400M in favour of anything else. The same way that the UK will not kill the A400M by turning away as it has threatened to do so many times and the RAF would so dearly like to happen so that it can convert the C-17 lease into a purchase. 'Must have A400M contract by 31 Dec..etc ..or else..

No, the political blame would then settle on the UK and that would never do. The only possibility is if it dies of inertia and the German constitutional wrangle was the best bet of that happening. Now there seems to have been the usual political back room deal done with the Greens so they have withdrawn their constitutional objections and the political fudge has been spread over the cracks again. Oh well..

Yours aye,

Lybid

ORAC

15th Apr 2002, 23:34

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - APRIL 17, 2002

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

Partners confident of April order for A400M transport
J A C LEWIS JDW Correspondent
Paris

A firm order for a first batch of Europe's new A400M transport aircraft is likely to be placed later this month by the armaments agency representing the eight European nations buying the airlifter, according to the French Ministry of Defence.

Gen Alain Raevel, a ministry spokesman, said French Defence Minister Alain Richard signed a letter on 10 April concerning Germany's funding of 73 A400Ms, and that ministers from the other seven partner nations were doing likewise.

He said the letter was tantamount to a final contract. "In principle, it will clear the way for [Europe's arms procurement agency] OCCAR to place a firm order for a first batch of A400Ms by the end of April," he said, adding: "Nothing now will stand in the way of the process."

The OCCAR agency is to manage the $18 billion project under which Airbus Military SAS will build 196 A400Ms. First deliveries of the aircraft are due for mid-2008.

An initial contract for the A400M programme was signed on 18 December 2001, but the project ran into difficulties when the German Parliament approved funding for 40 aircraft, but refused to fully commit to buying 33 more at this time. A compromise on the issue was reached in late March (Jane's Defence Weekly 2 April).

Lybid

19th Apr 2002, 08:02

Sorry to be 'off message' but thought you might find this interesting. (Or at least in the same ball park)

From the Moscow Times

*** Prague Gives the An-70 a Big Lift
The An-70 military transport aircraft, rejected by NATO member-states in favor of the yet-to-be built A400M, has now got at least one NATO customer—and perhaps a new lease on life.
In a deal to settle Russia’s Soviet-era debt, the Czech Republic will take delivery of three An-70s by the end of 2005 or early 2006 as part of an effort to re-arm its military.
The agreement was signed late Tuesday along with 14 other contracts to settle the last $1.1 billion portion of Russia‘s debt.
“We have managed to get rid of one of the most important obstacles and resolved the debt problem,“ Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told businessmen at the Russian Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. “Now we are entering another stage of not only economic but also cultural, political and even military cooperation.“
Zeman said the Czech government had picked the An-70 at the recommendation of its military, but refused to elaborate.
For the An-70, a joint project between Russia and Ukraine that had touted itself as a plane for Europe but was rejected in 2000, the decision could be a vote of confidence.
The An-70 is a medium-haul, short take-off military transport aircraft that can carry up to 35 tons of cargo and fly up to 5,000 kilometers nonstop.
Leonid Terentyev, head of An-70 maker Medium-Transport Aircraft Consortium, said in a recent interview that he had been negotiating for some time with the Czech Defense Ministry over the jets.
The first An-70 aircraft are to roll off the production line in 2004 for service in both the Russian and Ukrainian air forces. Russia is expected to buy 164 aircraft by 2018, and Ukraine could take 65. Prague is the first foreign customer.
Terentyev said he hopes the plane, which is being built at the Polyot plant in Omsk, will find more foreign customers than just the Czech Republic.

Lybid

BEagle

19th Apr 2002, 18:20

What utter common sense from those very nice folk in the Czech Republic! I've only been there once - a couple of years after the velvet revolution - but we had a terrific time and they couldn't have been friendlier. I'll never forget the invitation we had at Hradec Kralove; " The Commander in Chief of the Czech Republic invites you to a hangar party, including (etc etc)...a striptease show. (Which featured some gorgeous young ladies - shame they received 'airshow zaps' quite so quickly!). Can't quite see "Air Chief Marshal Sir Hardly B£oody-Worthitt invites you to a strip show" being allowed in the PC-misery land of the UK!!

The question I would pose to the A400M sales mob is simple, Brian: "Please explain why you consider that the A400M is a significantly better alternative to the An70 which has already been selected by another NATO member, particularly when interoperability is such a key consideration"

ORAC

24th Apr 2002, 20:53

AWST 22 April:

"Britain has signed off on the A400M military airlifter Common Agreement, which covers German funding and penalty details. Contract go-ahead is anticipated by the end of the month".

Which means either the UK has caved in over any possible cost inplications or the German government has lied to the Greens.

Cynically, I'd put my money on a UK backdown, with any cost implications of a (the) German order reduction being borne by the present RAF budget.

