Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

JSF and A400M at risk?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

JSF and A400M at risk?

Old 28th Jan 2009, 16:36
  #321 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,413
The former....definitely the former.....
StopStart is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 17:41
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 473
SS, out of interest are the Americans actually looking to dispose of some of their C-130J airframes?

Another source of low-mileage second hand aircraft might be the air forces of those NATO nations who are not fully contributing to Afghan mission?
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 18:23
  #323 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,413
Quiet Potter, you filthy meddling civvy. Check yer PMs!


(PS. No but.. & perhaps)
StopStart is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 18:30
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 84
Second-hand C130Js

Hmmmmm, not sure that our friends in the US have quite gotten round to selling their C130Js yet - particularly as they are still buying new ones from Mr Lockheed almost as fast as he can build them.

However what Mr Lockheed does do is a nice line in USAF spec C130Js which I imagine all the other new customers would also want. Clearly the UK would require some additional work to remove the enhancing features that were standard on the H3 and everyone else's C130J....but not on our fleet!
hello1 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 21:33
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
C130J is too narrow - for what? I'll concede it's too narrow for FRES but then it's also too narrow for the Starship Enterprise...
...another self appointed J expert who has no idea what lies beyond '245'.

GM
Good Mickey is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2009, 22:25
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Not a 100% certain with regards to FRES but I think Stoppers is correct with his Starship Enterprise assertion.................or have I missed something
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 06:31
  #327 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,413
Cool

I'm not self appointed. As for what's behind 245 well I know there's a urinal but to be honest everything else is a mystery. Would love to see the Enterprise tie-down scheme tho.....
StopStart is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 06:40
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
The J is an awesome bit of kit especially when we're talking performance and SA. However, it is definitely too narrow and you will know only too well SFFP when you are trying to get to the back due to no ready access down the side of a B16 CDS load. A wider herc that can accommodate pallets with seats alongside down the entire freight bay would be the dream solution...and this is where the A400M will be a winner.

Unfortunalely, I don't think I'll see it in my carreer!!

GM
Good Mickey is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 07:08
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,578
Almost 15 years ago, I had a look around the 'FLA' mock-up at Farnborough. In the freight bay was a large orange structure which looked like a (kevball) goalpost. "What's that?", I asked my host. He replied that it was a C130J fuselage cross-section representation.

It looked tiny in the cavernous interior of the FLA. And that was the FLA's biggest snag - it was thought of as a 'Funny Looking Albert' rather than as a revolutionary airlifter.
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 07:45
  #330 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,413
GM. This isn't a "lets knock the A400" thread - the issue facing the TacAT fleet are the looming J fatigue issues and ever lengthening A400 delays. I'm not knocking the A400M - far from it, I'm quite a fan. It will be a superb bit of kit for all the reasons you state. Indeed, if I'm still alive when it turns up I'm still hoping to get on the Initial Cadre.

But, and it's a big but, someone, somewhere surely has to consider what the fall back is for if and when the A400 delays get too long and we face a gap in AT capability??

My argument is based around what we're going to do to plug the gap. The answer, in my opinion, is a stop-gap of "more of the same". FRES is, frankly, irrelevant in the argument because it is, realistically, as far off as the delayed A400 is. Yes, it would be nice to be able to put seats down next to pallets but it would also be nice if I had FLIR and TFR at the front. We have neither and it doesn't stop us doing what we do. Having to climb over CDS loads is just a fact of life; get the C17s to do it if it's all too hard (like the US do) and you could drive a car up and down alongside the loads if you wanted to.

There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available. We have what we have and have to make do. As the A400M slips further and further to the right what do you suggest we do? As I see it we either sit tight, weather the storm and just hope it'll be ok (this is what the MoD will do by the way) or someone bites the bullet and goes for an interim stop-gap measure to ensure that the good service the TacAT fleet currently offers to the front line is maintained.
StopStart is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 09:24
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,881
My argument is based around what we're going to do to plug the gap. The answer, in my opinion, is a stop-gap of "more of the same". FRES is, frankly, irrelevant in the argument because it is, realistically, as far off as the delayed A400 is.


Agreed. FRES is a much misunderstood programme. It is envisaged to be a suite of vehicles (16 variants at one point), but very often the MoD itself writes as if it is just one vehicle type. About 8 years ago the Initial Operating Capability was deemed to be approx 2007 (for less complex variants) through to 2011; (very) roughly aligning with A400. This has slipped and the HCDC report of Feb 2007 noted 2017/18 as more realistic. I don’t know if this has slipped further in the last 2 years.



In the last couple of years a number of UORs have been delivered in response to the requirement for better protection – Mastiff, Vector, plus the Bulldog programme (enhanced FV430) etc. In the above HCDC report, MoD made it quite clear these were interim solutions and came nowhere near meeting the FRES requirements. But my suspicious mind tells me that, somewhere, a beancounter will be trying to chop FRES funding claiming these programmes form part of the solution.

In my opinion, these delays and machinations make StopStart’s statement valid. As I said in a previous post, someone will be trying to spin the A400 delay as “programme alignment with FRES”, while completely oblivious to the problems the delays are causing. Keep discussing it guys; MoD will be reading PPRuNe to inform future policy!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 12:10
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
GM,

Some of us are still fit enough to CLIMB OVER a block 16/24 CDS load ................not that I include myself in that statement at this moment in time
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 15:03
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 60
Posts: 539
Tucumseh - what makes you believe that "MOD reads PPRuNe posts to inform on future policy?"

I fear your blind faith is mis-placed .

MB
Madbob is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2009, 15:15
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: States sometimes
Posts: 96
SS,

the starship enterprise gets tied in like any other bit of kit...2 & 2!!

