C17 v A400M [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Jackonicko

28th Oct 2002, 23:44

Blue Wolf,

You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....

Your absurd contention that "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." is not supported by the stats and may even be actionable. Whereas the claim that "Boeing = very seldom do this" seems to be gently contradicted by the many various 737 rudder incidents and 747 fuel tank explosions.

As for the thought that Europeans can't make aeroplanes, tell that to the companies who produced the Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc. As compared to the Japs whom you hold up as a great example of modern plane-making......?

You're right about the C-17 to an extent, however. It's a great aeroplane (though a Boeing product only through industrial consolidation) while the jury must be out on the A400M because it remains to be proven. But it's probably not affordable enough to be able to fulfill all the requirements, and in a UK context the real choice may be between more C-130Js and new A400Ms.

HectorusRex

29th Oct 2002, 05:32

Jackonicko,
Just how many of your quoted European aircraft types are current, AND commercially viable?:confused:

BlueWolf

29th Oct 2002, 06:05

Hello Jacko old chap! It 's been too long, it really has. Or maybe that should be not long enough....

Anyhoo.

My reference to Japs was to machinery making in general, and not specifically to aircraft, as is obvious to anyone actually reading the post with the intention of taking the meaning at face value, rather than twisting it out of context in order to prop up some spurious argument.

Mitsubishi were always hopeless at building planes, weren't they? And did you mean to include Concorde in "Jacko's All-Time Big List of Aeroplanes Built with French Involvement Which Have Never Crashed", or was that a slip of bias?

As for stats; it remains my contention that the ratio of crashes due to non-external causes to aircraft hours flown is considerably more favourable to the Boeing company than it is to Airbus Industries.

Actionable? I do beg your pardon my good sir, but who is being a clot?

Nuke tests...well, who can say. Maybe you're right. What's your excuse? Perhaps all those years of eating British beef....but then that could account for me too...

;)

BEagle

29th Oct 2002, 06:55

'C17 v A400M' rather misses the point. It's like 'British beef' v. 'New Zealand lamb' - both very fine but not the same thing!

C17 is an excellent aeroplane but rather too big to replace C130K on a one-for-one basis. C130J is too slow and too small for many strategic applications, in my view, whereas A400M promises to be an excellent compromise if only the Tchermans would stop contemplating their navels and commit to the programme as they've always intended. It will be a veru Gucci aeroplane, 100kts TAS faster than the C130J and able to cruise at M0.7 in the mid-30s. It'll have a very state-of-the-art flight deck, something even Boeing admit that Airbooooos are very good at. Plus if it was fitted with 2 AAR pods it would have an AAR capability very close to that of the VC10....

Airbus v Boeing - ask Easyjet why they've gone for the A319 rather than more 737s? Right horse for that course!

Oh - and if you don't service an aeroplane properly, take-off well over your RTOW, suffer an engine failure near V1 and your FE shuts the engine down without being ordered whilst it's still producing thrust, then any aeroplane will be likely to crash whether Boeing, Airbus or Concorde.......

Jackonicko

29th Oct 2002, 10:59

Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents. The 747 does worse than the A330/340, etc. etc. Even with creative recording which blames every 737 rudder hardover on pilot error, and every fuel tank ka-boom on missiles fired by the US navy or by little green men

Beagle makes the point about Concorde, though I didn't think we were talking about aircraft which had never suffered an accident (is there a single Boeing type which would qualify, I wonder?).

I was merely pointing out that the Europeans who you despise (too liberal for you, perhaps?) have succeeded in producing some great, and commercially successful aircraft, both historically (as have Boeing) and more recently (ditto).

The Japanese, on the other hand, haven't exactly set the world alight with the quality of their indigenously designed aeroplanes since about 1942. Indeed I'm hard pressed to think of a Japanese aircraft programme that has even broken even - perhaps the YS-11? In the F-2, your beloved Mitsubishi have done an excellent job in producing an F-16 clone at roughly triple the cost, however, I have to admit!

And Hectorus, the current Boeing product line is pretty slim, while production figures are modest (there's an airline recession, in case you hadn't noticed) and without levels of support and subsidy which have attracted the interest of the WTO, Boeing would be deeply mired.

The point was that we should not knock the A400M simply because of its parentage. Indeed technically and technologically, its Airbus heritage might be expected to make it a superior aircraft. In recent years, Airbus have pushed the technology forward while Boeing have been over-conservative and risk-averse. There are grounds for knocking the A400M, of course, not least because of the partners seeming inability to actually get the programme moving.

DeaconBlue

29th Oct 2002, 13:54

BEagle --- think you'll find Easyjet chose not on the "right horse for the course" but much more on the nasty old subject of money (or at least estimated deltas in vfm over time). :eek:

Airbus has given them almost 50% off the "windscreen" price for the A319s and a sweetheart deal on the support package. I think with the strong competition on the low cost market it was purely price that drove the purchase. Clearly both are extremely capable aircraft that could fulfill the role.

HectorusRex

30th Oct 2002, 05:01

Jackonicko,
Yes I had noticed that there is an aviation recession, and have watched with keen interest the machinations of Airbus versus Boeing in the sales field, and observed the crass commercialism of the sales tactics.

A recent airline order which dumped a well established Boeing fleet in favour of a replacement Airbus fleet was indicated to have been made, “not on the technical merit of the aircraft, but simply because of the financial advantage offered.”

