JSF and A400M at risk?
The Equivocator,
I don't disagree with what you said at post 568, indeed I accept it, reluctantly, as the "norm".
I was replying to someone who said the A400M was a fixed price contract, so we (the MOD) should demand what it paid for, or simply walk away. I was pointing out that MOD has a history of not doing that!!
However, while accepting the "norm" as you describe it, it makes a nonsense of words from the MOD such as "smart procurement" and "fixed price" as political considerations will often override MOD's good intentions. What's more the companies generally know it!
How to make money in the civilian world, get a government contract!!
I don't disagree with what you said at post 568, indeed I accept it, reluctantly, as the "norm".
I was replying to someone who said the A400M was a fixed price contract, so we (the MOD) should demand what it paid for, or simply walk away. I was pointing out that MOD has a history of not doing that!!
However, while accepting the "norm" as you describe it, it makes a nonsense of words from the MOD such as "smart procurement" and "fixed price" as political considerations will often override MOD's good intentions. What's more the companies generally know it!
How to make money in the civilian world, get a government contract!!
The A400M has progressed rapidly from power on, single engine runs, all engine runs, high power engine runs and taxying tests. Very quickly indeed, in fact.
Rather more so than Bubba Boeing has with that plastic pig 7-late-7 'Depressionliner' thing, it would seem.
Rather more so than Bubba Boeing has with that plastic pig 7-late-7 'Depressionliner' thing, it would seem.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite surprised to see that probe/basket system for AAR refueling, rather thought the higher-transfer-rate 'flying boom' was the way to go.
You know, like the first airbus converted A330 tanker (for the RAAF) has got!
Not an airbus person me, so I don't really know!
Cheers...FD...
You know, like the first airbus converted A330 tanker (for the RAAF) has got!
Not an airbus person me, so I don't really know!
Cheers...FD...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and C17 which is great but can't do anything you want it to do outside of the donkey work...all a bad idea....
In many ways, the C-17 is a victim of its own success - UK Plc has limited the scope of its role because it has proved so valuable and reliable(something that the airbridge was craving for only a year or so ago) in supporting the Strat resupply to theatre. As a result of that success, trying to crowbar a single flying hour on the jet away from that task is nigh-on impossible.
If the C-17 was so tasked, it would, no doubt, perform.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C17B design is an admission of these identified areas of weakness by the ADA
A lot happens in aviation technology in 24 years! The C-17B upgrade, detailed here, upgrades solely avionics with some talk of an uprated engine coming along too.
I think that one upgrade in 24 years admits quite the opposite to your statement - the design is solid and remains solid enough to be built upon for the future.
I'm no expert on the C130 but look at it's upgrade history - are you saying that every upgrade or new model is an admission of its failings? I would hope not. It's called development, dear chap.
We should however remember, as you say, that the C130J and C17 were both labelled Damian at some point, and with time have developed into highly effective platforms...as i'm sure, in time, will A400M.
The question really in debate here is one of required future capability which, i'm sure, many fine chaps at Shrivenham will lecture you on for hours.
On the Tac-Strat scale you have C130 (far left), A400M(a middle-ground compromise) and C-17A(Middle-right). For current requirements, C17 is ideal. A400M fails to offer the Strat spin-offs that it really needs when there is no Tac role for it to fulfil - ask any K or J mate how often they are actually performing true Tac ops?
One thing does remain true - we must learn from the lessons of the C17's service so far and provide suitable ACHE and periferal eqpt to make efficient use of our most valuable assets.
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 30th Nov 2009 at 16:00.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
"So they really think that they're going to take this thing into the Zagros mountains [in Iran] and land it on a dirt runway? Yeah, right." In the 1980s, that was the standard line used by critics of the C-17 transport.
At the Marines' Forward Operating Base Rhino near Kandahar, 3,300 feet above sea level. C-17s flew 43 missions in late 2001, delivering 1,450 tons of heavy equipment--including the bulldozers and graders which built the camp and kept the runway open, with the aid of a specialised dust-controlled product nicknamed Rhino Snot.
Typically carrying 45 tons of cargo, the C-17s--which had apparently forgotten that they were not C-130s --operated almost exclusively at night, with crews using night vision goggles (NVGs), performing tactical arrivals, assault landings and tactical departures, including steep climbs and rapid changes of heading.
The runway--a [ unpaved] strip less than 7,000 feet long on a dry lake bed, previously used by nothing larger than a Cessna--took a tremendous pounding, but the C-17's twelve-wheel main gear at least left it in a state where it could be repaired for the next night's operations. ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_664_57/ai_n28928490/
"So they really think that they're going to take this thing into the Zagros mountains [in Iran] and land it on a dirt runway? Yeah, right." In the 1980s, that was the standard line used by critics of the C-17 transport.
At the Marines' Forward Operating Base Rhino near Kandahar, 3,300 feet above sea level. C-17s flew 43 missions in late 2001, delivering 1,450 tons of heavy equipment--including the bulldozers and graders which built the camp and kept the runway open, with the aid of a specialised dust-controlled product nicknamed Rhino Snot.
