Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.

[Baldeep Inminj]

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/the-airbus-a400m-is-creating-issues-for-the-raf-personnel-are-not-enjoying-it/

[DaveReidUK]

Parts of the article appear to bear a pretty tenuous relationship to fact.

"Not The First Surface Corrosion Issues at Airbus" is a fairly pathetic attempt to equate the alleged A400M corrosion issues to the Qatar A350 paint erosion problems.

Sloppy journalism exemplified.

[Asturias56]

well it may be "unfit or purpose" but it's all there is - in fact it's the only large military freighter still in production anywhere I think

[SASless]

Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.

[pr00ne]

Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.

Er, the RAF currently flies the C-130 Hercules, the A400 Atlas and the C-17 Globemaster.

Current plans are to retire the Hercules in 2023 and acquire additional A400 Atlas.

Not sure what your point is?

[SWBKCB]

Not sure what your point is?

Maybe he thought it was the KC-46 thread? :ok:

[dervish]

Unfit does not change even if it is the only game in town.....it remains "unfit" by definition.

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.

Excellent points sasless.

[DaveReidUK]

well it may be "unfit or purpose" but it's all there is - in fact it's the only large military freighter still in production anywhere I think

Embraer C-390 ?

[FloaterNorthWest]

I think someone needs to understand the difference between corrosion and erosion.

[Asturias56]

"Embraer C-390 ?

Waiting for the inevitable stretch I think - but it will have to be a BIG one

TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them

[WB627]

"Embraer C-390 ?

Waiting for the inevitable stretch I think - but it will have to be a BIG one

TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them

Why? Looks pretty useful to me. The only questions in my mind are, can it do the jobs that the C130 does but the A400 can't do and are two engines what you realy want going into combat zones?

Specifications C-390 Millennium
General characteristics

Crew: Three flight crew (Two pilots, one loadmaster)
Capacity: 80 troops / 74 stretchers and 8 attendants / 66 paratroopers / 7 463L master pallets / 6 463L master pallets and 36 troops
Max takeoff weight: 86,999 kg (191,800 lb)
Useful lift: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb)
Maximum speed: 988 km/h (614 mph, 533 kn)
Cruise speed: 870 km/h (540 mph, 470 kn) Mach 0.8
Range: 5,820 km (3,610 mi, 3,140 nmi) with 14,000 kg (30,865 lb) payload
Range alt: 2,820 km (1,520 nmi) with 23,000 kg (51,000 lb) payload
Range alt2: 2,110 km (1,140 nmi) with 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) payload
Ferry range: 8,500 km (5,300 mi, 4,600 nmi) max. with aux. fuel tanks; norma

Looks better than the C130J
General characteristics

Crew: 3 (two pilots, and one loadmaster are minimum crew)
Capacity:
64 airborne troops or
6 pallets or
74 litter patients with 5 medical personnel
Payload main: 42,000 lb (19,051 kg)
Maximum speed: 362 kn (417 mph, 670 km/h) — Mach 0.59 at 22,000 ft (6,706 m) altitude
Cruise speed: 348 kn (400 mph, 644 km/h)
Range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb (15,422 kg))
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m) with 42,000 lb (19,051 kg) payload
Absolute ceiling: 40,386 ft (12,310 m)[164]

We will always be remembered for the first air force in the world to retire the C130 and the DC3.

[k3k3]

At a casual glance the C-390 appears much smaller than it actually is, the huge cockpit windows are very deceptive.

[Less Hair]

Japan, Russia and China build military transport aircraft as well.

[henra]

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.
???
Which would be?

[Video Mixdown]

Seems a bit of a hysterical reaction to alleged comments by one anonymous 'service member' who may or may not exist. What aircraft type doesn't need repairs and modifications during its service life?

[ORAC]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1053/image_31134917da7b94d4789f13d7b28e56d5aaff89d3.png


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x949/image_4058db5a2ac028e15c332bcd00202667582d98c0.jpeg

[wondering]

How about Kawasaki C-2? Better than A-400?

[aeromech3]

I recall back in 1972 working on not 2yrs old BAC1-11's and having to re-bore pintle U/C mounts to re-bush; also clean hydraulic tube pipe ends and coat with a barrier compound; happens and not insurmountable once a program is developed.

[tdracer]

TBH I always thought the decision to stop building the C-17 was a mistake... they could still be selling them

Actually, the last 10 C-17's were built without buyers on the assumption that someone would want them (and yes, they were all sold, although the last one sold four years after it was built). Building billions of dollars worth of aircraft without known buyers is very, very risky.
At best, continued production of the C-17 would have been at a very low (i.e. uneconomical) rate. Besides, I doubt the EU would ever admit the A400M was a mistake and buy C-17s instead (although a good argument could made that they should have ordered C-17s instead of pouring $billions into the A400 development).