Many years ago a similar campaign was waged with BAC versus Boeing, and in that example the Boeing product overcame political pressure favouring British Preference, because it was a commercially superior product.
It was an eye opener to compare the professional sales technique of Boeing, with the “Old boy network” of BAC, and which professionalism was matched by the operational performance of the aircraft.

The current recess which you mention could well mean the death of either of the last two major airframe manufacturers, and if that does come to pass, we as an industry will be in a parlous state, as indeed will be the world’s economy.

I repeat, and quote:-
”Just how many of your quoted European aircraft types are current, AND commercially viable?”

Caravelle, Concorde, Fokker F27 and F28, Mirage III, Mirage Deux Mille, Falcon, CASA 101, the Macchi MB326 and 339, etc. etc. And that's ignoring the workmanlike but more than merely adequate Atlantic, Transall, CASA 212, etc.
Regards,
HectorusRex:)

ORAC

30th Oct 2002, 06:00

You mean as opposed to heavy American political pressure - such as recently applied to Taiwan to ensure that a proportion of their latest order went to the 747-400F? Everybody does this.

BlueWolf

30th Oct 2002, 09:03

Jacko my dear fellow,

Tiresome though it is I have checked the stats yet again, and they are reasonably clear.

http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

"Go back and check the stats. Even if you exclude early model 737s they have a poorer record than their Airbus equivalents."

It doesn't seem to matter how I read the facts, the 737 comes out on top of anything in an Airbus equivalent.

A330, A340 and 777 don't appear in the figures because they have yet to be around long enough to record any fatals.

For the record, I don't despise Europeans, either for being too liberal or for any other reason. In fact I owe half my lineage to what is popularly regarded as one of the most liberal of European countries.
I do struggle however to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks; and replaces fact with opinion in the hopes that no-one else will have the records at their fingertips.

I'm curious, also, as how any military aircraft project can be said to have "broken even"?

BEagle is right about Concorde of course, and every statistic which mentions it is anomalous almost by definition.

Maybe the bottom line is this; there is perhaps no ideal candidate anywhere in the world, either in, or soon to be in production, which will provide a one-aircraft solution to all strategic and tactical military airlift requirements; and that being the case, it is possible that a combination of C-17 and C-130 (or C-130J) will provide as good a compromise as any.

Jackonicko

30th Oct 2002, 14:13

A rather well-done site, I'll admit, but one that looks as though it was produced in a spotter's back bedroom.

I tried to look for some evidence to support your original contention that: "Airbus = frequently fall out of sky for no readily explained reason." and found none. There is no evidence of either any undue frequency nor of any lack of explanation for those accidents that have occurred. And before getting mired in argument about detailed stats, that was the crux of your original post.

The statistics presented are inadequately analysed and inadequately weighted and factored. Despite the points made by BEagle, with which you agree, Concorde appears from these statistics to be about twelve times more dangerous than (say) the A300.

Of the 'events' listed for the A320, one killed three people, and one killed two - whereas they are treated (in these statistics) in exactly the same manner as accidents which kill the entire complement of an aircraft. A tendency to run off the end of runways while landing is unacceptable and deadly serious, but it may not be quite as serious as the kind of rudder problems that have caused several 737s to be lost with everyone aboard.

In other words stats based on events per 10,000 flying hours may be less reliable or less useful than stats based on passenger fatalities per passenger mile. But though such figures would show the A320 to be safer than the 737, I will admit that any statistics are open to misinterpretation and misuse.

Just as there is no data on the 777, the data on the 737 and the A320 (for example) cannot be directly compared. At an early stage in its career, an aircraft type will almost inevitably suffer a higher accident rate, which should reduce and stabilise as operating experience is gained and as technical problems are resolved. But more importantly, the statistics will be skewed because the sample is too small, and while the flying hours amassed by the A319, for example, are still so very low, a single accident would make it (apparently) the most unsafe aircraft in the world. As it is, however, it's nominally safer than the 737, as is the A321. One can't simply compare accident rates during the first 1,000,000 flying hours, either, since accident rates differ with time, and it wouldn't be fair (for example) to compare the A340 with the Boeing Stratoliner.

With regard to the YS-11 breaking even it wasn't a military programme, though a handful were sold to military operators.

Like you I "struggle to retain even a facade of respect for anyone who replaces informed, reasoned and reasonable argument with unnecessary and pointless personal attacks".....

Like: "Airbus = made by Europeans. This not good. Machines should be made only by Yanks, Poms, Swedes and Japs.....Europe should stick to making things it is good at, ie food, wine, and love. Yes, I know the Germans are an exception."

I'm also slightly intolerant of people who deliberately misrepresent what I say. I didn't present Concorde as an example of an aircraft that has Never Crashed, only as an example of a successful aircraft, like the F27, F28 etc.

I thought I remembered previous posts by you on things like the war on terror, the Middle East etc. which were characterised by a contempt for liberal attitudes, which is why I asked the question. Do I owe you a grovelling apology, then?

steamchicken

30th Oct 2002, 15:16

...and aren't we Europeans too? I always had the impression that a minor and unimportant part of any Airbus type known as the "wing" was made in the UK...

