JSF and A400M at risk?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Remember we also have a training and support system with engineering expereince of the C17 whereas the A400 .....
Now there surely can be no Typhoon-JSF-CVF argument on this one!
Now there surely can be no Typhoon-JSF-CVF argument on this one!
A400 is an embarressment to all concerned. It was a wonderful "chummy" idea for Bliar and his euro-phile, Islington cafe-culture, air/ar*e-kissing nu-labourites. Now it has been overtaken by Political infighting, Industrial incompetance and the harsh realities of the wars we are now fighting; a war which is eroding our fragile AT fleet by the day as the A400 cavalry stubbornly refuses to arrive.
Bin it.
Hold a mini-AT review in light of the current campaigns and then purchase a small number (12?) of C27J to offload the CH47/C130J in Theatre, a few more C130J to ameliorate the bashing they are taking (and to prevent expensive re-winging of Ks and Js) and some more C17s (another 6 or so). If A400 matures into a worthwhile product (and I do think it will) purchase them in 15 years time as a replacement for the tranche one C130J.
Airbus has had it's chance; it's blown it. Move on, and let the French and Germans wallow in euro-myopia.
Bin it.
Hold a mini-AT review in light of the current campaigns and then purchase a small number (12?) of C27J to offload the CH47/C130J in Theatre, a few more C130J to ameliorate the bashing they are taking (and to prevent expensive re-winging of Ks and Js) and some more C17s (another 6 or so). If A400 matures into a worthwhile product (and I do think it will) purchase them in 15 years time as a replacement for the tranche one C130J.
Airbus has had it's chance; it's blown it. Move on, and let the French and Germans wallow in euro-myopia.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equivocator, your prices for c-17 are crap. Latest order equates to £140 million a pop for C-17. The USAF just ordered 15 of them for $2.95 billion.
As I had said, if they had ordered these when the pound was trading at 2.04 to the dollar, they would have cost £96 million each, comparable with A400m. I reckon significantly cheaper than A400m once you consider the significant development issues we all know the project is facing... We could easily use them in the Airdrop role once we have enough; where do you get the idea the yanks are NOT using the C-17 in the tactical role?
YouTube - C-17 Airdrop
YouTube - C-17 South Pole Quad Sequential Airdrop
YouTube - Afghanistan airdrop of supplies
As I had said, if they had ordered these when the pound was trading at 2.04 to the dollar, they would have cost £96 million each, comparable with A400m. I reckon significantly cheaper than A400m once you consider the significant development issues we all know the project is facing... We could easily use them in the Airdrop role once we have enough; where do you get the idea the yanks are NOT using the C-17 in the tactical role?
YouTube - C-17 Airdrop
YouTube - C-17 South Pole Quad Sequential Airdrop
YouTube - Afghanistan airdrop of supplies
Last edited by VinRouge; 15th Feb 2009 at 14:37.
Evalu8ter
You say bin the A400M, but how much (£) will it cost UK to pull out now?
Forget about late arrival of the aircraft, the contract will state how much we would have to stump up if we pull out at any stage.
You can guarentee that it will not be small change.
Aaron
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 12 tonnes overweight A-400M
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.
Antonov An-70 STOL & Soft field
The An-70 has an MIL-1553B compatible databus and was built to AP-25 norms, streamlined with JAR-25. If A-400M customers ordered 180 of them and decided to equip it with the avionic suite and DASS that had been planned for the A-400M, Europe would finally have a great tactical airlifter at much less cost than completing the A-400M.
The alternative is C-130Js and C-17s.
I think that 12 tonne issue is the real killer for the A-400M. The Gross weight is going to creep up and to maintain performance (speed, rate of climb, ceiling, take-off run) the engine HP, already an issue, will have to follow. That will increase fuel burn, reduce range, reduce endurance, reduce payload, require larger tanks, etc....
Why do you think the An-70 has 14,000 SHP engines instead of the A-400Ms' 11,000 SHP for a similar sized aircraft ?
Older A-400M specs found on the web mentionned a Take-Off Weight of 130 tonnes. Then we saw 136.5 tonnes and now EADS talks about 141 tonnes. There is a trend there. Where will it stop?
The C-17 went through the same pains, and its runway performance that paid the price. In the early days, to justify funding, Boeing claimed the Boeing C-17 could use 3000 foot runways and was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic one. Now that the C141 is retired and the C-5 is out of production, one does not hear too much of that anymore. If anyone knows of any runway under 4500 feet where a C-17 has ever landed (outside of training missions), let us know where.