GM
Good Mickey is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 08:21
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
EADS Press Release 10 February

EADS fully committed to succeed in A400M programme Amsterdam, Tue 10th Feb 2009, 16:17:28
EADS N.V.

EUROPE - EADS reaffirms its full commitment to deliver on the European A400M Military Transport Aircraft programme and welcomes the public support given by the French Senators today towards making this exceptional aircraft a success – an aircraft that represents a “brickstone of sovereignty” for the European Defence, as the Senators outlined.

Concerning overcosts, in contrary to statements made in media reports, EADS confirms that no indication can be given today beyond the provision of 1.7bn euros already taken, as long as a binding industrial plan, which includes the availability of systems, is not established and not before OCCAR’s position on EADS proposals is known. This is in line with what the audit commission of the French Senate on the A400M has expressed.

EADS made a proposal to OCCAR at the end of 2008 to enter discussions to redefine certain technical and contractual specifications of the programme. According to the announcement of January 9, EADS confirms that the delay between the first flight and the first delivery of the A400M Future European Military Transport Aircraft will be three years. The Group is working with the engine consortium to define the date for this first flight. The group is simultaneously studying possibilities to facilitate the production ramp-up. EADS is more than ever determined to deliver on this programme which is one of the most ambitious European Defence Programmes designed to produce an aircraft of exceptional performance. The state-of-the-art technologies will make the A400M an aircraft of the future, designed to be operational for many decades. This aircraft features second-to-none capabilities compared to any currently existing strategic and tactical military transport aircraft.

At the same time, EADS is reorganising the structure of the programme. Following EADS CEO Louis Gallois’ proposal, the EADS Board of Directors had decided in December 2008 to integrate the A400M programme under the sole lead of Airbus thus simplifying and clarifying its lines of responsibility. The French parliamentary report presented today does not question the actual status of the A400M as previously communicated by EADS.

EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2007, EADS generated revenues of Euro 39.1 billion and employed a workforce of about 116,000. The Group includes Airbus as the leading manufacturer of commercial aircraft, with Airbus Military covering tanker, transport and mission aircraft, Eurocopter as the world's largest helicopter supplier and EADS Astrium, the European leader in space programmes from Ariane to Galileo. Its Defence & Security Division is a provider of comprehensive systems solutions and makes EADS the major partner in the Eurofighter consortium as well as a stakeholder in the missile systems provider MBDA
John Blakeley is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 10:10
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
@ SS

In response to my statement,

Originally Posted by Moosemaster
Face facts, A400 might be delayed, but it is still the only realistic option in the current environment.
you said,

Originally Posted by StopStart
moosemaster - sorry but I have to disagree with most, if not all, of what you say.
then said,

Originally Posted by StopStart
There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available.

Can you decide which side of the fence you are on please?

I am linked to the project (as previously admitted) and so want it to continue, but am also mindful of the hardships caused by the extended(ing) delays. However, as I stated I cannot see a viable alternative, either temporary or permanent.

Also, FRES is not the only load that will benefit from the larger cargo hold of the A400. I don't have an exhaustive list, but there is a list of load items that can be carried by A400 that a C130 can't. (Granted, they are in the same list that a C17 can, but you don't need to wait for 4 of them to justify a sortie.)

Last edited by moosemaster; 11th Feb 2009 at 10:27.
moosemaster is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 11:24
  #337 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,413
Er, pardon?

You said:
but it is still the only realistic option in the current environment.
No it isn't. It doesn't exist in any viable form....

I said:
There is no other realistic, OTS, medium-size airlifter available.
There isn't! The A400 doesn't exist and neither does the C130XL or anything else floating about on a designer's sketch pad.

There is no other airlifter of similar dimensions/perf/modernity etc to the A400 that could be procured instead of/in addition to the A400 to fill the gaps. The C130 fleet is getting very knackered very quickly. The A400 is drifting further and further to the right. What do you suggest we do? Rather than keep telling us all the things that the A400 will be able to carry how's about we all actually deal with the fast approaching crisis? You telling me the A400 will be able to carry all sorts of stuff is like you me telling you not to worry about your broken down car because in 100 years you'll be able to teleport to work instead. That in no way addresses the immediate problem.

I'm not on any side of the fence, in fact I don't believe there is a fence. I'm just the poor end user watching the current fleet get thrashed to death with no money to support them properly whilst the replacement disappears further and further over the horizon. I'm not knocking the A400 (for the 10 billionth time) I would just like to know what exactly we're going to do when the A400 doesn't start rolling into Op service in 2 years time!!!

There is no need to be defensive - I think we're all mostly agreed that the A400, as and when it turns up, will be a very good bit of kit. It won't be as all-singing-all-dancing as the glossy brochure said it would be but then what new aircraft ever is. The fact that it is being delayed is what is causing us, the end-user, problems and, as I said before, do we do something as a stop-gap or just ignore it and hope it will go away?
StopStart is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 18:01
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 356
do we do something as a stop-gap or just ignore it and hope it will go away?
Clearly the latter!!
Farfrompuken is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 19:38
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
I refer you to post 301...
Biggus is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 08:43
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 366
A400 update?

From Christopher Booker's column in The Telegraph, at the end of the Clemenceau dit.


In May 2000, in the first flush of his enthusiasm for integrating Britain's defence effort with the EU, Tony Blair signed up to buy 25 A400M transport aircraft for the RAF, to replace our ageing Hercules fleet. Delivery was promi sed by 2006. After many delays, it was last week announced that the first A400s, now costing £100 million each, cannot be delivered until 2014 or even later - an overrun much longer than both world wars put together. We could still buy replacement Hercules from the US, off the shelf at £40 million each, less than half the cost. But such are the joys of "integration" with our European partners.

The breaking news the BBC wouldn't tell - Telegraph
Spurlash2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.