BTW, the A330, A340, and 777 haven't been in service long enough to record any fatals - wot? things can go wrong on the first flight and on the last as well. A bit like leaving out your worst 3 batsmen to get the team average up.

DuckDogers

30th Oct 2002, 15:21

I'm sure all of this has been covered before somewhere? The only two pennies worth i'll add is that the C17 performed admirably flying into and out of Kabul for the period between Feb and Jul this year.

Here is one question to ponder and it links nicely to issues search as 'Blairforce 1' et al . When MoD decides to replace the ageing and decrepid HS125 and BAe 146 of 32(TR) Sqn what should it choose? Had a nose around a Royal Netherlands Air Force Gulfstream IV today, what a marellous bit of kit and i believe the GV is has even further range by around 2,000 nautical miles. Shame we did not choose this for ASTOR, oh blasphamy, that would have been the logical and sensible choice.

As sangiovese said how many multi-engine types do we want to operate? My suggestion would be as follows:

ASTOR (Bombardier GE)
Nimrod MR4a
C17 (by them and use them to their full capability including Tac AT)
C130J
FSTA (Airbus or Boeing)
Bombardier GE (HS125 and BAe 146 replacement, if we have in one form get it in another to minimize servicing costs etc.... as it wil do 5,000Nm with Max payload)

Jackonicko

30th Oct 2002, 17:13

One could further reduce the proliferation of types by using the A400M instead of the -130J and in place of the MR.Mk 4 - and perhaps even to fulfill some of the FSTA requirement.

The Bombardier GE may also be in the frame as the PR.Mk 9 replacement and as the next generation Elint platform for 51 Squadron, if the RAF shifts from its present emphasis on onboard 'manual' analysis by human operators, as other Elint practitioners have done or are doing.

KPax

30th Oct 2002, 17:43

Re your last on new 'Elint' platform, why not just buy 6 x U2s. They are cheap, reliable and do the job of many with only one in the aircraft, and before anyone says they are an old ac, why are the cousins from the other side of the Atlantic still updating them. I once heard someone say that the U2 does roughly 90% of what our Waddington friends do with only one person in the air.

Smoketoomuch

30th Oct 2002, 17:47

It never ceases to amaze me how people quote airdisasters.com as some sort of authoritative source - it merely reveals their ignorance of risk, statistics, accidents and especially of aviation.

northwing

30th Oct 2002, 21:25

Just a thought :- if we'd built the A400M when we started talking about it we would have to be worrying about how to replace it now.

ORAC

30th Oct 2002, 21:41

KPAX,

Discussed on an earlier thread. The Bombardier is cheaper than the U2 (even excluding the cost of opening the production line). It has a similar range/endurance, but this can be extended with AAR. It also is a much more benign environment and allows equipment change and adjustment during the mission. Finally, it would be a common platform reducing support and training costs and dual role qualification for flight deck and mission crew.

It loses out on ceiling, but that's not considered a factor as the difference wouldn't put them outside the envelope of a modern SAM.

A more apposite question is to whether the role could be performed more cheaply by a UAV such as the Global Hawk with increased range/endurance.

ADUX

31st Oct 2002, 02:14

Sorry, don't believe 1 x U2 can replace 1 x 51 Sqn Nimrod with er umm number of crew on board! :)

Grimweasel

31st Oct 2002, 12:46

There was me thinking that the U2 had a five man crew! They sure can sing a lot of drivel though!
Prehaps we should do as the Army has done with its Apache and order the A400 and stick them into storage.

Jackonicko

31st Oct 2002, 13:21

err um? 26-28! Now we know who ate all the pies......

steamchicken

31st Oct 2002, 15:36

One point people have often made about this is that the A400 "doesn't exist". No. It won't exist unless somebody commits to buying it, as Airbus can hardly be expected to launch a big project without a reasonable prospect of selling 'em. If we have to always go off-the-shelf , then we are always going to be one step behind. If you want progress, you have to aim further ahead. The F-15 didn't exist when the USAF decided to back the project - neither did the F-35. If we want the ability to make our own aeroplanes, we have to actually do it - it means making a decision and taking a risk.

If we are all quite happy to rely entirely on the USA for ever more, then so be it. Unless the European aviation industry actually gets orders, it will always be unproven, risky, whatever. You can only get experience from doing it! And finally, of course, there won't be one any more. It will pass away quietly in a cloud of scrapped projects.....is this at all familiar? haven't we been here before? sometime in the 1960s?

ORAC

31st Oct 2002, 16:53

Steamchicken,

Don't tell us, tell the Germans. They're the ones who won't sign the contract. Earliest estimate is now around April next year - and even then they want to reduce their buy so the total order is below the minimum required number.

Several years ago the UK set a definite date, beyond which we said we could no longer wait, when we would have to order more C-130s and/or C-17s. That date has, of course, long gone. But the tales of consultations and meetings between the MOD and Boeing over a C-17 purchase are growing stronger by the day. On wonders when the MOD/treasury will eventually get fed up waiting.

HectorusRex

1st Nov 2002, 03:59

For Jackonicko, and all the others who may not be fully aware of the consequences of the current 'dog-eat-dog' approach to selling new aircraft!

For Sale: Used Jets
Duck! Mounting horrors in the airline industry are starting to spread to the financial markets.