[Easy Street]

I suppose an indigenous design even if unfit....soothes national ego's better than flying another Nations far more capable design.

The point’s been made by others above, but I can’t let it go. Let’s hear it SASless: the KC-X requirements were amended, leading to a reversal of the original outcome (with the Boeing KC-46 being selected over the Airbus A330 MRTT), because…?

[Asturias56]

"How about Kawasaki C-2?"

Japanese aircraft are expensive and they don't have a recent history of ramping up production to reasonable levels.

The KC390 looks like a reasonable replacement for the Hercules and I think it will sell in numbers but its not a large aircraft as some have already pointed out

[jolihokistix]

How about Kawasaki C-2? Better than A-400?

One thing is that you can bargain with the Japanese. Make a silly offer for x number of airframes, and keep a straight and seemingly bored face.

[unmanned_droid]

That article is errrr....interesting....I can think of one reason why some of the parts mentioned may be experiencing corrosion, but will leave it there.

I'd say the RAF could do with two squadrons of C-390, if it's proven to be reliable by the initial non-Brazilian customers (far from home parts/tech support prove out besides reliability). They would complement the existing A400M and C-17 fleets imo.

More and more seems to be happening with tactical airlift - more customers, more jobs to do, more capabilities.

[SASless]

Easy.....unfit is unfit....you pick the explanation on how it comes to pass no matter where or who is involved.

Using a "what about....." reply confirms a statement made by a very well known Aeronautical Engineer and Test Pilot I know...."The harder you have to work to prove you do not have a problem....proves how big that problem you are trying to explain away really is.".

So stick to the script....is the A400 unfit for purpose...or not.

My comment covers the universe of "unfit" aircraft, ships, tanks, etc....and was not limited to the A400.

[tucumseh]

20 years ago the FRES KURs said:

"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".

When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)

Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES.

[Haraka]

I atttended my first UK Aircraft industry FLA meeting in 1982 IIRC .
Forty years ago almost to the day. .

[BEagle]

The A400M was specifically designed to meet European air force requirements. 5 major European companies joined forces within the 'Euroflag' group, pooling their experience and capabilities to produce an aircraft flxible enough to meet the needs of their respective air forces.

The programme was dogged by political and engine procurement issues as well as customer vacillation.

The RAF got what it specified; however, the Atlas isn't equipped to operate as a tanker.

[melmothtw]

I'd say the RAF could do with two squadrons of C-390...

Why another new type entirely, with all that entails in terms of infrastructure, training, support, etc,? Why not new/additional C-130J-30s? There's not much difference between the KC-390 and the C-130J-30 in terms of payload.

[bobward]

AS the Dutch are buying the Embraer, why nota joint squadron, as per France and Germany and the (!) C130?

[melmothtw]

AS the Dutch are buying the Embraer, why nota joint squadron, as per France and Germany and the (!) C130?

A partnership for our mutual benefit with a European neighbour? Did you not get that memo??!! lol.

[swh]

Must be some sort of wind up, everyone knows anything made by Lockheed will corrode, P3s and C130s were known for extensive wing repairs, spar, and wing replacements.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/sustainment/csc/service-news/sn-mag-v21-v30/V30N02.pdf

[unmanned_droid]

Why another new type entirely, with all that entails in terms of infrastructure, training, support, etc,? Why not new/additional C-130J-30s? There's not much difference between the KC-390 and the C-130J-30 in terms of payload.

I admit, it's mostly swings and roundabouts - we do already have a support system in place for Herc and it does a good job. The KC-390 is a so far, a fairly unproven design but with some promising facets. Being able to link in to civilian jet engine MRO network could be one of them. Surprisingly, a reduced/best in class cost of ownership is another according to this article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/embraer-kc-390-vs-the-lockheed-martin-c-130j/132732.article

The increased speed is another facet in favour of the KC-390. Potentially the interior is also a nicer place to be for long periods.

As a tactical airlifter the Hercules is a finely crafted beast, and sometime you really do rely on static thrust - which a turboprop is master of.

But the RAF always seems so very keen to move the C-130 on, and I'm never really sure why - is cost of ownership really high?

[Lonewolf_50]

Seems a bit of a hysterical reaction to alleged comments by one anonymous 'service member' who may or may not exist. What aircraft type doesn't need repairs and modifications during its service life? When I compare what was in the article with the title of the Opening Post, I had the same thought. Someone is grinding an ax. (The OP, thinks I).
20 years ago the FRES KURs said:

"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".

When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)

Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES. Has FRES died on the vine, or, are some nations using it and the UK eventually opted out?
(I am vaguely remembering how the specs for a Sherman tank were derived, and it included transportability on various ships of various sizes).

