JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
Quite happy, thanks!
I just happen to have grown weary of that stupid 'Dave' appellation for the F-35.
I just happen to have grown weary of that stupid 'Dave' appellation for the F-35.
Excellent display of^ class and character.
^a complete lack of
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well guys I would sugest you enjoy reading the sales lit and looking at the pictures of JSF and A400 in RAF colours as that could well be the only time they appear in RAF or RN colours given the budget statemant and the 23+ years it's going to take to make the country solvent again I would sugest if you haven't got it now or its in production for you now for the services you aren't going to get it.
The Chancellor is being very optimistic with his figures and I would sugest its a huge IF he gets the loans. There are efficiency savings for all departments of Govt this year and it looks like the defence budget will fall in the next few years. Wonder if Tornado & C130K will last another 25 years?
The Chancellor is being very optimistic with his figures and I would sugest its a huge IF he gets the loans. There are efficiency savings for all departments of Govt this year and it looks like the defence budget will fall in the next few years. Wonder if Tornado & C130K will last another 25 years?
Nurse
Agree with what you are saying, particularly regards the budget.
Anyone else sad enough to dig into the supporting doicuments for this years budget? Whilst I haven't (and wouldn't!) read every page, the following alarmed me (unless I'm reading it wrong).
On Table C11 (or page 241 of the overall document [and page 25 of 38 of that particular section]) - click here - it gives the Resource DEL for Goverment Departments. The figures below (in £Bn) read across as the estimate for 08-09 / Plan 09-10 / Plan 10-11. Defence makes interesting rwading compared to the other two big spenders.
Defence : 37.9 / 38.7 / 36.7
Health : 92.5 / 99.9 / 104
Children, Schools and Families : 46.8 / 49.2 / 51.3
Anybody see something wrong here....?
Or is this government smoke and mirrors and actually the Defence budget is going up? It goes on to say (in footnote 1) that the 2010/11 figures reflect adjustments as a result of additional value for money savings. So how come Defence is the only one (of the big hitters) that goes down? It also has a throw away comment that the increase in 09/10 over what was forecast in Budget 08 is the need to fund ongoing operations. So much for the "contingency fund"!
Incidentally, the Capital DEL figures follow a similar pattern.
So, given defence industry inflation is (or was) running way above any of the other government inflation figures, from what I can see the future is indeed bleak. Never mind saving FW FAA it could get a whole lot worse than that.
Agree with what you are saying, particularly regards the budget.
Anyone else sad enough to dig into the supporting doicuments for this years budget? Whilst I haven't (and wouldn't!) read every page, the following alarmed me (unless I'm reading it wrong).
On Table C11 (or page 241 of the overall document [and page 25 of 38 of that particular section]) - click here - it gives the Resource DEL for Goverment Departments. The figures below (in £Bn) read across as the estimate for 08-09 / Plan 09-10 / Plan 10-11. Defence makes interesting rwading compared to the other two big spenders.
Defence : 37.9 / 38.7 / 36.7
Health : 92.5 / 99.9 / 104
Children, Schools and Families : 46.8 / 49.2 / 51.3
Anybody see something wrong here....?
Or is this government smoke and mirrors and actually the Defence budget is going up? It goes on to say (in footnote 1) that the 2010/11 figures reflect adjustments as a result of additional value for money savings. So how come Defence is the only one (of the big hitters) that goes down? It also has a throw away comment that the increase in 09/10 over what was forecast in Budget 08 is the need to fund ongoing operations. So much for the "contingency fund"!Incidentally, the Capital DEL figures follow a similar pattern.
So, given defence industry inflation is (or was) running way above any of the other government inflation figures, from what I can see the future is indeed bleak. Never mind saving FW FAA it could get a whole lot worse than that.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£36.7 billion will be more than enough to cover 2010/2011 as the defence cuts sorry efficiency savings to be announced later this year will bring our forces down to a level that this will cover along with expensive operations.
The Govt claim the operations part of the budget will come from contingency reserves.
The Govt claim the operations part of the budget will come from contingency reserves.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence budget
I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if we'll end up with a souped-up Coastguard, air, land and sea ?
Seems we can forget ' projecting our interests ' abroad - and that might suit us and ' abroad ' fine - as long as we can sort out anyone threatening invasion; the Navy seems to be going this way already, CVF excluded ( which sadly I expect it will be )...
