JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Franco-German push could unjam A400M talks | Reuters
Specifically:
"...The price of each plane would rise 20 percent to about 130 million euros."
Accepting these latest figures, you could procure roughly 18 C-17's for the price of the 25 A400m on order. Some other figures that are available:
The A400M can lift a maximum of 37 tons.
Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,800 nautical miles.
Aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent.
Based on these figures, we need only procure approximately 9 C-17's to match the airlift that 25 A400's could provide... Thereby halving the total procurement cost.
At a conservative estimate, you would save circa £1.4 Billion.
£1.4 Billion...
Not taking into account the fact that we already operate the Boeing.
Without any bias, the simple sums on A400m, do not add up.
Specifically:
"...The price of each plane would rise 20 percent to about 130 million euros."
Accepting these latest figures, you could procure roughly 18 C-17's for the price of the 25 A400m on order. Some other figures that are available:
The A400M can lift a maximum of 37 tons.
Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
- Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
- Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,800 nautical miles.
Aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent.
Based on these figures, we need only procure approximately 9 C-17's to match the airlift that 25 A400's could provide... Thereby halving the total procurement cost.
At a conservative estimate, you would save circa £1.4 Billion.
£1.4 Billion...
Not taking into account the fact that we already operate the Boeing.
Without any bias, the simple sums on A400m, do not add up.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here 'n' there.
Age: 53
Posts: 33
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing figures is surely not the same as comparing capability.
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose?
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing figures is surely not the same as comparing capability.
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose?
The A400M is replacing the C130K fleet something which the C17 is not and I suspect they do vastly different tasks.
Given the choice of 25 A400Ms to do Tac AT or a further 9 C17s to do the same role what would you choose?
Infrastructure already there!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jez,
Check the numbers. You would get 18 C-17s for your 25 A400m's.
I posted the figures to provide a simplistic cost comparison. I would not go down the capability road if i was arguing for the A400m over the C-17. Halving the number of C-17's in a direct comparison was a neat, if incorrect, trick.
What would you rather have? 18 C-17s or 25 A400m...?
Ottb is correct to point out that the real solution would involve both J and Globemaster, types we already operate.
Without stating the bleeding obvious, can we now afford to waste such a huge sum of money propping up a failed contract. If we opt for A400m, the money is not going to come out of social security. Therefore, paradoxically, an insistance on its procurement could harm defence.
Sad to say it but; nice aeroplane, wrong time, poor contract.
Check the numbers. You would get 18 C-17s for your 25 A400m's.
I posted the figures to provide a simplistic cost comparison. I would not go down the capability road if i was arguing for the A400m over the C-17. Halving the number of C-17's in a direct comparison was a neat, if incorrect, trick.
What would you rather have? 18 C-17s or 25 A400m...?
Ottb is correct to point out that the real solution would involve both J and Globemaster, types we already operate.
Without stating the bleeding obvious, can we now afford to waste such a huge sum of money propping up a failed contract. If we opt for A400m, the money is not going to come out of social security. Therefore, paradoxically, an insistance on its procurement could harm defence.
Sad to say it but; nice aeroplane, wrong time, poor contract.
The so-called 'C-17 / C-130J' solution is not politically acceptable to certain A400M customers. Neither is the C-27J an adequate alternative.
Even if the UK were to pull out and turn cap-in-hand to Uncle Spam yet again, who would pick up the UK's share of A400M costs? And don't forget the cancellation penalties which may well exist....
The UK has confirmed its support for A400M; France and particularly Germany now need to agree the way ahead. Which will not include any American alternatives.
Even if the UK were to pull out and turn cap-in-hand to Uncle Spam yet again, who would pick up the UK's share of A400M costs? And don't forget the cancellation penalties which may well exist....
The UK has confirmed its support for A400M; France and particularly Germany now need to agree the way ahead. Which will not include any American alternatives.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here 'n' there.
Age: 53
Posts: 33
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted the figures to provide a simplistic cost comparison. I would not go down the capability road if i was arguing for the A400m over the C-17. Halving the number of C-17's in a direct comparison was a neat, if incorrect, trick.
Sad to say it but; nice aeroplane, wrong time, poor contract.
My own belief is that the UK will pay their full share plus a bit more and get the full 25 airframes but perhaps in a quicker timeframe than the other customers. The Germans however won't be getting the full 60 and may have them delivered over a longer period.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occar - Wow !