[Tech Guy]

At a casual glance the C-390 appears much smaller than it actually is, the huge cockpit windows are very deceptive.
I am glad I am not the only person who had that initial thought.
I also think its a rather good looking aircraft too. Embraaer are definitely on to good things with their designs.

[ORAC]

But the RAF always seems so very keen to move the C-130 on, and I'm never really sure why - is cost of ownership really high?
IIRC the original intent, back in the early 90s, was to reduce the number of transport types.

We had the C-130, VC-10C and Belslow. The C-130 was seen as too small for the FRES and other planned loads and, with no “east of Suez”, the A-400 was seen as perfect to replace all in the AT role (Beagle can talk on the pax and AAR aspects.

Then 9/11 and Afghanistan happened and we ended up leading/buying C-17s just the A-400s started arriving, and we still needed the C-130s. Back to multiple types again

culling fleets saves money. We now see the need to keep the C-17, there is a political aspect for keeping the A-400 (with the belief all the problems are solvable and improvements achievable), which was already slated to go and would be politically embarrassing to now keep.

If the funds were available I am sure running on the J would be the preferred option, seeing as the training/logs etc are in place.

But buying another new type? Fantasy land.

[BEagle]

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

[Asturias56]

Thanks Beagle _ I'll save that explanation and read it one sentence a day - what s story! :ouch:

[SASless]

Beags has spent entirely too much time in government.:=

[Lonewolf_50]

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

[Bergerie1]

I think he had a lesson from Sir Humphrey

[artee]

I think he had a lesson from Sir Humphrey

Indeed! Sir Humphrey Beagle.

[common toad]

Look at the author’s credentials… “”a passionate AVGeek … editor-in-chief”

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/the-airbus-a400m-is-creating-issues-for-the-raf-personnel-are-not-enjoying-it/

[SASless]

I would like to see the Powerpoint Flow Chart graphic for Beag's simple explanation.

Anyone brave enough to post one?

[dervish]

I would like to see the Powerpoint Flow Chart graphic for Beag's simple explanation.

Anyone brave enough to post one?

That's probably what got us into the mess in the first place!

[MAINJAFAD]

Look at the author’s credentials… “”a passionate AVGeek … editor-in-chief”

https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/the-airbus-a400m-is-creating-issues-for-the-raf-personnel-are-not-enjoying-it/

In other words he is a plane spotter!!!

[Two's in]

The original post and the link should be placed in the 'Offal" section of PPRune, as an example of top quality tripe. Corrosion control is a routine part of aircraft maintenance, and what a shocker, it appears to be worse in that funny bit where the wet and muddy rubber bits hide. There may be accelerated corrosion around metallic couplings and fittings, especially with carbon composite structures, but this should be addressed with a robust inspection and rectification regime. Making this a "save the C-130" pitch is as predictable as it is ridiculous, and linking it to the Airbus A350 issues just confirms the vacuousness of the "reporter". The A350s are experiencing paint separation and cracking around the air data probes, which are surrounded by a copper mesh layer for lightning protection. Airbus and EASA say its cosmetic, Qatar Airways are chasing after money. Whatever the answer, it is not related to this Jackanory nonsense about preventable corrosion on the A400.

[tubby linton]

Interesting though that a C-17 was used today to fly Her Majesty to London rather than an A400

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting though that a C-17 was used today to fly Her Majesty to London rather than an A400

Ground noise/speed/comfort ?

[Ken Scott]

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

[SWBKCB]

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

There's been a Brize based, Belfast built Skyvan knocking about Leeming today. Seems the obvious choice was overlooked (based on the reasoning in recent posts... :rolleyes:)

[tubby linton]

The serial of the C-17 used was ZZ177. Invert it and make the numbers into letters. BZ to whoever tasked that airframe.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The A400 is the EU F35. Beholden to so many special interests that it can't be allowed to fail. It will inevitably bumble along never fully mission capable and costing far more than is reasonable, but hey since when has actual operational capability mattered in a government military procurement program.

The good news, Canada almost bought this POS. Fortunately we got the C 17 instead .

[DaveReidUK]

There's been a Brize based, Belfast built Skyvan knocking about Leeming today. Seems the obvious choice was overlooked

I believe the Skyvan was considered.

But it was concluded that carrying the Queen on an aircraft normally used for parachuting was tempting Providence ...

[Diff Tail Shim]

I think I will ask a mate of mine that is an AGE on the A400M if the airframe is a bag of nails before reading the ****e on here. He is highly experienced on many types. I will ask him and reply back in a King Charles sort of way.

[unmanned_droid]

If I was selecting an ac for the task from the Brize inventory it wouldn’t be the C130J (living pax comfort and the optics of using an ac about to be withdrawn from service) or the A400M (even if Airbus could provide a serviceable one the odds of it breaking at Edinburgh would be too high) so I would have chosen the C17 as well!