Behind Boeing Co.'s recent $250 million noncash charge for the third quarter to cover the declining value of planes leased by its finance arm, lies a calamity in the making. With one-fifth of the U.S. passenger fleet already grounded, used-jet prices are down 40% to 80%. If UAL files for Chapter 11, as everyone expects, another 110 or so planes, a fifth of the United fleet, will be looking for new users, further depressing prices.

Who loses? Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ), since United (nyse: UAL - news - people ) is its biggest customer. And banks and finance companies, which provided the capital for airplanes bought or leased by airliners. The top six carriers have borrowed $98 billion on (and off) their balance sheets and can't pay it all back, given that the airline industry is expected to lose a titanic $8 billion this year. About 50% of the U.S. jet fleet is leased from such companies as General Electric Capital Aviation Services (nyse: GE - news - people ), International Lease Finance Corp. (a unit of AIG) and CIT Group (nyse: CIT - news - people ).

GE has some $30 billion in financing outstanding and claims to be adequately capitalized despite having to take back upwards of 50 aircraft since Sept. 11. As the underlying planes have fallen in value, so has the value of the passthrough securities backed by the jets. Banks, insurers and mutual funds have plowed $40 billion into these bonds. The collateral was supposed to insulate them from losses.

"Many lenders can't sell these assets because there is no value in them," says Robert Agnew, president of Morten Beyer & Agnew, an aircraft valuation firm. US Airways, operating under Chapter 11, has mothballed 57 older jets in California's Mojave Desert. A majority of its Boeing planes, which it plans to phase out, are financed by GE, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, reports airline consultancy Back Aviation. US Air could drop its fleet of 311 jets down as low as 245, say attorneys familiar with the case.

Leasing companies have resisted taking writedowns by shifting used jets to Africa or Asia. The dangers: greater credit risk and planes likely to be worth a lot less when they come off lease. Stand by for a rough ride.
Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1028/054.html)

BlueWolf

1st Nov 2002, 06:04

I don't think grovelling would become you Jacko, but I accept that your mistakenly upset sensibilities were offended in good faith. You can say whatever you like about me as long as you do it with a smiley, and if I do the same I'm sure we'll both make a better contribution to a forum in which, after all is said and done, we are both guests.

True, there is no detailed analysis to explain the stats recorded on airdisasters.com. They are generalised figures to support what was a generalised claim. However, these are the same numbers quoted by the FAA and WAAS, and regardless of whose bedroom they might have been assembled in, they put the conclusions together quite neatly.

As with any other field, the statistics can and will be made to say anything one likes; my impression, built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", hence my admitted feelings of bias.

However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date.
I would hazard a guess that a good many Britons don't wish to think of themselves as "Europeans" any more than a sizeable proportion of New Zealanders don't regard ourselves as either "Pacific Islanders" or "South-East Asians". Maybe they do; in which case, my updated CV would list me as owing both halves of my lineage to two of Europe's most liberal countries.

I have, over the years, worked on and with a great range of different types of machinery from a wide range of source countries. In my experience much which has originated in continental Europe is characterised by design features which are incomprehensibly weird, making for maintenance difficulties and functional inefficiencies. I suspect that at least a part of this impression is due to cultural differences, and perhaps European engineers don't have the same problems with them.

Putting any complex machine together from parts sourced from separate manufacturers is always more difficult than doing the whole job under one roof. Aircraft are no exception. When the disparate manufacturers are also from different countries, certain of those difficulties must, almost by definition, be compounded, and perhaps this has an effect on the ultimate integrity of the machine in question.
I realise that aircraft manufacturers are really airframe builders, and that no-one makes their own engines, electronics, hydraulics, bearings, electrics, tyres, seat covers or window glass, and a host of other components; but the one roof philosophy I maintain has to be better in the long run.

That being the case, perhaps if there is to be a single strategic/tactical military airlift aircraft to do most if not quite all jobs on the list, Britain should just get on and build it. I know for a fact that UK industry is more than capable of the job without outside help.

Jackonicko

1st Nov 2002, 11:28

During the 1960s Boeing had a virtual, effective monopoly in the supply of commercial jet airliners, unthreatened by the Caravelle, VC10 et al.

By combining its efforts the European industry has produced a family of aircraft which represent real competition to Boeing's product range. Today Airbus types compete head-on with Boeing aircraft, and often win on technical, economic and operational grounds. You can point to government support and subsidies, but only if you accept that the way in which military orders have been placed have provided Boeing with equivalent (or greater) support, and that restrictions on foreign designed aircraft have hindered open competition in the vital US market.

For Airbus to have successfully competed and established a product range, it has had to produce aircraft which are at least equal to (and probably better than) their Boeing equivalents. To gain orders from dyed in the wool long term Boeing customers has not been easy, and it is in the nature of competition that a newcomer to any marketplace must perform better than its established rivals. This is especially true in a conservative and risk-averse marketplace, naturally.

Of course Boeing and Airbus aircraft types have both advantages and disadvantages and neither company has produced the 'perfect jetliner'. It is difficult to directly compare aircraft from the two manufacturers, because they are surprisingly different and are the product of surprising differences in culture, philosophy and concept.

Boeing have made a virtue out of conservatism and a 'building block' approach, while Airbus have championed technological innovation. This has been most clear in the area of Flight Control System design, but was also reflected in the two companies different approach to the apparent requirement (pre 9/11) to very large aircraft, Boeing choosing to stretch its 747 while Airbus took a more radical approach.