Typically carrying 45 tons of cargo, the C-17s--which had apparently forgotten that they were not C-130s --operated almost exclusively at night, with crews using night vision goggles (NVGs), performing tactical arrivals, assault landings and tactical departures, including steep climbs and rapid changes of heading.
The runway--a [ unpaved] strip less than 7,000 feet long on a dry lake bed, previously used by nothing larger than a Cessna--took a tremendous pounding, but the C-17's twelve-wheel main gear at least left it in a state where it could be repaired for the next night's operations. ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_664_57/ai_n28928490/
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've landed Albert onto a strip that a C17 had been using previously and it had made a real old mess. We had to move the strip, it was that badly dug up. The next two weeks of multi-albert utilisation didn't do any where near the same damage. Not scientific, just my experience....
Equiv., if your air force had A400's, could it do anything "tactical' that a combination of C-17's and C130's can't do? It seems that the A400 may be too betwixt and between for an air force that already has the other two aircraft.
The best hope for A400 sales success may be that C-17 production ends too soon.
...
Does anyone know if the ground pressure of a heavily loaded A400's tires would be much less than the ground pressure of a C-17 landing with the same gross weight? I don't know the answer to that. I'm asking. I suppose one could look up the respective tire sizes and calculate the ratios of tire area on ground and kinetic energy at touchdown/tire area on ground of the two aircraft at equal gross weight.
Equiv., if your air force had A400's, could it do anything "tactical' that a combination of C-17's and C130's can't do? It seems that the A400 may be too betwixt and between for an air force that already has the other two aircraft.
The best hope for A400 sales success may be that C-17 production ends too soon.
...
Does anyone know if the ground pressure of a heavily loaded A400's tires would be much less than the ground pressure of a C-17 landing with the same gross weight? I don't know the answer to that. I'm asking. I suppose one could look up the respective tire sizes and calculate the ratios of tire area on ground and kinetic energy at touchdown/tire area on ground of the two aircraft at equal gross weight.
Champagne anyone...?
Whilst a lot theoretical sense is being spoken here I think one needs to look at how, where and if such "mid-range" airlift would be used. If we consider current ops we have two (Helmand area) main airfields and then a bunch of FOBs, none of which are served by tarmac/TLZ. Your C17 brings the outsize vehicles into the big airfields which are then driven to where they are required. In an ideal world these would "spoked" out to TLZs by the A400 and everyone would be happy.
Unfortunately, this is where theory and reality bid each other adieu. An aircraft is at it's most vulnerable when landing/taking off or offloading on the ground. Risk aversion, fear of litigation & all round arse covering amongst the Air Staffs has reached such heights that the use of TLZs is seen as being so risky it's not worth bothering with. If these vehicles can be driven to where they are needed then that will be pushed for. Unless we build another new, large Bastion style fenced-in, secure TLZ the A400 (or C17) will not be delivering anything to patches of dirt anywhere.
So where will our new, shiny A400 be taking all these heavy vehicles? I guarantee you that they will fall into the strat-trap that the C17 finds itself in. They will not be infilling vehicles into TLZs as their airships will be too fearful of losing one and they won't be doing airdrop because a) the C130 can deliver enough of that and b) they're much more useful stratting stuff into theatre.
The A400 may well be a very capable platform but the reason I would hesitate to go fly it is the same as I would never fly the C17: the only interesting flying either do, or will do, is NVG MOS circuits at Keevil. No slur intended on either platform, just an observation of reality.
Unfortunately, this is where theory and reality bid each other adieu. An aircraft is at it's most vulnerable when landing/taking off or offloading on the ground. Risk aversion, fear of litigation & all round arse covering amongst the Air Staffs has reached such heights that the use of TLZs is seen as being so risky it's not worth bothering with. If these vehicles can be driven to where they are needed then that will be pushed for. Unless we build another new, large Bastion style fenced-in, secure TLZ the A400 (or C17) will not be delivering anything to patches of dirt anywhere.
So where will our new, shiny A400 be taking all these heavy vehicles? I guarantee you that they will fall into the strat-trap that the C17 finds itself in. They will not be infilling vehicles into TLZs as their airships will be too fearful of losing one and they won't be doing airdrop because a) the C130 can deliver enough of that and b) they're much more useful stratting stuff into theatre.
The A400 may well be a very capable platform but the reason I would hesitate to go fly it is the same as I would never fly the C17: the only interesting flying either do, or will do, is NVG MOS circuits at Keevil. No slur intended on either platform, just an observation of reality.
The reluctance to use TLZs is perhaps understandable given the loss of 2 C130s on operationally compromised TLZs in recent years. Of course, the burden of risk is then passed on to Land Forces as the number of ground moves is increased..
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see an under protected American C-17 trundling about Bastion on the news last night. Is the uk is restricted to... evening ops...... because of flow clash!!!
I would be surprised if the UK C17 Force commence airdrops in the near future; the costs/demand on assets would surely outweigh any benefit given that the RAF already has an excellent airdrop capability in C130J.
Champagne anyone...?
The reluctance to use TLZs is perhaps understandable given the loss of 2 C130s on operationally compromised TLZs in recent years.