Interestingly, there was an A400M holding just outside the firth of forth and another routing over Glasgow (IIRC) as the C-17 was taking off....also a Chinook with an odd callsign leaving a field in Berwick just after lift off too...

Perhaps they were otherwise engaged.

[melmothtw]

The A400 is the EU F35.

Airbus will certainly be hoping so - the F-35 has won every tender for which it has competed.

[a_ross84]

That's ite looks like it has absolutely zero credibility looking at other articles.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Airbus will certainly be hoping so - the F-35 has won every tender for which it has competed.

I predict a lot of buyers remorse when the realty of owning an airplane that is so expense to operate even the USAF and USN is cutting back F 35 orders in favor of F 15's and F 18's ; sets in......

In any case the USAF made a huge mistake by not doing a follow on order for more C 17's to keep the production line going.

[henra]

I predict a lot of buyers remorse when the realty of owning an airplane that is so expense to operate even the USAF and USN is cutting back F 35 orders in favor of F 15's and F 18's ; sets in......

Well looking closer at the matter USAF and USN have been reducing F-15 (80 instead of 144) and F-18 (None at all any more if they could have decided on their own) orders lately.
They don't really want more of the 'old stuff'. If anything they are waiting for F-35 Block IV and NGAD.

In any case the USAF made a huge mistake by not doing a follow on order for more C 17's to keep the production line going.
It is not the Job of the USAF to keep manufacturers happy. If they have enough Transport capacity why would they want to spend money they could use elsewhere on unneeded capability?!

[Big Pistons Forever]

It is not the Job of the USAF to keep manufacturers happy. If they have enough Transport capacity why would they want to spend money they could use elsewhere on unneeded capability?!

The USAF is already way ahead of projected average airframe hours for this time in service for the C17 fleet. Low rate production would have kept the line alive for a measured recapitalization of the fleet. Unfortunately having the main manufacturing effort in California did not give it enough political pull to keep the line alive. The F35 however has a significant footprint in 31 states ensuring it is un-killable no matter how badly the program is going. Personally I think any airplane that is not full mission capable 17 years after first flight and still has over 100 seriously deficiencies is the very definition of failure

[henra]

Personally I think any airplane that is not full mission capable 17 years after first flight and still has over 100 seriously deficiencies is the very definition of failure
I see it differently. The F-35 brings a leap in capability over the predecessors at only moderately higher costs. This leap in capability will always com at a price. This price being minor deficiencies and annoyances in peace time. If push came to shove you could still use the fleet and enjoy an enormous advantage over the adversary aircraft or Air Defence Systems. The deterrence effect of 700 F-35 will way exceed that of 1000 F-15/F-16/F-18. But we are digressing from the A400M. Which I btw. also don't see anywhere as negatively as some here do. It also has its teething problems but it brings strategic Air Lift capability with excellent Offroad capabilities. Probably not as much advantage over legacy stuff as the F-35 does but still a good capability

[bspatz]

I see it differently. The F-35 brings a leap in capability over the predecessors at only moderately higher costs. This leap in capability will always com at a price. This price being minor deficiencies and annoyances in peace time. If push came to shove you could still use the fleet and enjoy an enormous advantage over the adversary aircraft or Air Defence Systems. The deterrence effect of 700 F-35 will way exceed that of 1000 F-15/F-16/F-18. But we are digressing from the A400M. Which I btw. also don't see anywhere as negatively as some here do. It also has its teething problems but it brings strategic Air Lift capability with excellent Offroad capabilities. Probably not as much advantage over legacy stuff as the F-35 does but still a good capability
I agree with you regarding the A400s strategic capability however, it is being pressed into service as tactical AT which it is patently unable to carry out anywhere near as well as the Herc. Tellingly, the German, Italian and French air forces which all operate A400s also have Hercs to carry out the tactical role.

[melmothtw]

I predict a lot of buyers remorse when the realty of owning an airplane that is so expense to operate even the USAF and USN is cutting back F 35 orders in favor of F 15's and F 18's ; sets in......

In any case the USAF made a huge mistake by not doing a follow on order for more C 17's to keep the production line going.

Neither the USAF nor the USN is cutting back their F-35 programmes of record. The USAFis, however, reconsidering its F-15EX numbers downwards, while the USN is wanting the cancel Super Hornet Block 3 to fund NGAD.

Still, all for a other thread.

[henra]

Tellingly, the German, Italian and French air forces which all operate A400s also have Hercs to carry out the tactical role.
While I do agree that it probably is a tad on the 'big' side for a tactical aircraft in case of the German Air craft it was probably more about putting a bit of pressure on Airbus plus the somewhat late arrival of some kit that drove this decision. At the time of arrival of the C-130 these deficiences were mostly solved and some questions arose for what the C-130 would still be needed. But now they are there why not use them?!