Seems we can forget ' projecting our interests ' abroad - and that might suit us and ' abroad ' fine - as long as we can sort out anyone threatening invasion; the Navy seems to be going this way already, CVF excluded ( which sadly I expect it will be )...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A400M Delayed by Paperwork Blunder
Airbus A400M engine maker Europrop International has admitted it blundered in the development of a vital computer system by failing to produce the correct paperwork to allow the power plant to be certified to the required civil standards.
EPI president Nick Durham said the company only realized last year that the paper trail required for the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) was OK for military approval but not the civil requirements agreed to in the contract with Airbus. "The problem came from having to demonstrate to the European Aviation Safety Authority traceability through the development cycles. When we sat down with them late summer last year, it was clear to us and them that actually, whilst everything worked, we couldn't clearly show that," Durham said.
Durham attributed the error to "the pressure of the moment." "We didn't intentionally go down this route. The organizations involved in normal military programs work in a slightly different way to validate the software by operation and I think what happened was people kept to those processes under the pressure rather than move to the civil certification processes we had agreed to. It's a matter of what you do up front and what you do later," he said...........
Talking to reporters in Seville, the EPI boss said the company had to virtually develop from scratch the complex software required to control the aircraft's propulsion system. Durham said EASA is scheduled to do a formal audit on the software system this summer with full engine certification targeted for late 2009.......
Durham said EPI had had to draft in a lot of the best people from across the European partners to resolve the problem, causing other development programs to be "sacrificed." The FADEC workforce had been "more than trebled" to over 200 engineers, he said. The EPI boss said that at the time of the decision not to proceed with the flight test program, the FADEC system was functional, had the required paper trail for military approval, and had operated for over 2,000 hours on the engine-test bed.
Asked why, in light of the fact the A400M program was already facing delays, the decision had not been taken to develop the traceable software in parallel with the flight test program and grant a waiver for the military-approved system to be used, Durham said he wasn't the right person to say. "We had to come through with a traceable engine sooner or later and to demonstrate we had it right and give the customer [Airbus] confidence we had it right. Working with the customer we decided this was the best solution," Durham said.
In a statement, Airbus said the lack of certification of the FADEC, as required by EASA, meant they were not in a position to perform first or subsequent flights. "There is first a civil certification through EASA, and then a "military certification and qualification" which is for the more military specific aspects of the power-plant - airframe combination and utilization such as resistance to gravel and bullets.
EASA grants the stamp for first flight as A400M MSN1 [a test aircraft] will be operated under civil registration. Before granting it, EASA wants to have the assurance that it is safe for the airframe/engine combination to take-off. In the case of the FADEC software, which is complex integrated software, the minimum assurance is to show compliance to DO178B certification process and as a first step, demonstrate traceability of top level requirements in the software development process," said the statement...........
Durham said that despite the FADEC setbacks the 2,600 hours of running on test rigs and 25 hours on the flying test bed showed good results. About 90 percent of development testing is now complete and work is now underway to complete installation of instrumentation on the test engines for MSN1 with the aim of starting ground running tests this summer.
A Hercules C-130 flying test bed operated by British company Marshall Aerospace has been operating with a TP400 replacing one of the four engines since late last year. The engine has operated at 70 percent of take-off power and will shortly move to takeoff at full power, said Durham.
"Engine performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams. At take-off and cruise we are meeting maximum temperature margins, fuel consumption is at specification and in-flight restarts are working," he said.
Although A400M is known to be heavily overweight, Durham said the engine weight is within 1 percent of specification.
"That's pretty unusual at this stage of engine development. If the performance we have seen so far is backed up on the flight test program, it is so good it suggests we will be able to take out a bit more weight with modifications in the future."
Airbus A400M engine maker Europrop International has admitted it blundered in the development of a vital computer system by failing to produce the correct paperwork to allow the power plant to be certified to the required civil standards.
EPI president Nick Durham said the company only realized last year that the paper trail required for the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) was OK for military approval but not the civil requirements agreed to in the contract with Airbus. "The problem came from having to demonstrate to the European Aviation Safety Authority traceability through the development cycles. When we sat down with them late summer last year, it was clear to us and them that actually, whilst everything worked, we couldn't clearly show that," Durham said.
Durham attributed the error to "the pressure of the moment." "We didn't intentionally go down this route. The organizations involved in normal military programs work in a slightly different way to validate the software by operation and I think what happened was people kept to those processes under the pressure rather than move to the civil certification processes we had agreed to. It's a matter of what you do up front and what you do later," he said...........