I would love to be proved wrong.

steamchicken

24th Apr 2002, 21:21

Don't worry about the Greens - the current Key personalities in German politics are as follows. Gerhard Schröder - Socialist prime minister, wants the aeroplanes. The Big Man. His main election point is that he is the big swinging dick. Joschka Fischer - Foreign Minister. Parliamentary leader of the Greens. He agrees with Schröder's agenda - that is, that Germany is a normal country and can take part in the "Concert of Powers", or as it is now called, the international community. He managed to take his party with him on German involvement in Afghanistan. Possibly the strongest leadership figure in German politics, certainly a future chancellor. Edmund Stoiber - head of the Bavarian hard-right CSU party. Chosen by their ally, the conservative CDU, as top candidate. Right-wing to the point of pain, but restricted by the CDU's moderation. Would certainly buy the aeroplanes.

Banggearo

29th Apr 2002, 13:13

The plot thickens - according to a German press agency the financial penalties for the Germans, if they do not buy their full quota of Ac, are still in place. Rudolph Scharping, the German Defence Minister, has been accused, by the opposition parties, of misleading Parliament, leading to calls for his resignation. The fact that the obligations are still in place would seem to have been confirmed by Brigitte Schulte, a Minister in the German Defence Department who stated that the indemnities were in accord with international practices.

What next??? this is better than a Lynda La Plant Thriller!!!!

BEagle

30th Apr 2002, 18:26

Having seen the very latest gen on the A400M's capabilities, you will be pleased to know that it's going to be a very capable aeroplane indeed. I shall do some private number crunching in the next few days, but my initial assessment is that in just one of its role applications it will offer very reasonable AAR trail potential, probably as good as the VC10 in 'West of Suez' applications! Unless you're a passenger though - but there'll be other ways of shifting the talking freight!

propulike

30th Apr 2002, 21:39

I'm sure the A400M always looked good on paper! But then Eurofighter was going to beat son of Flanker, the Nimrod AEW was going to be better than Boeing's offering, and the J Herc was going to do everything in the world with a crew of none.

I wonder what it will be like after all the options are removed, to be purchased in 'the next fiscal cycle'.

Not that I'm cynical or anything.....

BEagle

1st May 2002, 07:26

Now that we're in the era of CAD/CAM, I know that the A400M is lurking in Airbooooos Mil's computer just waiting for the moment that someone is authorised to go 'File - Print' or rather 'File - Build'!

The payload-range contours have improved significantly since the last brochure as has the performance envelope; importantly it can now easily achieve 300 KIAS at FL 220 in the AAR role which will now make it entirely adequate for use as a tanker with up to 62 tonnes of fuel. But it will also be able to do a whole load of other things as well such as tactical airlift, strategic air lift, air drop.... Hence it will be a very useful ac with a whole host of applications and will enjoy A380 technology - several generations advanced on C-17 technology, incidentally - including some very Gucci avionics. Although it can't match C-17 for payload-range and 767K or A330K as a strategic AT/AAR aeroplane, it will be able to match considerable areas of these aeroplanes' flight envelopes in the one airframe.

I think that the RAF will definitely like it - and if all the A400M squadrons are trained in all TS, AT and AAR roles, it'll be a very enjoyable and rewarding challenge for future RAF pilots to meet.

...and personally I'd send the whole damn C130J fleet back to LM and demand my money back! Then buy even more A400Ms. But it needs a name - 'Bristol Bureaucrat' is perhaps rather too harsh?

Gainesy

1st May 2002, 08:00

Hmm...It should get a Queen's Award to Industry for Services to Brochure Printers if nothing else.

EESDL

1st May 2002, 08:38

Beags, you've changed your tune!
Is it really you, or has British Waste-A-Space cobbled together a drone (sorry - a Clone:-))?

Apart from a couple of specialised frames, do you really think that there is a significant requirement for an ac with such TS cabilities? This forum has discussed the future of para-dropping, low-level drops etc...........SKE - don't make me laugh.
Our fine SF chaps will be given some C130 'J-okes' and they will make them work - they will be told too!!

Agree, send the 'J' back, scrap them, sell them to Romania, give them to our Full Time Reservists (ANG-style), anything but fool ourselves that we haven't been sold a dud!

After witnessing the capabilities of the C-17 first-hand - bring them on.

Useless fact time: To date, we've spent enough on Antonov charter to purchase , outright, 1.5 C-17s (the half could be used as a procedures trainer) Author: visiting bod who is soon to retire.

Does anybody think that the A400M will be used as it should be? Or will it be used like we've abused the Herc?

Must go, off to Akronelli (Is that Strat or Tac AT?)

