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 15th Feb 2009, 09:11
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,096
100m EACH!?!?

C-17 isnt too far off that!!

Why not buy another 20 C-17s and tell the frogs to p*ss off?
VinRouge is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 10:10
  #342 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,650
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!
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 12:06
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 968
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.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 13:44
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,096
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

Last edited by VinRouge; 15th Feb 2009 at 14:37.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2009, 16:55
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In a world of my own.
Posts: 337

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
AARON O'DICKYDIDO is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2009, 20:02
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
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.
There is an aircraft in Ukraine called the Antonov An-70 that has similar size, speed, better runway performance and still claims a 47 tonne payload.

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
Minorite invisible is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 03:24
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Latest info I have seen (press release yesterday) quoted C-17 at $200 million US each for USAF*, $220 million US export.


* for the 15 just ordered
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 05:23
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 56
Any chance of a link?
The Equivocator is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 05:38
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
I'll try to find it.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 05:42
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Found it. Boeing release, detailed in Aviation Week:

Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales | AVIATION WEEK
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 18:20
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 33
AN70

If the AN70 is so good why is Russia not buying any?
proteus6 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 18:33
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
If the AN70 is so good why is Russia not buying any?
Perhaps Russia isn't keen to buy aircraft from a Ukrainian company?
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 19:00
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,578
If the An 70 is so good, why isn't Russia buying any?
IIRC, it was because they suddenly woke up to the fact that it wouldn't really do anything which the Il 76 couldn't already do.

And they still had one or two of those knocking around.....
BEagle is online now  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 20:32
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
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.
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2009, 21:25
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
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.

Last edited by Minorite invisible; 18th Feb 2009 at 18:54. Reason: small error
Minorite invisible is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 15:16
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 104
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.
Sook is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 18:29
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 33
AN 70

Thanks Minorite invisible
Couldn't ask for a better answer then that!
proteus6 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 19:28
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 84
From the Commons link:

The confusing and contradictory process by which DPA.......
Chortle - fill in the missing word. 'Existed' would be a good start.
hello1 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 20:18
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 37
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.
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.
Arcanum is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2009, 21:29
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
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.
Thanks for that! I knew the story but was not aware how short the runway was at Vestmannaeyjar.

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.
Minorite invisible 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.