You yourself admit that your impression, "built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", and that this was responsible for your admitted feelings of bias. I think that there has been considerable media bias in favour of Boeing (which I find unsurprising, since Boeing looks after journos so much better than Airbus, and makes our job so much easier), quite apart from the generally pro-American bias which runs through aerospace.

In days gone by, US aircraft types procured by the UK MoD tended to be thoroughly tried and tested and proven, whereas UK- and European-built aircraft arrived brand new, entirely untested and riddled with teething troubles. Small wonder that US products gained a reputation for reliability and quality, and local products the reverse.

It's only relatively recently, with aircraft like the C-130J and the Longbow Apache, that the US reputation for 'technological invincibility' has taken a knock.

At the end of the day, the only conclusion a sane and balanced observer could reach is that neither the US nor Europe has a monopoly on great design and superb products, nor on trouble-prone, poorly designed disasters.

And so to write off the A400M simply on the basis of its provenance is, frankly, silly.
:D

Moroever, while an airlift solution which relies on the C-17 is certain to be popular (and rather expensive) one which includes the C-130J is likely to be problematic. Some believe that the C-130J should have incorporated new engines, perhaps new props (but perhaps not composite props), and some new displays, but with a three or four man flight deck and perhaps with some of the aerodynamic refinements tested on the HTTB. I'm not sure that sticking with the existing Hercules cross-section is necessarily the best option, and I think that the A400M's size and performance offer some compelling advantages.

But only if the Germans get off the pot and the aircraft actually happens.....

steamchicken

1st Nov 2002, 12:12

Oh well, as the Stability and Growth Pact looks likely to be junked by the European finance ministers' council next Thursday, the Germans might soon be in a better position to sign the papers.

PS, I really doubt whether or not the British aircraft industry alone could realistically and economically design and build a new airlift aircraft off its own bat any more. Looking at our incredibly awful procurement record, you'd have to be completely mad.

escapee

1st Nov 2002, 12:28

Going back to some previous posts on this thread:
The U2 CANNOT replace a Nimrod R. Nuff said on this open forum.;)

DuckDogers

3rd Nov 2002, 11:55

Concur with escapee 100%! Nuff said!

Jackonicko

3rd Nov 2002, 20:47

The Nimrod R is no longer the secret beast it once was, and merely mentioning it, mentioning the crew complement, and making generalised remarks about operating philosophy is hardly ground-breaking or dangerous.

Moreover if our US cousins feel that the Rivet Joint could, in theory, and in some circumstances, be replaced by a U-2S (given the right datalinks and ground stations) then so too could a Nimrod R. It's interesting to note that when the Nimrod R was selected to replace Comet Rs, one alternative examined was a Vulcan R, carrying only a single operator, and thus relying largely on ground-based analysis, and in the 1960s that wouldn't have been anywhere near real time.

I think (and this is pure opinion) that this is the wrong way to go, however, and feel that any move away from the present tried and trusted (if manpower intensive) and highly successful approach used now is potentially risky. When working on the EP-3E story after the Chinese collision, the respect that the Nimrod R operators were held in by their US counterparts was absolutely astonishing. I'd therefore sooner see the Nimrod R replaced by something Boeing 737 or Airbus sized (or by an A400M), and not by a Global Express, and certainly not by a U-2.

BlueWolf

4th Nov 2002, 04:25

How about something like the 737-based Aussie Wedgetail project, with - um - extra capabilities as well?

Jackonicko

4th Nov 2002, 16:02

The plethora of aircraft types operated (or to be operated) by the RAF is already alarming. Adding another (the 737) to the mix would make matters worse. Three extra MRA4s (if that misbegotten project actually survives), A400Ms (if procured in the transport role) or 767/A330 airframes (whichever is used for FSTA, especially if the same airframe was used as an AWACS replacement) would therefore be better.

Nothing against the 737 per se.

Proone

4th Nov 2002, 22:18

Jacko,

Actually Jacko the advantages of a common fleet are not what they once were. With the advent of contracted support for most if not all procurements since the J the RAF carries out first and limited second line servicing, the rest is contracted.

ASTOR, MRA4, FSTA, MFTS etc etc will all be subject to seperate power by the hour deals, airframe leases, contractor owned spares and the like.

If the RAF were to, say, choose a common airframe such as the Global express to replace the MR1, PR9 and 32(TR) as well as the ASTOR deal then they would only reap any benefit if they ordered them all at the same time from the same contractor, and that ain't 'gonna happen!

Certain advantages in type ratings etc though undoubtedly.

Proone
.......I'm not here..................

WE Branch Fanatic

4th Nov 2002, 22:56

Haven't you heard the rumour that the Treasury has been trying to force the MOD into prematurely retiring the Nimrod R1 and replacing it with......

Future Intelligence And Signals Collection Organisation (or FIASCO for short). The preferred platform for FIASCO is a Cessna with a bloke in the back carrying a scanner.

"It's just like the Nimrod" said Government spokesperson Wayne Kerr "It flies and you can listen to signals, exactly like the Nimrod".

At the same time, No 10's PR Guru Anne "R" Sole announced that the Nimrod was an unacceptable name as it was from the Old Testament, which was part of the the bible, and therefore might offend minorities. She also annouced plans for the new aircraft to be "personed" by wheelchair bound lesbians. In addition to maintenance, these differently abled gay women will also be found in the newly named "Pilot space".