Lionel Lion

1st May 2002, 17:56

Beagle,

Looking at the date/time of your post, didn't get offered a job by a certain man yesterday did you? Chief of A400M spin for you perhaps? Or how about the A400 Pprune officer? You could push the A330K case too as a secondary duty:p :p :p

The Gorilla

1st May 2002, 18:55

Beagle,

Yes, I remember 14 years ago the J model catalog looked superb with its swish specs and nice promises. And indeed the Royal Air Farce did like it, as witnessed by the huge number of ex senior officers who now work for Lockheed!!

Tha A400M is still but a dream, just like Nimrod MRA4. Unfortunately we need Strat and Tac aircraft today, not 6 to 9 years from now!!

If we don't procure something fast then we are going to have big problems in the forthcoming big show!!

Still never stopped us before has it!! I know, I have a cunning plan. Lets make the J model do Tac, lets set an attrition rate of say 4 aircraft and crews (well it is dangerous isn't it??) I reckon that should give us about 9 to 12 months to play with.
Problem solved any one for dinner. Baahh

BEagle

1st May 2002, 22:36

No, Lionel - the timing was down to my late return home after doing my civil ME MPA IR Skill Test yesterday. I have been looking at A400M since the days of 'solution 10' when it was truly a crock of $hit. By the time they'd hardened the spec the payload range and, more importantly for the AAR role, the flight envelope had improved dramatically - and that's the only reason I've changed my tune!

It'll probably be the only RAF ME aeroplane which will have state-of-the-art avionics and will also be fun to fly. I had a prowl around the mock-up several years ago and the cargo area is vastly better than a C130Junk. But it won't be as comfy for self-loading freight as it will be to travel in the 767K....oops, I mean FSTA.

RoboAlbert

2nd May 2002, 15:37

‘The only RAF ME aeroplane which will have state-of-the-art avionics and will also be fun to fly’

Hang on - I already fly it!

BEagle

4th May 2002, 19:39

Sorry - I was talking about modern aeroplanes. Not that 'new wine in old skin' thing known as C130J....

J is for Joke? Or should that be Junk.......or Just another 1960s era Hercules tarted up with some 1990s avionics?

Will it cruise at 300 KIAS at FL 220? How about M0.72 at FL 370??

Lybid

4th May 2002, 22:39

Well BEagle
Looks like flack jacket and hard hat for you...
Want to borrow mine..?

Yours
Lybid

RoboAlbert

5th May 2002, 10:37

As we’re quoting old sayings Beagle…

'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me…'

– wot’s wrong Beagle was you bullied by Herc pilots as a child?

BEagle

5th May 2002, 11:47

No. Absolutely no quibbles with my fellow aviators - but no high opinion of the way LM sold this pup to HMFC! I have far more faith in AirbusM delivering than in any promise from LM....

Understand that one of the senior ex-RAF officers who used to work for LM was alleged to have resigned in disgust. "Because I'm not prepared to tell lies for you lot any more" was the unofficial quote. Would there have been a 130J if politics at Atlanta hadn't got in the way of its cancellation? I very much doubt it.

...and the cruise speed of the 130J at FL 370 is......??

RoboAlbert

5th May 2002, 13:16

eerr irrelevant

It isn’t a strategic transport ac, nor is it meant to be. Why do you insist on comparing two completely different ac types, designed for different jobs? One of the arguments presented for closing Lyneham was that an A400M couldn’t get airborne of the main runway at max AUM – very tactical.

In addition, I also found your comments about LM’s alleged dishonesty charmingly naive – do you really think any manufacturer could be trusted 100%. The untruths will just be delivered with a different accent.

By the way if your interested it’s only a short drive to the secret airbase in Wiltshire if you ever wish to fly with us and attain a more informed viewpoint. I’ll show you where the troop oxygen lives.

Banggearo

5th May 2002, 14:26

Beags

if we're going for a pi$$ing contest then mine cruises at 350 KIAS at FL220, cruises at .8 up to FL 450 and has state of the art avionics and is damned good fun to fly. It can also carry over twice the payload of an A400M further than the A400M and can then land on less than 3000' of dirt, but enough about mine!

My point is to say that the J model and the A400m were not designed for the Strat role so to argue for the merits of one over the other in this role is irrelevant. Of would be if we had a Government that bought Ac to do a specific job instead of to try to be a jack of all trades. I hate to say it but I do agree with EESDL in that if we do buy the A400M it will be largely used in the Strat role, as the J model is now. What we should do IMHO is by all means argue the to$$ about the A400/J in the tactical enviroment. We can then decide whether to keep the J or hand it back and buy A400M, so keeping a TacAT fleet of 25 Ac and with the money saved from not buying 50 Ac buy 10 C-17s who can do the Strat role and are also more than capable of Tac airland Ops and even airdrop should the requirement be there. We do not need more than 25 true TacAT Ac to fulfill our role, and all of the follow on Ops requirements could be accomplished by C-17.(As lead Tac AT Capt I had far less than this number to play with)

As to the A400M/J model Tactical argument, I do not have the insider knowledge on the J model so cannot really comment on which is better. However my concern is that the A400 still resides in a computer and I agree with Gorilla that if you looked back at the Lockeed brochures 10 yrs ago you would have been suitably impressed with the capabilities of the new C-130J. Furthermore while Airbus are still putting their Ac into production, Lockeed will be (should be??) fixing a lot of the problems with the J model in terms of avionics, software etc.

