A400m

[Where R We?]

Originally Posted by wz662

What the A400M needs is Airbus to realise that it is meant to be a Tactical transport aircraft for the military and not another replacement for the Routemaster bus. - Yes I have been involved with the project.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is very frustrating to be involved and banging your head against a wall when highlighting issues which would be obvious to be a Tactical Transport Operator. Things are being addressed, but slowly. What is the most annoying is that the working level at Airbus appear to agree with our concerns but the high level management are just looking at the EU symbol and are putting the kai bosh (sp?) on things unless we can prove they have a safety implication.

We are trying our hardest to get things sorted but I will be surprised if things arrive when they are supposed to do. I know that this is a new aircraft and there will be issues but if they are the ones we have highlighted at this stage, it will be criminal if it costs us more money later on to resolve...

[dallas]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1045512/M/

Coming to a Brize Norton near you soon...

provided the Aussies are flying it...

[South Bound]

WZ662 - absolutely right fella, only problem is getting someone at DPA to jump up and down enough to tell them. Airbus will build the aircraft very, very well to the contract specification as they interpret it. It can only be hoped that DPA will fight to ensure that our interpretation is the same.

IMO Airbus will be missing a trick if they build a compromise solution. There is a market out there to be tapped, especially with the demise of the C17 line and the ridiculous money LM want to improve C130J capability. The RAF will effectively be the lead customer (not the first, but will be looking to use the thing on operations sooner and at greater flying rates than anyone else) and our experiences and feedback will sell the thing around the World. God, I hope we haven't compromised too much as a result of our multin-national contract.

[FormerFlake]

Originally Posted by Aeronut

FSTA is not just AAR - It is AT too.

It is not called AAR anymore, its AR too.

[Art Field]

If they do not do something about FSTA soon, AR will not mean anything.

[Set Power]

As with all things in this mans Air Farce, the wheel has turned once more, with many people not being kept in the loop.... AR has actually be tried, tested and abandoned - believe it or not - it is back to AAR.... All this after the Stn Cdr at a secret Oxfordshire airbase had the welcome to the Stn sign altered to read Air Refuelling..... Marvellous...

[pikeyeng]

Here's an idea why not have an airbus tanker an airbus airliner an airbus mpa and an airbus tac transport all our grouncrew can be conversant with all types all the spares will be common if we break around the world we can get spares easier the crews will only need a short conversion between types. Hold on a minute am i being logical again- sorry disregard all above what the £$$k do i know i'm just an operator.

[FOMere2eternity]

As with all things in this mans Air Farce, the wheel has turned once more, with many people not being kept in the loop.... AR has actually be tried, tested and abandoned - believe it or not - it is back to AAR.... All this after the Stn Cdr at a secret Oxfordshire airbase had the welcome to the Stn sign altered to read Air Refuelling..... Marvellous...

What was wrong with AAR to begin with? Or perhaps I should ask what was wrong with AAR that meant it had to be changed to AR? Presuming AR was trialled at Boscombe, run by the Dress Policy Committee and then released as an AL to everything (including signs), what was the post-trials problem with AR? Moreover, what has been done to AAR to make it apparently good enough to use again? Couldn't we have hired some consultants to come up with ARA or something?

[BEagle]

Having had to change an entire document from AAR to AR and back again to AAR, I wish whichever idiot came up with the 'AR' notion to have his hairy regions infested with plague-ridden fleas!

Still, I did at least get paid to change it all. Twice in fact!

Then there's MRTT. All them Airbus promotional stuff refers to Multi Role Tanker Transport. So that's what my work used - and that's what the OzAF use as well. But not the GAF....someone in the BWB decided "Nein". Because the existing GAF A310 MRT is a multi-role transporter, so the modified aircraft will be a multi-role transport tanker..... So, for the A310 MRTT it's 'Multi Role Transport Tanker' - but for the RAAF A330 MRTT it's 'Multi Role Tanker Transport'.... More work changing it around again!

You'd be amazed how anal some people get over acronymish....

And for the RAF's FSTA it's.........a deafening silence.

[Taildragger67]

Originally Posted by dallas

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1045512/M/

Coming to a Brize Norton near you soon...

provided the Aussies are flying it...

Cripes - didn't know the project was THAT advanced!! Must be something wrong with it - it seems to be going smoothly!

No boom fitted yet, though - anyone know if that will be retrofitted or if some of the RAAF airframes will be boom-less?

The demise of the 707 edges ever nearer...

[BEagle]

PR exercise - it's a long way from being a tanker yet! But a lot closer than FSTA!!

The RAAF jets will have an Air Refuelling Boom System and 2 x Wing AAR Pods each.

Also planned to be able to operate in the receiver role. But using the girly boom method, rather than manly jousting.

[rock_dove]

How many A400's are on order and are they going to be slotted into 47/70 sqns as direct replacements for the K's, or are there going to be new Squadron/s formed for them and 47/70 sqns disbanded?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

PR exercise - it's a long way from being a tanker yet! But a lot closer than FSTA!!

Shame the MRTT mission planning system will be an expensive orphan that won't play properly with the fighter guys MPS.

[Saintsman]

The first two FSTA aircraft are still on course to be converted at the beginning of 2008, with the first one due in service April 2010.

The contractual negotiations are taking their time because its not just about providing a fleet of aircraft. Its a complete package supplying aircraft, aircrew, groundcrew and all the support that goes with it for twenty odd years.

There are also severe penalties if the aircraft are not available. In this case the blame has to be correctly apportioned to the individual companies within the AirTanker consortium. This is one of the reasons the contractual negotiations are taking their time. You have to get these things right.

Leasing the aircraft to civil operators helps subsidise the cost although IMO I think that there will be so much demand from the MOD that they will never be leased out.

[South Bound]

Guys, can you please start a new thread about FSTA. I keep seeing A400M pop to the top and think it might be something interesting about a contracted programme rather than wiffle about where we think we stand with the FSTA contract.

[Art Field]

Starting one now.