The limp wristed Gaurdian writers applauded and cried with delight, before celibrating with a meal of organic lentils and mineral water.

At an RAF base "somewhere in the UK", an aircraft (type not disclosed) was hastily loaded with bombs.

"That'll learn the f***ing beancounters b********" said the pilot as he climbed into his aircraft......

Jackonicko

6th Nov 2002, 10:58

And a cheering couple of snippets for the anti-European Airbus sceptics....

1) Last year Airbus sold more airliners than Boeing did. 375 to 329. Ten years ago, Airbus could barely sell one third as many jets as Boeing.

2) Since 9/11 Boeing has made 21,000 of your fellow aerospace industry workers redundant (1/3 of its workforce) and 9,000 more may follow. Airbus has trimmed 6,000 jobs, but by making temporary layouts, juggling with overtime arrangements and imposing shorter working weeks, the actual number of workers made redundant was 500.

3) How did Boeing not clinch the 737 order from Easyjet - an existing 737 operator, with existing Boeing spares infrastructure in place, appropriate ground handling equipment, appropriately rated pilots, etc? Simply to be worth the hassle of changing, the Airbus case must have been compelling.

HectorusRex

6th Nov 2002, 21:37

Blue Wolf.
It would appear from a careful analysis of recent statements by a fellow Ppruner with a journalistic bent, and directed at us, that his light hearted banter, friendly ripostes, and self-avowed admiration and affection for us “Antipodeans” can be attributed to his close proximity to any one of the current thirty-five fully operational nuclear reactors at Sellafield, Dungeness, Calder Hall, Aldermaston Burghfield et al, any one of which is considerably closer to every person in Britain, than any of the former Pacific Nuclear test sites are to New Zealand.:)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only if he was an ill-informed and over-simplistic twit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) You have a totally twisted and unbalanced view of the Airbus and its merits. I suspect that you have an unqualified regard for anything American, perhaps with a liberal dash of anti-Europeanism (envy perhaps?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And a cheering couple of snippets for the anti-European Airbus sceptics....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lybid

6th Nov 2002, 22:46

Blue Wolf

"However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date. "

By how many decades? Where have you been Blue Wolf? Every newspaper and trade press discussion about every new Airbus type since the programme started has revolved around the benefits to the UK of building all the wings for Airbus.

Yours
Lybid:)

Jackonicko

6th Nov 2002, 23:43

Hectorus,

While I'm alarmingly close to Aldermaston, Burghfield, Culham and Harwell, I haven't noticed any mushroom clouds darkening our skies, and nor has old Jethro, who's lived in the village since time immemorial. That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed. :eek: Perhaps it explains why I can't be bothered to dredge back and quote your bon mots back at you? Perhaps there is a similar explanation as to why you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts? Or perhaps I'm doing you a grave injustice and You'll explain why this manufacturer of such inferior and dangerous aeroplanes has risen to its current position, and is now threatening to overtake your beloved Boeing?

Actually I have nothing against antipodeans at all, it's just anti-European and bone-headedly and blindly pro-American people who I have a problem with.... and I don't mean Blue Wolf either. In other words, it's personal, not nationalistic! :p

Although Jethro tells me that our genetic stock hereabouts was much improved when they transported the trouble-makers, criminals and soft-headed to the colonies.....
:D

HectorusRex

7th Nov 2002, 04:32

I'm sorry you have lost the plot, Jacko, but the thought of you wearing your "Jockey’s" around your head is quite humorous.:D

IF you did bother to check my posts I venture to suggest that you will find that I have not, as you so charmingly espoused it "you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts?"

I venture to suggest that it is you who has so far steadfastly refused to answer a question which I put to you on two occasions.

Not having met you, I would hesitate to label you, but I'll give you the benefit of your own self analysis: "That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed."

Continuing this topic does neither of us any credit, and certainly detracts from the tenure of both Pprune and the topic of the post.
Regards,
HectorusRex
PS Further research may enlighten you that the nearest penal colonies were in Australian territories.

BEagle

7th Nov 2002, 05:59

Dons scouser wig and affects Barry/Gary/Terry accent.....

"Eh, eh, eh...now then, now then....calm down, calm down......!!"

I note from the Weekly Learmouth that our anitpodean Oz-mate chums have done precisely what many feel we should have done regarding a certain future aircraft programme. Having 'observed' our Brizzle waterworks in action, or should that be inaction, they've shut the door on PFI for their new tanker and have gone for conventional procurement...a bit like Japan, Canada, Germany, Italy have. They've specified a mutli-role tanker transport requirement with an upper deck cargo door, a specific fuel/distance requirement an EW suite identical to the Wedgetail.....and are waiting for manufacturers to tender. They've also earmarked sufficient funding......

So it seems that our chums downunda can indeed teach us a lesson or two. Whether they end up with A310MRTT (currently being developed for the Germans and Canadians), Boeing KC767 (currently being developed for virtually everyone else) or A330K (currently being proposed as one of the PFI solutions for the RAF), it'll be on conventional requirement/cost/compliance grounds. They've specified a preference for new airframes, but haven't ruled out recycled exisiting airliners.

Goodonya!!