:cool: :cool:

BEagle

5th May 2002, 17:31

Certainly the C-17 is mighty fine and hugely capable - but very expensive. Perhaps it'll be a case of a few very capable but expensive aircraft versus more but less expensive and perhaps more efficient aircraft? I doubt whether 99 will be very keen to return their C-17s when A400M comes along though, no matter how good it is....

The overlapping capabilities of C-17, A400M, FSTA and 130J make this whole business difficult to assess - especially when both C-17 lease and FSTA PFI are added to the equation. And if A400M were to be used in the AAR role either on towlines or trails significantly often, what effect might that have on the whole FSTA saga? For example, on a CAP support task at around 250nm from base supporting 6 F3s, which ac offers the greater time on task - VC10 or A400M? Perhaps the retention of 5 or 6 C-17s might be more easily justifiable if A400M were to be used more in multiple roles and 130J/K phased out altogether - and PFI FSTA 'augmented' by the A400M's AAR capability to avoid the call-up cost of non-AAR assigned FSTAs from the service provider?

But why is 130J being used chiefly as a strategic asset if it's as good as Robo would suggest? To give it something it can do - or because there's no alternative?

I shall have a look at the brochure specs for A400M balanced field when I'm back at work - certainly if it couldn't take-off at Max AUM at Lyneham it would be somewhat surprising. Incidentaly, I note that the engine power has gone up again in the latest brochure - by about 10% - and there are other flight envelope and performance improvements as well. But you're right to state that it's still only a paper aeroplane at present - hopefully that'll change before too long though.

Banggearo

5th May 2002, 18:18

The J has not been used for Tac AT as it is a brand new Ac . This was always going to be the case long before the Ac arrived at Lyneham, I would imagine that this will be the same for the A400. I can't see that going straight into the tactical enviroment when/if it arrives, can you? As to the cost of the C-17, I don't have the exact costs but they are in the region of double the cost of an A400M (slightly Over I think), but gives us at least double the capability hence my argument for a TacAT fleet of 25 ish Js/400Ms and 10-12 C-17s.

BEagle

5th May 2002, 19:05

Banggearo

5th May 2002, 19:19

granted and I suppose I am looking at it like the owner of a fleet of Aston Martins, Which are fantastic cars but can I justify all of them for going shopping with the kids etc as well as taking it on "the Grand Tour" to the South of France. However I do feel the C-17 has a place in our Air Force. As to the J/A400M debate, sadly until the Ac is built we'll never know for sure which is the better system and by then it will all be too late to do anything about it anyway. A bit defeatist I know but too many other programs/ac debacles (inc intro of J Model) have beaten it all out of me

BEagle

5th May 2002, 20:06

But, to be fair, the biggest delay to the A400M program has been political vaccillation chiefly centred around the funding issue. Particularly in Germany! The basic technical specs have been firmed up for quite a while now - although the stated engine power has increased recently - and I'm certain that a basic airframe would be flying reasonably quickly after the go-ahead is given....? Avionics and systems design have benefitted from parallel work on A380 plus the many hundreds of A319/320/321/330/340 aircraft already in service with the airlines.

Your Aston Martin parallel is most apt!

Biggus

5th May 2002, 20:32

BEagle

Just admit the fact that you are so "sold" on the A400M that you will not be convinced otherwise by even the most logical of arguements. Banggearo was not advocating not buying the A400M, but rather a mixture of C-17s for Strat airlift and C-130J/A400M for Tac/(Strat if you must) airlift. Sounds very sensible to me!!

As for "Twice the cost and twice the capability is fine - if you want all that capability in the same place at the same time! But if you want some here and some there, the flexibility of the A400M would seem to be the better solution?"

Well, first of all we only fight wars (sorry - conflicts) in one part of the world at a time - we don't have the assets to do otherwise! So most AT assets will be going to the same place. Secondly do you know how many C-130J/A400M/C-17 "chalks" (see, I know buzz words too) it takes to move ONE FJ Sqn, or all the toilet rolls 1700 marines need! Lots. We needed massive amounts of military "stuff" (another buzzword!!) in one place, e.g Ascension, Pristina, Sierra Leone, Kabal, in all recent conflicts. Yes there might be occasions when small individual loads are going to specific locations and a C-17 would be too big, but a A400M would probably be too big as well!!! Bring back the Andover (joke!).