The problem with the A-400M is that is is primarily a tactical aircraft with some strategic capabilities. This extra weight might turn it into a bad tactical aircraft with even more limited strategic capabilities.......
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 17th Feb 2009 at 02:45. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found it. Boeing release, detailed in Aviation Week:
Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales | AVIATION WEEK
Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If the AN70 is so good why is Russia not buying any?
If the An 70 is so good, why isn't Russia buying any?
And they still had one or two of those knocking around.....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have seen information regards a collaboration between India and the Ukraine re a 'mini-me' twin engine C-17. Rather like those good folk down in the South American jungle.
New players keen to get a slice of the action are showing their paper planes, Interesting to see what will be actually make it to market in the coming years.
New players keen to get a slice of the action are showing their paper planes, Interesting to see what will be actually make it to market in the coming years.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the Russians are not buying the An-70
There are several reasons.
Design work on the An-70 began in 1983, and the decision for production was made in 1988, when Ukraine was still part of the USSR. At the time the USSR was broke and funding was minimal for all military programs.
In Dec 1991 Ukraine became an independent country and the Antonov Design bureau that designed the An-70, the Aviant plant that was to manufacture it, as well as the Ivchenko-Progress Company that designed its engines all ended up outside what is now Russia. These three companies are not Russian but Ukrainian. Even the wings were built at TAPO, in Uzbekistan, now also an independent country (outside Russia).
The top brass of the Russian Air Force were upset at Ukraine because at the break up of the USSR, the bulk of the IL-78 Air to Air refuellers were based in Ukraine, which kept them. There were also also other conflicts regarding the Russian Black Sea fleet, based in Ukraine.
But until then, the broke Russian were still funding the program, although minimally. The first prototype was ready for flight in 1994, and on its fourth test flight, it crashed after having a mid-air collision with an An-72 chase plane that was filming it. Two years later (1996) the ADB had converted the static test airframe into a flying prototype to continue the flight testing programme. The certification flights continued until 2001 when the sole prototype lost the #1 and #3 engines at night, right after take-off, at 130 feet AGL. The mishap occurred right after the An-70 had taken on 38 tonnes of fuel at en en-route stop to Russia for cold weather tests. At first fuel contamination was suspected but it turned out both engines were shut down automatically by the FADEC, and to compound the problem, one prop failed to feather and windmilled. They put it down in a snowy field, straight ahead. The prototype was fixed within a few months but work was needed on the engines, especially the FADEC (sounds familiar?)
It is around that time that Russian Perm Aircraft engine company began to work on a new engine for the Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft, the PS-90. Russia was broke and some High ranking Russian Air Force Officers could not understand why Russia had to fund a 70 or 80 million dollars Ukrainian aircraft capable of hauling 47 tonnes when one could buy brand new 50 to 60 tonne capacity IL-76s for 15 to 30 million dollars (India took delivery of 6 IL-78 tankers in 2003, for somewhere around that price and China ordered 38 of them, a sale that Russia eventually blocked)
(Recently India ordered 3 IL-76 based A-50 AWACS, the first of which was delivered last just month:
Photos: Beriev A-50EI Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Those cost a fortune, but the price was due mostly to the AWACS modifications and electronics rather than by the IL-76 on which is it mounted)
Then in 2004 there was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, with talk of Ukraine wanting to join the EU and worst, NATO. Finally in 2006, Russia which was the main customer with 165 An-70 orders pulled out. By that time what Russia was doing is not to buy new airlifters at all, but they began a re-engining programme of their 250+ fleet of IL-76/IL-78/IL-82/A-50 aircraft with modern Perm PS-90 engines and EICAS, a handful of which have been completed so far. Here are pictures of one of them.
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
This conversion cost them probably under 30 million dollars each (4 engines, plus a little work) In 2006 and 2007 Ilyushin has continued delivering brand new IL-76s, of a 50 tonne capacity for about 50 million dollars a piece. Russia is now in the process of restarting a new Ilyushin production facility at the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Factory, a version they call the IL-476. It will be 100 per cent Russian, and not Ukrainian.
That is why Russia is not buying the An-70.
Design work on the An-70 began in 1983, and the decision for production was made in 1988, when Ukraine was still part of the USSR. At the time the USSR was broke and funding was minimal for all military programs.
In Dec 1991 Ukraine became an independent country and the Antonov Design bureau that designed the An-70, the Aviant plant that was to manufacture it, as well as the Ivchenko-Progress Company that designed its engines all ended up outside what is now Russia. These three companies are not Russian but Ukrainian. Even the wings were built at TAPO, in Uzbekistan, now also an independent country (outside Russia).