....and don't confuse the A400M design and potential with the wretched government wrangling over funding! Nothing wrong with this excellent aeroplane if its future users would only stop arguing and start funding!

sprucemoose

7th Nov 2002, 12:18

BEagle:

You're right, there's nothing wrong with the design of the A400M - bar it requiring the most powerful turboprop ever developed, and that numerous "fully compliant" bids for this have later turned out to be too heavy and underpowered.

P&WC reckon their new three-shaft design could generate 15,000 shp, and RR more than 11,000, but it's gone a bit chicken-and-egg: while Airbus could pick one of them now and give the project added impetus, they are unlikely to do so before the project go-ahead, if and when that comes.

Still, if the technological challenge of the A400M is something, what about the Boeing Pelican concept (the wing in ground-effect thing that could carry the equivalent of 17 MBTs) with four props - now there's a design challenge!

Bof

7th Nov 2002, 13:51

Beagle

I thought Weds used to be sports afternoon!

That flying wing project would be more of a dosh than a design challenge!!

The way the A400 is going, it will finish up like the Belfast - with an order for a dozen aircraft with huge development costs for an engine that isn't used on anything else. I wonder what the final cost of those uprated Tynes was?

Bof

7th Nov 2002, 17:12

Duh!! It's Thursday!!

ORAC

11th Nov 2002, 13:53

There's an article in the Times today confirming the restructuring of NATO with the demise of SACLANT etc. The sting, however, was in the tail.

--------------
"European countries have agreed to start spending large sums of money on buying key equipment to improve Nato’s overall military capabilities. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Nato’s Secretary-General, has won promises from a number of countries to fill gaps in their capabilities. Lord Robertson told The Times that in talks with Nato ministers last week he got each to commit his government to buying or leasing specific equipment immediately.

Germany will lease several strategic-range transport aircraft, either the US C17 Globemaster or the Russian Antonov. Britain, which has four C17s under a seven-year leasing arrangement, is likely to extend the deal with Boeing".
------------------

With the budgetary problems they have already, one has to wonder what the implications are for the A-400M.

It would seem nonsensical to operate/lease 2 types; and if they've already narrowed it down to the C-17 or an Antonov (A-74? Though it's having problems in the test program I believe).

The Brown Bottle

11th Nov 2002, 21:39

Beagle - can you please stop harping on about how great the A400M is. Its guess work, they havent even finalised the design yet. If it were purely left to Airbus Im sure it would be great, but the fact is all of the associated governments will, without fail, cock it up. Keep the C130s, get more C17s and we are laughing. And relax.

BEagle

11th Nov 2002, 21:54

No - sorry, BB, but I happen to think that, given half a chance, the A400M will be an excellent aeroplane.....

I'm certain that its payload/ range performance will be far better than that of the old C130K - or the C130J. Though not as good as the vastly more expensive C17 - nor, of course, as good as the An225 if we must compare apples and oranges!

It could also make a perfectly good AAR aeroplane - if EADS weren't trying to develop the A330-200 tanker at the same time.

Having done a bit of number-crunching on the Oz tanker-transport requirement described in 'Flight', the required fuel volume would appear to be in the order of 85-90 tonnes minimum. Which rules out A400M and A310MRTT, is probably tight for KC767 but is within the published capability of A330-200. Or of old TriShaws.......

ORAC

18th Nov 2002, 18:35

AW & ST:

Prague May Spring
Airlift Surprise
ANDY NATIVI/GENOA and DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON

Key European capability shortfalls will be featured high on the agenda at this week's NATO summit, with efforts to address military airlift and alliance ground surveillance needs.

This week could see the emergence of a road map directing the creation of an airlift-equivalent of NATO's E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System squadron........

Under what is in effect a master plan for DCI plus, perhaps a misnomer with DCI minus more accurate, NATO nations will sign off to specific commitments at the Prague meeting, including military airlift.

GERMANY IS TO LEAD the NATO effort to plug its glaring shortfall in airlift capacity, irrespective of Berlin having so far hamstrung efforts to launch Europe's A400M military airlifter program.

This initiative could see NATO either lease or purchase a squadron of heavy-lift aircraft, with the Boeing C-17 and the Ukrainian Antonov An-124 in the frame. While the latter candidate may prove politically attractive to Berlin, the C-17 option will provide interoperability with the U.S. Air Force.

One possible model for NATO would be to follow the lease route adopted by Britain. The British have four C-17 aircraft on lease from Boeing, ostensibly as a stopgap until the A400M is delivered....

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

A400M Still In Limbo
MUNICH

As a result of Germany's reluctance to commit to earlier plans to procure 73 Airbus A400M airlifters, program go-ahead is now expected to be delayed until 2003. Service entry date would further slip to 2009.

German Defense Minister Peter Struck is scheduled to submit an updated procurement plan by the end of the month. If Germany reduces its A400M order, he said, the aircraft price would remain unchanged--a key concern for other participating countries.

According to French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, an unchanged A400M price is still possible, as Italy and Portugal are reevaluating their proposed orders. Italy, which was no longer expected to buy A400Ms, is reportedly considering a 10-aircraft commitment, while Portugal is interested in ordering three. If such purchases materialize, Germany could reduce its A400M commitment to 60 without endangering the program.

The initial production run, based on the participating air forces' orders, would remain a combined 196 aircraft.....