A mixture of Strategic airlift, probably C-17s but it doesn't have to be (concentration of effort - one of the maxims of warfare!), and a smaller more tactical aircraft, would be the best option, and actually offer the most FLEXIBILITY which you seem so keen on.

By the way I AM NOT A C-17 (or C-130J) OPERATOR, just someone with an opinion that can recognise a logical argument (well done Banggearo). Also, as I am sure you can all tell I have not done ISS and cannot spell!

Now hunkering down on basis I have upset BEagle, one of the most prolific Ppruners.

PS To be accurate the C-130J and C-17 do not have state of the art avionics, they have "modern" avionics. The same will occur with the A400M. If the A400M design was frozen tomorrow the RAF would not get its first one for 10 years, by which time its avionics would no longer be state of the art!!

PPS Admin Guru is a t**t, just had to get that in!

average pilot

5th May 2002, 21:04

Robo

Don't take it personally when the Klassic-lovers slag off the J. As you rightly imply, they've probably not seen it, let alone flown in it (properly, I mean). Nobody that's on it wants to go back to the old crate. Trouble is, the main problem with the J is that it is another Hercules, based on the old Truck but built by a company that doesn't give a t%$£ about the customer, as long as the $$$$$ keep flowing. It is however so so so much better than it's older brother, the ostriches just refuse to see it. As for the AN70, have any of you actually been on it?-I have, and you can keep it. The only reason the Germans are so keen on it is the fantastic price they were offered, so good infact that they sent it back so that the number of zeros could be confirmed. I personally hope that the A400M is a success and that a totally new-build aircraft that does not come from an established AT stable will offer something different to compliment the C130-J and C17 and thus give Europe a balanced AT capability. :Dvorsprung durch technik

Wappy Tupper

5th May 2002, 21:05

BEagle - But why is the C130J being used as a strategic asset...

Wake up and smell the coffee mate! The Herc has been used as a strategic asset since we bought the aircraft in 1966. Surely you've heard of the Changi slip. It is a credit to the thing that it has the flexibility to be used in both tac and strat roles, although admittedly it is better at one than the other.

Incidently, the J was never due to be tac capable at this stage in the program - yet again financial constraints have done us no favours.

BEagle

5th May 2002, 21:21

Thanks to everyone for continuing the debate. Some most interesting comments are emerging!

If the A400M design was frozen tomorrow, the RAF would get A380-generation avionics in it. Which would be nice!

mr ripley

5th May 2002, 21:42

Admit it Beags.

You're just sold on the A400M because you can foresee some great British European/US or Airbus/Boeing compromise on the FSTA and Herc RR Trance 2.

Talking up the A400M will not guarentee your beloved 767K.

BTW C130J looks good for Tac.

mr ripley:)

Banggearo

5th May 2002, 22:02

Twice the cost and twice the capability is fine - if you want all that capability in the same place at the same time! But if you want some here and some there, the flexibility of the A400M would seem to be the better solution?

If only it were just the cost of aircraft and maintenance, but remember twice the no of Ac means twice the number of crews to pay, house,train,keep current etc. Which also means at least 4x the number of blunties to adminster them and 6x the number of Air Officers to sit in their ivory towers and think up stupid surveys (that cost millions) to see where we can save tuppence happenny. Hence my advocacy of a mixed fleet, we don't want a fleet of montegos either, I should know I owned one!!!

The Gorilla

5th May 2002, 23:29

Beagle....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, to be fair, the biggest delay to the A400M program has been political vaccillation chiefly centred around the funding issue. Particularly in Germany! The basic technical specs have been firmed up for quite a while now - although the stated engine power has increased recently - and I'm certain that a basic airframe would be flying reasonably quickly after the go-ahead is given....?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an advanced Ppruner I have nothing but respect for you, Beags me old chuckles and I agree with a lot of your sentiment on this fine forum. BUT me thinks your are slightly off road here!!

Look at what you have written!! You are so pro A400M and FSTA/767 that you may well be accused of wearing rose tinted glasses, or a major shareholder in Airbus Industries..

The funding issue?? yeah right Ok. Once again the Germans have odered a huge number of aircraft in order to secure the lions share of the work!! Once the work/orders are secured they back out of their original orders. Any other projects gone the same way in the last 25 years??mmm!

The basic tech specs?? Oh yes C130J and MRA4 had the same going for them too!! Expensive brochures and promises look good, especially over an expensive dinner in an exotic location. I am sure that one airframe will be ready to fly, just like C130J and Nimrod 2009 BUT it doesn't happen does it?? Real life is so completely different!! Delays galore, changes to the original ASR etc etc. We have crap loads of promises about new procurements but if C130J is anything to go by, they are totally worthless.