I think that that assertion will be proved wrong quite quickly
)If one C130J can put out up to 60T of airdropped stores in one night (they can, have and regularly still do) then which air cdr is going allocate one of his big freight movers to a similar task? Similarly a C17 might well be able to chuck out all that lot in a oner but just how big is that DZ going to be?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS: First of all, thank you for a polite, considered reply - they seem to be the exception these days on Pprune!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think that if nothing else, the A400M will be put to work asap in the AD role (notwithstanding clearances etc.) if only to alleviate fatigue/frame hours on the J. Strips/TLZs as you mention, is a whole different issue.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think that if nothing else, the A400M will be put to work asap in the AD role (notwithstanding clearances etc.) if only to alleviate fatigue/frame hours on the J. Strips/TLZs as you mention, is a whole different issue.
Champagne anyone...?
TT - ah but will the "asap" be "s" enough to plug the gap that looms when we start needing to do the centre wing boxes on the J? Airbus may push the Mighty M out the front door in time (relatively speaking) but the QQ & trials work "required" on her before she starts hurling things at the countryside will be in the order of years rather than months 
I'll be delighted to be proved wrong mind.
My money is on an interim purchase of 4/5 Js and another C17 to fill the gap....
I'll be delighted to be proved wrong mind.
My money is on an interim purchase of 4/5 Js and another C17 to fill the gap....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to go with SS on the A400M/TLZ debate.
We need proven capability now and that must be more C130J and C17. Short-sighted maybe but as the Tac AT fleet is only training for the war and not the next war then that should be enough!
We need proven capability now and that must be more C130J and C17. Short-sighted maybe but as the Tac AT fleet is only training for the war and not the next war then that should be enough!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone please give us a tutorial on LCN's and related matters? I don't understand 'em very well.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/273126-eswl.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/273126-eswl.html
If you really want to get basic about it, the A400M has as many wheels as a C-17 and weighs half as much, and weighs twice as much as a C-130 but has three times as many wheels. It's an indicator of priorities as well as performance - landing gears are heavy.
As for the scintillating prose cited by Modern Elmo re "Rhino Snot", there are two points there. One is that the C-17 was at least good enough to do it at all (to wit, not a C-5 or an advanced C-141) and the other is that it wasn't really a sustainable operation.
As for the scintillating prose cited by Modern Elmo re "Rhino Snot", there are two points there. One is that the C-17 was at least good enough to do it at all (to wit, not a C-5 or an advanced C-141) and the other is that it wasn't really a sustainable operation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airdrop
I did hear a rummor that the new gps guided airdrop kit that Americans use from C-17s and the brits from C-130s is so acurate that if the same co-ordinates are punched into 2 pallets they are likely to land on top of each other!!.
If thats so, surely the Brits could drop ammo direct to customer from the UK in C-17's . Then land for a backload!!!!
How hard can it be, the aircraft works it all out. Punch in some numbers, open the door, push a button, load gone!
Then land for a backload....I know..... its not that simple!
If thats so, surely the Brits could drop ammo direct to customer from the UK in C-17's . Then land for a backload!!!!
How hard can it be, the aircraft works it all out. Punch in some numbers, open the door, push a button, load gone!
Then land for a backload....I know..... its not that simple!
LCNs CBRs and allthat jazz
ME you asked for a tutorial on LCNs. LCN, ACN, PCN and ESWLs are merely different ways of telling you the same thing - measuring the requirements of an aircraft against the load bearing capabilities of a runway surface. They all apply to paved surfaces ie "real" airfields and their runways and taxiways. In the case of military transport aircraft the actual requirement can, occasionally, be improved by reducing the tyre pressures.
However, when you are talking about operations off and onto natural surfaces - grass, shale, mud, sand etc - California bearing ratios are used or CBR. As its name says it is a ratio and does not have a unit to go with it. From memory of Boeing's own figures the minimum CBR for a C17 is about 10 if it is to do anything at all. A400M is designed to be able to do a minimum of 120 passes at CBR 6 (a pass being a landing or take off) and 10 passes at CBR 4. Again from memory C130 is similar but I don't have any details. CBR 4 is a mid-winter sports pitch that even a landrover would cut up whilst CBR6 is possibly a spring time Rugby 7s type pitch.
At CBR 6 A400M 500 nm from main base could make about 140 landings and deliver round about 3,200 tonnes of freight etc before the strip needed repairing or moving.
I hope this helps your discussions.
However, when you are talking about operations off and onto natural surfaces - grass, shale, mud, sand etc - California bearing ratios are used or CBR. As its name says it is a ratio and does not have a unit to go with it. From memory of Boeing's own figures the minimum CBR for a C17 is about 10 if it is to do anything at all. A400M is designed to be able to do a minimum of 120 passes at CBR 6 (a pass being a landing or take off) and 10 passes at CBR 4. Again from memory C130 is similar but I don't have any details. CBR 4 is a mid-winter sports pitch that even a landrover would cut up whilst CBR6 is possibly a spring time Rugby 7s type pitch.
At CBR 6 A400M 500 nm from main base could make about 140 landings and deliver round about 3,200 tonnes of freight etc before the strip needed repairing or moving.
I hope this helps your discussions.