After a quick look at the OCCAR references it certainly does have a lot on its plate, what with ships, missiles helicopters and ground vehicles as well as the A400M. Serious stuff, indeed.
I wonder how the various programmes other than the A400M
are doing/did, in terms of cost and timescale - and how much the OCCARy staffing levels and adminnery cost ... Seems they didn't have much of a "handle" on what was happening down in Seville and Toulouse.
Now that February's here, let's hope there's some sort of agreement between Mr. Sarkozy and Frau Doktor Merkel when they see each other at Davos (or wherever) and that they will tell their "minions" to agree something (which could always be re-agreed later, no?).
Cynique, Moi? Nein, nimmer ...
I wonder how the various programmes other than the A400M
are doing/did, in terms of cost and timescale - and how much the OCCARy staffing levels and adminnery cost ... Seems they didn't have much of a "handle" on what was happening down in Seville and Toulouse.
Now that February's here, let's hope there's some sort of agreement between Mr. Sarkozy and Frau Doktor Merkel when they see each other at Davos (or wherever) and that they will tell their "minions" to agree something (which could always be re-agreed later, no?).
Cynique, Moi? Nein, nimmer ...
Kylie or Nigella?
I should be so lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky......
As regards the C-17, does anyone really believe that Bubba Boeing won't up the price significantly if Europe cannot agree about the A400M?
By the time the A400M starts entering RAF service, the C130Js will be getting pretty well shagged out after Afghanistan. So it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see them being flogged off to the highest bidder and replaced 1-for-1 by A400Ms....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No ****, Shylock!
BBC NEWS
F-35 general sacked by Pentagon
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has sacked the marine general overseeing a $40bn (£25bn) project to build the next generation strike fighter jet.
Mr Gates said the F-35 programme had been plagued by problems and failed to hit performance targets.
He also said Lockheed Martin, the US corporation responsible for building the jet, would not be awarded $614m in performance-related payouts.
The Pentagon wants the F-35 to replace most of its ageing fighter jets.
"The progress and performance of the F-35 over the past two years has not been what it should," Mr Gates told a news conference on the Pentagon's proposed budget.
He added that "a number of key goals and benchmarks were not met".
F-35 general sacked by Pentagon
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has sacked the marine general overseeing a $40bn (£25bn) project to build the next generation strike fighter jet.
Mr Gates said the F-35 programme had been plagued by problems and failed to hit performance targets.
He also said Lockheed Martin, the US corporation responsible for building the jet, would not be awarded $614m in performance-related payouts.
The Pentagon wants the F-35 to replace most of its ageing fighter jets.
"The progress and performance of the F-35 over the past two years has not been what it should," Mr Gates told a news conference on the Pentagon's proposed budget.
He added that "a number of key goals and benchmarks were not met".
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF already run 3 fleets. Be under no illusion, the Js and Ks are totally different aircraft, that happen to share a name and an overall appearance, but different none-the-less.
As the A400 was ordered to replace the K's, there will still be 3 fleets, except the "new" 3rd fleet will be more serviceable and more capable than the "old" 3rd fleet.
The argument over sims is also a moot point. The RAF could never buy a C17 sim, even the USAF don't own any, they merely lease them from Boeing, who run them under contract.
Buying more C17s would only increase our dependence on the USAF training system, which is quite stretched as it is. I mean, they do have rather a lot of C17 crews to keep current themselves.
At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)
The basic fact remains that we do not have enough J's to simply scrap the Ks and transfer tasking to the J fleet. Nor would buying more J's help because they lack the outsize load capability needed to deliver some of the army's newest equipment to the front line.
The C17, great as it is, is really not suited to unprepared strip ops. It can do it, don't get me wrong, but those donks really to take a hammering with all the dust ingestion. Add to that the servicing requirements that will be incurred by hammering them in the Tac role, and over the longer term, A400 still wins. (Obviously this is opinion, and I have no figures to back it up)
As the A400 was ordered to replace the K's, there will still be 3 fleets, except the "new" 3rd fleet will be more serviceable and more capable than the "old" 3rd fleet.
The argument over sims is also a moot point. The RAF could never buy a C17 sim, even the USAF don't own any, they merely lease them from Boeing, who run them under contract.