And so far the A400M go ahead hasn't been given, no matter what the politicians may claim!!

The RAF needs TAC and Strat aircraft now, we can't afford to wait for some wishey washey Euro pipe dream to materialise.

:confused: :confused:

BEagle

6th May 2002, 07:36

Perhaps the chief flaw of the A400M is that everyone seems to think that it's just a C130 equivalent. I admit that I once said that 'FLA' merely stood for 'Funny Looking Albert'......

But it isn't. It will offer far more capability than any C130 but it isn't in the C-17 league.

Regarding 767K - yes, I am a big fan. I am not a fan of PPP/PFI. So, perhaps if we end up with a few C-17s for the 'carry lots and quickly' application, fewer KC-767s than currently assumed (but owned or leased as the C-17 is currently), a few remaining 130Js for intra-theatre tactical applications and a fleet of A400Ms for strategic AT, tactical AT when required, AAR trails and towlines when required (it offers a capability somewhere between the VC10C1K/K4 and the VC10K3 on a typical routine UK AARA task) and RW AAR, then we'd have the most flexible force mix? But that'd mean 4 ac types - C-17, KC-767, C130J and A400M rather than 3 (FTA, FSTA and C130J).... although currently we have 6 types and variants (C-17, TriStar, VC10CIK, VC10K3/4, C130J, C130K).

And Biggus - we really only have one 'war' in one place at one time, do we? Still garrisoning the South Atlantic, a presence in several locations in the Gulf, supporting Sierra Leone and, of course, Afghanistan. Hardly co-located.

Banggearo - a Montego?? Oh dear. It wasn't a diesel, I trust?

Biggus

6th May 2002, 09:43

BEagle

Yes, we do only fight "wars" in one part of the world at a time, which is what I believe I said. Indeed government policy and funding is based on that priniciple. That is not the same as "...we really only have one 'war' in one place at one time, do we?". You ought to be a politician with an ability to subtlety twist words like that.

To the best of my knowledge the Falklands "war" ended in 1982. You yourself state we are now "garrisoning the South Atlantic". How you can compare the AT requirements for the FI today with the airlift requirements at the height of the Falklands War I do not know. The same could be said for the Gulf War versus todays detachments in the Gulf (who do a superb and underated job with little recognition from UK plc). My point is, when we go in somewhere fresh/new to start an exciting new "war" (if anybody has seen it up close as opposed to 35,000ft they will know all wars are ugly and best avoided) we go in BIG! (how many An-124 loads went into Dakar for a relative small "war"). Therefore a strategic AT asset with a large load capacity is vital for the RAF.

The fact that the politicians are very poor at pulling out of all the places we have had a "war" in is a seperate discusion for a different thread and beyond my payscale! With regard to the more routine and predictable task of supporting "garrisons" and "after actions" (sorry guys - not meaning to belittle your efforts or the risks you take on a daily basis) you are simply arguing over the difference between, for example, using one C-17 a week or two A400Ms, quite frankly I can't lose any sleep over either option.

RoboAlbert

6th May 2002, 11:41

Sorry Beagle did I see you grudgingly admitting that there may be a place for the C-130J?:eek:

A number of people seem to have hit on an ideal mix:

A few C-17 for big moves and scheduled hub and spoke operations.

A400Ms playing a number of roles, including a mix of strategic and tactical jobs.

The C-130J doing what it will do best, tactical airlift and airdrop.

A mix of three types should not be too difficult to support, certainly if you look at what we have to keep flying at the moment. It would be flexible and most importantly allow us to use our airlift assets in the manner for which they were designed.

BEagle

6th May 2002, 11:44

Ah - if you're referring to just large scale war fighting operations, then I agree. But there are also medium scale ones, 'air policing', 'enforcement'....all of which may require AT/AAR support amongst other things. Yes, there may well be a need for 'a lot - and quickly', but there'll also be ongoing 'after actions' to support as you indicate; many of us have been back and forth to the Falklands many times ever since the C130, VC10 and TriStar first started going there and have certainly been detached to the Gulf pretty often since the end of the First Gulf War. The SA airlift requirements of today are indeed less than they were 20 years ago, but you can't support all your theatres at the same time if you've only got a few very large ac - even if, as with C-17, they're very effective. Even they can't be in 2 places at once!

The Gorilla

6th May 2002, 12:50

ROBO

And just how many C130J's do we have doing Tac airlift and airdrops right now then?? :p

Biggus

6th May 2002, 15:32

I am not advocating an all C-17 fleet, just that we need more than just an all A400M fleet. We should go for a sensible mixture of large load strategic aircraft (C-17 or whatever) and smaller more tactical aircraft (A400M or C-130J or whatever).