The top brass of the Russian Air Force were upset at Ukraine because at the break up of the USSR, the bulk of the IL-78 Air to Air refuellers were based in Ukraine, which kept them. There were also also other conflicts regarding the Russian Black Sea fleet, based in Ukraine.
But until then, the broke Russian were still funding the program, although minimally. The first prototype was ready for flight in 1994, and on its fourth test flight, it crashed after having a mid-air collision with an An-72 chase plane that was filming it. Two years later (1996) the ADB had converted the static test airframe into a flying prototype to continue the flight testing programme. The certification flights continued until 2001 when the sole prototype lost the #1 and #3 engines at night, right after take-off, at 130 feet AGL. The mishap occurred right after the An-70 had taken on 38 tonnes of fuel at en en-route stop to Russia for cold weather tests. At first fuel contamination was suspected but it turned out both engines were shut down automatically by the FADEC, and to compound the problem, one prop failed to feather and windmilled. They put it down in a snowy field, straight ahead. The prototype was fixed within a few months but work was needed on the engines, especially the FADEC (sounds familiar?)
It is around that time that Russian Perm Aircraft engine company began to work on a new engine for the Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft, the PS-90. Russia was broke and some High ranking Russian Air Force Officers could not understand why Russia had to fund a 70 or 80 million dollars Ukrainian aircraft capable of hauling 47 tonnes when one could buy brand new 50 to 60 tonne capacity IL-76s for 15 to 30 million dollars (India took delivery of 6 IL-78 tankers in 2003, for somewhere around that price and China ordered 38 of them, a sale that Russia eventually blocked)
(Recently India ordered 3 IL-76 based A-50 AWACS, the first of which was delivered last just month:
Photos: Beriev A-50EI Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Those cost a fortune, but the price was due mostly to the AWACS modifications and electronics rather than by the IL-76 on which is it mounted)
Then in 2004 there was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, with talk of Ukraine wanting to join the EU and worst, NATO. Finally in 2006, Russia which was the main customer with 165 An-70 orders pulled out. By that time what Russia was doing is not to buy new airlifters at all, but they began a re-engining programme of their 250+ fleet of IL-76/IL-78/IL-82/A-50 aircraft with modern Perm PS-90 engines and EICAS, a handful of which have been completed so far. Here are pictures of one of them.
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Photos: Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
This conversion cost them probably under 30 million dollars each (4 engines, plus a little work) In 2006 and 2007 Ilyushin has continued delivering brand new IL-76s, of a 50 tonne capacity for about 50 million dollars a piece. Russia is now in the process of restarting a new Ilyushin production facility at the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Factory, a version they call the IL-476. It will be 100 per cent Russian, and not Ukrainian.
That is why Russia is not buying the An-70.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 18th Feb 2009 at 18:54. Reason: small error
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but while doing some digging into AT on the parliament website, I found the following:
House of Commons - Public Accounts - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
Maybe that explains why we won't get the An-70.
House of Commons - Public Accounts - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
Maybe that explains why we won't get the An-70.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C-17 went through the same pains, and its runway performance that paid the price. In the early days, to justify funding, Boeing claimed the Boeing C-17 could use 3000 foot runways and was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic one. Now that the C141 is retired and the C-5 is out of production, one does not hear too much of that anymore. If anyone knows of any runway under 4500 feet where a C-17 has ever landed (outside of training missions), let us know where.
Vestmannaeyjar Airport (VEY) Details - Iceland
That said, they did break the front undercarriage on landing.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A C17 was used to fly a live Killer Whale called Keiko from Oregon to Vestmannaeyjar airport in Iceland back in 1998. Run way length 3900ft.
Vestmannaeyjar Airport (VEY) Details - Iceland
That said, they did break the front undercarriage on landing.
Vestmannaeyjar Airport (VEY) Details - Iceland
That said, they did break the front undercarriage on landing.
Here is a US Air Force quote
The Globemaster arrived at Vestmannaeyjar's airport on time. Although Keiko and the other passengers were safe and sound, the C-17 suffered landing gear damage upon touchdown. Air Force accident investigation board later determined that the accident occurred due to the failure of the trunnion collar spud of the main landing gear, caused by a technique used to clean the component. Damage to the right main landing gear was substantial, and was classified as a determined a Class A mishap. A Class A mishap involve damages worth at least $1 million.