Talking to reporters in Seville, the EPI boss said the company had to virtually develop from scratch the complex software required to control the aircraft's propulsion system. Durham said EASA is scheduled to do a formal audit on the software system this summer with full engine certification targeted for late 2009.......
Durham said EPI had had to draft in a lot of the best people from across the European partners to resolve the problem, causing other development programs to be "sacrificed." The FADEC workforce had been "more than trebled" to over 200 engineers, he said. The EPI boss said that at the time of the decision not to proceed with the flight test program, the FADEC system was functional, had the required paper trail for military approval, and had operated for over 2,000 hours on the engine-test bed.
Asked why, in light of the fact the A400M program was already facing delays, the decision had not been taken to develop the traceable software in parallel with the flight test program and grant a waiver for the military-approved system to be used, Durham said he wasn't the right person to say. "We had to come through with a traceable engine sooner or later and to demonstrate we had it right and give the customer [Airbus] confidence we had it right. Working with the customer we decided this was the best solution," Durham said.
In a statement, Airbus said the lack of certification of the FADEC, as required by EASA, meant they were not in a position to perform first or subsequent flights. "There is first a civil certification through EASA, and then a "military certification and qualification" which is for the more military specific aspects of the power-plant - airframe combination and utilization such as resistance to gravel and bullets.
EASA grants the stamp for first flight as A400M MSN1 [a test aircraft] will be operated under civil registration. Before granting it, EASA wants to have the assurance that it is safe for the airframe/engine combination to take-off. In the case of the FADEC software, which is complex integrated software, the minimum assurance is to show compliance to DO178B certification process and as a first step, demonstrate traceability of top level requirements in the software development process," said the statement...........
Durham said that despite the FADEC setbacks the 2,600 hours of running on test rigs and 25 hours on the flying test bed showed good results. About 90 percent of development testing is now complete and work is now underway to complete installation of instrumentation on the test engines for MSN1 with the aim of starting ground running tests this summer.
A Hercules C-130 flying test bed operated by British company Marshall Aerospace has been operating with a TP400 replacing one of the four engines since late last year. The engine has operated at 70 percent of take-off power and will shortly move to takeoff at full power, said Durham.
"Engine performance and weight results pretty much meet our wildest dreams. At take-off and cruise we are meeting maximum temperature margins, fuel consumption is at specification and in-flight restarts are working," he said.
Although A400M is known to be heavily overweight, Durham said the engine weight is within 1 percent of specification.
"That's pretty unusual at this stage of engine development. If the performance we have seen so far is backed up on the flight test program, it is so good it suggests we will be able to take out a bit more weight with modifications in the future."
Even if the A400M arrives three years late (deliveries in 2012) the consortium will still have delivered a complex, brand-new, front-line aircraft in less than ten years from contract award.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 64
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRBUS CEO Interview
Der Spiegel is carrying an interview with the CEO of Airbus, translated in English. The interview is from 30 March but they just had it on their english web site. Based on what he is saying (or not saying) I doubt you will see an aircraft by 2012. Part of the problem with the A400M he blames on the contract they signed to develop the aircraft.
Interview available at SPIEGEL Interview with Airbus CEO Thomas Enders: 'EADS Should Never Have Signed the A400M Contract' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
SPIEGEL: Germany is threatening to completely withdraw and France is considering reducing its order. It doesn't exactly look like a promising future ...
Enders: Objection! If we can manage to get the program back on course now, the A400M will be a success story. That is what we want -- but not at any price. In any case, we cannot build the plane under the conditions that we've had up to date.
SPIEGEL: Your company is also partly to blame for this development.
Enders: True. EADS should never have signed this contract. Our American competitors would never have accepted such conditions. We've made big mistakes, and errors have also been made on the customer side. We should now rectify these together.
SPIEGEL: What are your demands on the governments? More money? More time?
Enders: We submitted a few proposals back in December. This basically concerns three issues. First, the A400M should be technically and economically organized like any other defense project, where the risks and opportunities are appropriately shared by the customer and the industry. This means, for example, that Airbus will no longer carry the risks alone of engineering the engine, because that is neither our job nor did we want things this way. In all other military programs, the engines are also handled separately.
SPIEGEL: And second?
Enders: Engineering, flight tests and the start of production have to be optimized chronologically in order to minimize the risks of series production. And third, studies need to be conducted to assess whether the A400M, which is designed to be more or less an all-rounder, really has to be able to do everything right from the start. It could save everyone a great deal of time if some of the things this multi-talented aircraft is supposed to be able to do were only introduced step by step.