Indeed there appears to be consensus building amongst contributers to this thread that this is the best option!!

BEagle

6th May 2002, 16:45

Biggus - His verbis dictis, autem et ob has causas.....

C-17, A400M, KC-767 inter/intra theatre.....and 130J for the odd tactical intra-theatre task.

Seems about right?

Regards to Incontinentia Buttox!

RoboAlbert

6th May 2002, 17:02

Gorilla in answer to your question non…. but if you bother to read the words of Mr Wappy Tupper he’ll explain why.

PS your earlier comments about attrition rates are very funny – I’ll do a fly-by for your funeral smart boy.

The Gorilla

6th May 2002, 17:47

ROBO

Precious little chance of doing my funeral fly past in a J i'm afraid.

The good news is, that when we do lose the first few J's in the TAC environment, I won't have to put on my new number ones to attend any Flight Engineers funerals.

As for my remarks, well if you don't think that our Airships will come up with that solution to the current Kabul problem, then you clearly aren't in the same Air Farce as moi!!

The J model WILL be made to work in the Tac role, no matter how many lives it costs. Because thats the only way Air Officers who backed the project will not lose face!!:(

Biggus

6th May 2002, 19:35

BEagle

Seems about right!!

propulike

6th May 2002, 21:02

Gorilla, for heavens sake stop believing that the more you slate the 'J' the worse it will be! I'd love to say that the only reason the 'K' doesn't spear in at every opportunity at LL is because there's an engineer clogging up the flight deck, but the HFs are able to work on the hour every hour for nearlly useless QNHs without you.

The 'J' is more capable at the Strat role than the K already and will be v. v. good at the TAC role thank you very much as the trials are proving. (And as the WC-10 doesn't do going in the weeds I can't really take too much umbrance from BEagles comments although up 'til now I've quite respected his more impartial posts).

As for C-17s to do one job, dream-on about 767s for another, A400 for a bit more and the Hercs to mop up the rest, yup it'd work, but the ONE thing specified in the initial procurement forecast was that the RAF DIDN'T want to operate 3 aircraft types (namely C-17, FLA as it was then and C130-J), never mind the 4 we've all worked ourselves up to so far.

The perfect aircraft was always going to be a cheap C-17. Failing that, a Herc with a bigger freight bay (ie A400 but now) and some passenger things to do the non-military stuff.

Wappy Tupper

6th May 2002, 21:10

Wrong again, Gorilla

The J will work in the tac environment, not because it will be forced to but due to the fact that:

The boys at Lyn are working their nuts off despite poor funding and a ridiculously short timescale.

The kit on board the aircraft makes it safer than any Flt Eng I've ever flown with.

BEagle

6th May 2002, 21:37

Perhaps - just as a single type works just fine for OS and AD?

Although the FTA is supposed to meet all strategic and tactical AT requirements and FSTA is supposed to meet our future AAR needs (and some limited AT), the truth is that no matter how good our STSA is, it is only a Short Term solution. But the need for C-17 scale capability has been proved - so it'd be a brave person who assumed that this need could be taken over entirely by A400M.

Tranche 2 of the 130 replacement and most of FTA could be met by A400M which could also offer a very useful AAR role. Having bought 130J, it makes obvious sense to try to make it work as it was supposed to all along. If you include FSTA, then that still makes 4 types..........which is fewer than at present!

propulike

6th May 2002, 22:34

The need for C-17 style capability was proven well before the first Antanov charter! However, and this is heresy I know for an operator, there is no point having a fleet with both 130J AND A400M.

The 130J is an extremely capable aircraft with excellent modern avionics, and has the benefit of already being in service with more capabilities being introduced via the RtoS almost weekly. The A400 has all this to go through, after the political wrangling is complete, and will also arrive with no TAC clearances etc etc. However; the A400 will have a bigger boot! And the whole point of the aircraft is to fit in the loads that the RAF/Army/Navy want to put on board. If the A400 comes on line and Lyneham is shut (bl@@dy he!!, heresy pt2) the only reason to keep the ‘J’ would be the cost of re-training crews to operate another type if the ‘J’ were sold. (And before the uneducated get going, by that point the ‘J’ will have proven itself even to you as well as other buyers.) There is no point having 2 aircraft with such overlapping roles!

Given that we can’t afford flying suits never mind C-17s but still need tanker/troop transport, that’s 2 types.