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

So, if I read this right:

1. Germany is going to lead the effort to establish a European airlift capability based around the C-17 or AN-124; even though they can't afford the A-400Ms they've signed up for.

2. Germany wants to reduce it's A-400M buy - but needs the unit price not to increase, otherwise there are no savings. The only way that is going to happen is if they can persuade the Portuguese to reinstate their order and the Italians to increase theirs.

Meanwhile, the Italians have budget problems which look like they might not even be able to meet the Eurofighter funding commitments and have signed an order for C-27s as well as C-130Js.

And as for Portugal, the same issue of AW & ST states:

"In Europe, C-27J managers expect the program to benefit from the turmoil in the European A400M airlifter program. Portugal and Ireland are becoming strong candidates for the aircraft, according to Romagnoli. Portugal is in the market for 12-16 aircraft, and also has expressed interest in C-130Js".

So, being squeezed out by the C-17/AN-124 at the top end and by the C-27/C-130J at the bottom end. Anyone want to put odds on the A-400M ever getting the go ahead?

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Nov 2002, 22:30

If there are RAF Pilots in this sort of joint NATO airlift force under German control, will they still commemerate the Battle of Britain?

MarkD

19th Nov 2002, 09:46

Always asking the really *important* questions, eh WEBF.

On a more trivial note, is the An124 order a runner given that Ukraine are not flavour of the month for alleged mil exports to a certain ME regime?

steamchicken

19th Nov 2002, 14:37

Could be a point about the falling-out between the US and the Ukraine. BTW, do the RAF personnel in any other Nato formation celebrate the Battle of Britain? After all, the army have served under German command in NATO Central Front (and one of those generals, von Kielmansegg, was Rommel's ADC in 1940!).

Personally, I'd say that this proposal is intended to get the capability, with somebody else paying, to replace the A400s that they won't pay for...or am I just too cynical?

ORAC

2nd Dec 2002, 18:16

Flight International:

The Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the UK and USA said they had raised or plan to raise defence budgets, while Germany, Norway and Spain committed to arranging procurement of airlift, in-flight refuelling and sealift capabilities.

Germany will organise the lease of 16 aircraft, at least two of which will be Antonov-designed. The rest will probably be Boeing C-17s. These will be replaced when the Airbus Military A400M becomes operational. Spain will organise a 17-tanker aircraft pool, probably a mix of Airbus and Boeing platforms, while Norway will organise sealift

ORAC

4th Dec 2002, 16:12

The Times December 04, 2002

MoD cost-cutting is selling Forces short
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

THE Armed Forces are having to put up with ageing equipment because the new systems that they have been promised are years behind schedule, the National Audit Office said yesterday. In some areas, the Ministry of Defence had also decided to cut back on battlefield capabilities to save money, the audit office’s report on the MoD’s main projects said.

Although the audit office said that the MoD’s “smart acquisition” policy had introduced better controls, reducing the overall cost of its 20 biggest projects for the third successive year, 14 of them still suffered from either delays or price increases.

In one case, in order to save £319 million, the MoD had ordered only nine defensive systems to be fitted to the European A400M transport aircraft, although 25 have been ordered at a cost of £2.3 billion. The systems help to protect the aircraft from attack.

The in-service date for the new aircraft, which is to replace the Hercules, had also been deferred for a year “on affordability grounds” and would now not be available until 2010. The MoD has been forced to lease four American C17 Globemasters to fill the gap. Now, with the extra year’s delay in the A400M, being developed by Britain and seven other European partners, the audit office said that the MoD was to extend the lease for the C17s by another year.

The Hercules C130K, one of the oldest aircraft in the RAF, was also having its life extended by an extra year.

The MoD said that although only nine defensive systems had been ordered for the 25 A400Ms, not all the aircraft would be expected to operate in a hostile environment. More systems could be ordered if necessary.

The audit office said, however, that it was a case of the ministry deciding to “trade off capability for cost”.

Another aircraft project, the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, costing more than £2.8billion, was 31 months behind schedule, the report said. The in-service date was now forecast to be November 2005.

The audit office report said the delay meant that the current Nimrod, which first came into service 33 years ago, would have to carry on flying until mid-2008.......

NAO Full Report (pdf) (http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/020391.pdf) NAO Executive Summary (http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/020391es.pdf)

I note with interst that the cost of the additional year's C-17 lease (+£86 million) is achieved by the "savings" accrued by the A-400M slip (-£87 million) (page 39).

If you look at page 38 this is all smoke and mirror stuff, £81 million is saved by not only the slip but also as they "delete and defer Configuration Items", The remaining £6 million is found by adjusting inflation figures. However down under "contracting process" you'll see they slip in +£160 million due to "improved costing data for Configuration Items available".

All in all, however, by deleting the DAS and other machinations they've stripped £472 million out of the planned budget for the programme.

Note, on page 50, that they've deleted the AAR capability for the ASTOR to save £12 million.

Note, on page 87, the Typhoon is still shown as having the gun deleted and also loses the 1500L underwing tank and the CRV7 rocket. On the good side it gains LLLGB and TIALD. Current unit production cost is £56.9 million.

JSF, page 100, has lost the external carriage of Brimstone and ASRAAM.

Very interesting is that, on page 141, not only has the SHAR been deleted from the list of platforms to receive Successor IFF, but also the GR7.