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 8th Jun 2010, 15:44
  #821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Angel @ Green Granite

The report on the A400 isn't just "interesting" - it's fascinating ... It will make the Eurosceptics howl with joy and regurgitate all their mantras yet again.
Nevertheless, seeing shots of the aircraft's manoeuvrability demonstrated at ILA Berlin will also impress spectatiors immensely, as well as those in UK who will see it later in the year at "the Tattoo" and Farnborough.
As a product, it seems to be a pilot's dream, and the RAF's transport and will crews will find something that they could hardly have dreamed of. The test equipment aboard represents about half its max. load and seeing it roll rapidly to angles unexpected of a staid airlifter shows that its tactical manoeuvrability will also be outstanding ...
As a product, it seems to promise well - as for the "management" set-up originally so misconceived, the less said the better - the Reuters report could have gone into more detail, but it summarises what some of us feared right from the start. Under Mr Enders' care, the programme has probably started going right, and seeing the A400M may well make people
feel it's going to be well worth the (very avoidable !) wait.

Why can't the pols keep their effin' 'ands orf ???

PS. On a cautionary note, I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces to emulate Mr. Hasseline's behaviour with the A320 - Mr. Strongman has already said that the A400 is much more manoeuvrable than the A320.
Flight Safety officers - be very afraid !!!

Last edited by Jig Peter; 8th Jun 2010 at 18:08. Reason: add PS
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 16:07
  #822 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,124
AW&ST (Ares): VIDEO: F-35C Carrier Variant First Flight

After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.



Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.

The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.

ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 18:04
  #823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
Grizz does the biz!

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the pond, the A400M is putting on a very impressive display at ILA Berlin:

YouTube Player

More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark

(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 19:39
  #824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 45
The C-17 is just as manoeuvrable and far more impressive. Airbus are guilty of total plagiarism!
Cannonfodder is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 20:34
  #825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?

Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?
orca is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2010, 20:47
  #826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
Later on, the aircraft will be flown past at 260kt, 40kt below its maximum, before its crew responds to a simulated terrain collision advisory warning. This will see it pulled up by around 40°, and after gaining height rolled out at a bank angle of up to 120°. Previously demonstrated during stall testing, this is 30° greater than the contractually required limit for the transport as set in its seven-nation launch order for 180 aircraft.
RTFM!

BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 04:25
  #827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by orca
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?

To generate excitement, so as to increase public support and generate sales.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2010, 18:38
  #828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 84
Airbus Protection

I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces
Why, don't the fly-by-wire protections work in the A400M like they do in other Airbus aircraft?

I have to admit that I don't care about the manoeuvrability of the aircraft - both C130 and C17 are capable of being manoeuvred outside the sensible limits of operation for an AT aircraft. What I really really wanted was the aircraft to be delivered ON TIME, NOT 4 YEARS LATE.
hello1 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 17:28
  #829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 133
A controversial design change to the Joint Strike Fighter made by the F-35 Joint Program Office, intended to reduce weight and save money, will render the $382 billion centerpiece of the U.S. military's tactical aviation fleet vulnerable to a "leading cause of combat aircraft loss" -- catastrophic engine damage caused by light anti-aircraft artillery, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester.

New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.

“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”
fltlt is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 18:03
  #830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
@hello1

1) The A400's protections are similar to those on civil Airbuses, which are said to have ensured that the A320 so carelessly "demonstrated" at Habsheim at least crashed into the trees in a manner which saved most of the occupants' lives. But they couldn't prevent the accident itself. which was caused by an overconfident pilot making several basic airmanship errors (to say the least).
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 18:06
  #831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,871
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.
If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs - especially as (lack of) said systems featured heavily in both C130 and Nimrod cases.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 19:09
  #832 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,411
The "C130 case" had nothing to do with either coolant & hydraulic shut off valves or dry bay fire suppression.
StopStart is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 19:22
  #833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,729
What are the exterior noise levels like? I have head second-hand that it is very noisy.

It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 19:56
  #834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,542
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?

As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 20:02
  #835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,871
StopStart

Agreed, but fire suppression, wherever and by whatever means, is in the same section of the regs. MoD ignored it.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 20:31
  #836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,202
Tuc:
If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs
Er...wouldn't it be non-compliant with the US Regs also? Anyway, given that the RAF has issued RTS's to such non compliant aircraft previously I see no reason why the F-35 should be any different in that respect, I mean what's changed? Oh, the MAA! Ah, of course, independent of and yet part of the MOD! That'll be all right then won't it...won't it?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2010, 20:35
  #837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,729
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?

As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
I was asking about the A400M primarily, since I had heard (from about 1000 miles away from Seville!) that it is a noisy beast. That is not necessarily an issue when population is generally behind the military as currently, but that might change over the next 30 years or so. Even in the US, there are local opposition groups around some noisy airbases. Just curious if A400 is noisy enough for it to potentially become a long-term issue, especially as civilian aircraft are obliged to become increasingly quieter.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2010, 10:11
  #838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 51
Posts: 91
A400M noise

TS, Equivocator:

That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee!

(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)
Rengineer is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2010, 14:46
  #839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Angel Show-boating or ???

Agreed, Equivocator, that 120° AOB + 40° nose-up is a bit OTT, though highly "cool", but Mr. Strongman did say it was a "demo terrain avoidance manoeuvre" (and also that his display would be "a bit different" from a standard Airbus flypast).
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ?

Last edited by Jig Peter; 11th Jun 2010 at 14:50. Reason: Spelling
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2010, 15:02
  #840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Angel Note - plural ...

Neat shot by Yannick Delamarre of two A400Ms over Toulouse on www.flightglobal.com today (blogs) - after ILA "grandstanding" (what's wrong with standing grand ?), perhaps there'll be a synchro pair at RIAT/Farnborough ???


On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.

Last edited by Jig Peter; 18th Jun 2010 at 15:15. Reason: Add further comment
Jig Peter is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.