The Brown Bottle

7th May 2002, 05:13

Just a thought chaps. Our colonial chums have gone "firm" on 180 C17s and are currently trying to up to 220. Looking goodfor it too. This means the cost is only going to come down, quite substantially I'd imagine. What, traditionally happens to the cost of Euro ventures? It would not be inconcievable for the prices to end up close, even, embarrassingly for the C17 to be cheaper. Besides who on earth in their right mind would swap the very busy and capable a/c they have now for something inferior? It makes no sense.:confused:

BEagle

7th May 2002, 17:46

RoboAlbert - re your allegation concerning the A400M take-off performance, under JAR 25 at normal MTOM of 126.5T, the ac requires a balanced field length of 5500 ft at ISA+15, sea level, hard wet runway. Which would indicate that the RW at Lyneham should be long enough.

Mind you, getting an ac with a large T-tail and an overall height of 48 ft 3 in into one of those funny little hangars over there might prove difficult.........

ORAC

8th May 2002, 06:21

I'm just curious. Since they rejected the planned engine because it could not guarantee to meet the perfromance requirement, and a decision on which of the new paper engines being proposed will not be made till next month, how any one can be so precise in the figures?

And, of course, any new engine is a risk. Take, as an example, the PW6000, which is slipping to the right as it continues to exceed guaranteed fuel performance figures by around 6%.

I believe the PW6000 shares a common technology core with the PW800, which provides the core of their proposed engine for the A400M.......

ORAC

8th Jul 2002, 15:55

Delayed again.

AWST:

The German parliamentary budget committee on July 3 approved the purchase of the Taurus KEPD-350 land-attack cruise missile, according to German industry sources, but decisions on both the A400M military airlifter and Meteor radar-guided air-to-air missile were deferred.

The parliament will be in recess until September, potentially leaving both the A400M and the Meteor procurements in limbo. German industrialists pointed to internal politics within the government as the cause of the latest delay on the A400M.

A decision on approving participation in the six-nation Meteor program could come in September, but industrialists are concerned that approval of the A400M now could slip to beyond the national elections. If this happens, a program go-ahead would be forthcoming no earlier than the fourth quarter of this year. Failure to finally push ahead with the A400M is causing embarrassment among German industry officials and consternation among some of Germany's partner nations. Britain and France have become exasperated with Germany's postponements.

The A400M has been plagued by political dithering, and some British industrialists are now warning squadron-level operational service of the aircraft is credible no sooner than 2012-13.

Senior British defense officials have in recent weeks made it clear they are considering procurement approaches based on U.S. transport aircraft, to provide an alternative should the situation on the A400M become unacceptable. A British Defense Ministry spokesman said the U.K. needed to see early progress, but would not elaborate. As far as the British-led Meteor is concerned, the sources suggested it could be approved by the German budget committee in September.

The Gorilla

8th Jul 2002, 18:03

ORAC

Most excellent news, thank you.

:)

BEagle

8th Jul 2002, 19:29

A little knowledge..........

......and, according to yesterday's leaks regarding Hoon's latest review, the C-17s will be going back to Spamland when A400M comes ino service.

ORAC

8th Jul 2002, 20:16

A400M: Operational service of the aircraft is credible no sooner than 2012-13.

C-17: Entered service 2001. 7 year lease with an option to extend to 9 years = 2010.

Better get out the cheque book. Wouldn't be surprised to end up paying at least twice the purchase price by the end.

The other question is the cost and practicability of keeping the K flying.

ORAC

27th Jan 2003, 18:03

Well I imagine this will kill any competition to the A-400M (if and when it gets the go-ahead) from the AN-70.

JDW - 27 Jan:

Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation Air Forces (RFAF), used a 15 January press conference in Moscow to launch a scathing criticism of the Russian/Ukrainian An-70 transport aircraft.

Although around $3.5 billion has been spent on the project over the last 16 years, the official noted that "382 failures, including 52 engine stops, happened during 386 hours of flight" and described these results as unsatisfactory. "The An-70 was intended as a replacement for the An-12, but the project began growing and unnecessarily neared the class of the Il-76," Gen Mikhailov said. Russia needs an aircraft with a cargo capacity of around 20 tonnes to replace the An-12, but the An-70's normal payload of 35 tonnes and maximum payload of 47 tonnes puts the aircraft outside this class.

"We have to admit that an error has been made and choose another aircraft," said the air force chief, identifying Russia's proposed Tu-330 and Il-214 projects as possible An-12 replacements. The Tu-330 concept shares 70% commonality with the Tu-204 airliner, while the Il-214 is a collaborative effort with India, which will provide 47% of the aircraft's development costs.

Gen Mikhailov went on to describe the modernised Il-76MF as both cheaper and "about 2.8 times better" than the An-70. The RFAF has around 220 Il-76s, most of which are in the MD configuration and are suitable for upgrade to the enhanced standard, new-build examples of which could also be acquired.....

...Plans to manufacture an initial five aircraft for each country from 2002-04 are now viewed as unrealistic because the RFAF is no longer funding the project, said Leonid Terentyev, director of the Russian-Ukrainian Medium Transport Aircraft consortium.......