Enders: Objection! If we can manage to get the program back on course now, the A400M will be a success story. That is what we want -- but not at any price. In any case, we cannot build the plane under the conditions that we've had up to date.
SPIEGEL: Your company is also partly to blame for this development.
Enders: True. EADS should never have signed this contract. Our American competitors would never have accepted such conditions. We've made big mistakes, and errors have also been made on the customer side. We should now rectify these together.
SPIEGEL: What are your demands on the governments? More money? More time?
Enders: We submitted a few proposals back in December. This basically concerns three issues. First, the A400M should be technically and economically organized like any other defense project, where the risks and opportunities are appropriately shared by the customer and the industry. This means, for example, that Airbus will no longer carry the risks alone of engineering the engine, because that is neither our job nor did we want things this way. In all other military programs, the engines are also handled separately.
SPIEGEL: And second?
Enders: Engineering, flight tests and the start of production have to be optimized chronologically in order to minimize the risks of series production. And third, studies need to be conducted to assess whether the A400M, which is designed to be more or less an all-rounder, really has to be able to do everything right from the start. It could save everyone a great deal of time if some of the things this multi-talented aircraft is supposed to be able to do were only introduced step by step.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to start looking at the defence budget not as a whole, but as a % of our GDP.
The US spends 4.06% of its GDP on defence, France 3.4%, Pakistan 6%, India's increased from 2.6 to 3%. By comparison, we spend 2.6% - i KNOW it's wiki and I apologise, but check out the % of GDP table - for the 6th largest economy in the world, 69th isn't really the best place to be.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
although in this table Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Organisation | Key Facts about Defence | Defence Spending at the bottom of page, it apparently shows that defence used up 5.8% of the government's total expenditure. - NB made me laugh, the reduction of a whole 5% on the MoD's overheads.
World Military Spending ? Global Issues that has some interesting info as well based upon the USA's division of spending within government.
There is no real thrust in this post, its just a collection of data that show's just how skewed our priorities are. We still send aid to China for gods sake!
The US spends 4.06% of its GDP on defence, France 3.4%, Pakistan 6%, India's increased from 2.6 to 3%. By comparison, we spend 2.6% - i KNOW it's wiki and I apologise, but check out the % of GDP table - for the 6th largest economy in the world, 69th isn't really the best place to be.
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
although in this table Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Organisation | Key Facts about Defence | Defence Spending at the bottom of page, it apparently shows that defence used up 5.8% of the government's total expenditure. - NB made me laugh, the reduction of a whole 5% on the MoD's overheads.
World Military Spending ? Global Issues that has some interesting info as well based upon the USA's division of spending within government.
There is no real thrust in this post, its just a collection of data that show's just how skewed our priorities are. We still send aid to China for gods sake!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CIA World facts Book gives the following Defence GDP:
USA 4.06% (est 2005)
UK 2.4% (est 2004)
FR 2.6% (est 2005)
Pak 3.0% (est 2007)
Ind 2.5% (est 2006)
USA 4.06% (est 2005)
UK 2.4% (est 2004)
FR 2.6% (est 2005)
Pak 3.0% (est 2007)
Ind 2.5% (est 2006)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Derby
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a trade off in the end though. Our defence budget may be lower but we as a country get free healthcare. In that respect we should count ourselves lucky. Furthermore, I would suggest that it is just as important how well the money is spent rather than simply how much of it there is in the first place perhaps?
....but we as a country get free healthcare....
If not, why not?
Our defence budget may be lower but we as a country get free healthcare
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that it adds much value to the debate but the situation with the software is dire. Not realizing you have to comply with civil standards but just military is a bizarre argument. Any serious aviation software development should be following processes designed to meet DO-178B objectives. These should be checked at each stage; planning, development, verification and if the the overseeing expert is not happy - then is the time to correct, not when you've flown xx hours on the "final" builds.
Bad software management - and calling it a paperwork blunder is like saying the Titanic sank because of frozen water.
Bad software management - and calling it a paperwork blunder is like saying the Titanic sank because of frozen water.
Leon Jabachjabicz,
If that's how you feel about this country sod off then.
You can still get the Daily Mail abroad so you will still be able to keep up with how terrible it is here.
***t
If that's how you feel about this country sod off then.
You can still get the Daily Mail abroad so you will still be able to keep up with how terrible it is here.
***t