Buying more C17s would only increase our dependence on the USAF training system, which is quite stretched as it is. I mean, they do have rather a lot of C17 crews to keep current themselves.
At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)
The basic fact remains that we do not have enough J's to simply scrap the Ks and transfer tasking to the J fleet. Nor would buying more J's help because they lack the outsize load capability needed to deliver some of the army's newest equipment to the front line.
The C17, great as it is, is really not suited to unprepared strip ops. It can do it, don't get me wrong, but those donks really to take a hammering with all the dust ingestion. Add to that the servicing requirements that will be incurred by hammering them in the Tac role, and over the longer term, A400 still wins. (Obviously this is opinion, and I have no figures to back it up)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least with A400, we become masters of our own training destiny (provided the MoD go ahead with the planned purchase of a sim, of course.)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTOH
Problem: We need more ground handling equipment.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Problem: We need more movers to better support our extant fleet.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Problem: I need to paint my front door.
Answer: Buy a C17.
Problem: We need more Tac AT.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Indie Cent puts forward a seemingly unbeatable comparison model and on the top bunk says that our infrastructure is already in place to support a further acquisition of extant fleet aircraft, both of which are massively simplistic.
Notwithstanding the simple fact that we wouldn't get anywhere near 18 x C17 for the same money as the A400M contract (please show how you get to these figures and I will try and show where you are incorrect)is a load more C17 something we need? Regardless of the cost, you would need to look long and hard at the C17 as a capability. Like it or not, we are already doing a serious amount of civil charter and have historically always done so. We can always get into the additional cost of trying to put the C17 into the tactical role if you want to expose more of the cost argument....
You asked 'What would I rather have 25 x A400M or 18 x C17' which is, frankly, a nonsense question...It depends what I was going to do with them, what capability they had, what threat environment we were operating in, what clearances they had, what the load was, etc etc etc. The answer to this could clearly be either, but the question MOD asked some time ago was 'What shall we replace the C130K with?' Unfortunately some can only see that great strategic asset, but Holy White Elephant, as the answer.
What would you prefer, a Porsche 911 or a Tractor...? Kylie or Nigella? Spoon or Knife.....?
The argument that we already have infrastructure for the C130J and C17 is also facile. Not quite sure how you define infrastructure, but I'll take a guess that you mean more than just 'hangarage'...
Clearly running a third fleet has a cost, but this doesn't disappear just because you're not buying A400M.
Your 'infrastructure' costs include a whole load of stuff we don't already have and need to use/buy for acquiring any more aircraft, European or American. Sims, crews, movers, ACHE, hangars, fuel, spares (and different spares), etc etc etc..
I've said it before but this argument isn't about us buying C17 and C130J to replace an A400M contract, it's about us justifying A400M to the treasury as something we need. If we don't win this argument, we won't be getting anything to replace the K.
One would not have to wait 3+ years to get the C-17 (or the J) in service and 5+ years to reach a level of maturity for squadron service. In other words, you can wait 5+ years to get what you can receive within the next 12 months, for a cheaper price.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Problem: We need more movers to better support our extant fleet.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Problem: I need to paint my front door.
Answer: Buy a C17.
Problem: We need more Tac AT.
Answer: Buy more C17s.
Indie Cent puts forward a seemingly unbeatable comparison model and on the top bunk says that our infrastructure is already in place to support a further acquisition of extant fleet aircraft, both of which are massively simplistic.
Notwithstanding the simple fact that we wouldn't get anywhere near 18 x C17 for the same money as the A400M contract (please show how you get to these figures and I will try and show where you are incorrect)is a load more C17 something we need? Regardless of the cost, you would need to look long and hard at the C17 as a capability. Like it or not, we are already doing a serious amount of civil charter and have historically always done so. We can always get into the additional cost of trying to put the C17 into the tactical role if you want to expose more of the cost argument....
You asked 'What would I rather have 25 x A400M or 18 x C17' which is, frankly, a nonsense question...It depends what I was going to do with them, what capability they had, what threat environment we were operating in, what clearances they had, what the load was, etc etc etc. The answer to this could clearly be either, but the question MOD asked some time ago was 'What shall we replace the C130K with?' Unfortunately some can only see that great strategic asset, but Holy White Elephant, as the answer.
What would you prefer, a Porsche 911 or a Tractor...? Kylie or Nigella? Spoon or Knife.....?
The argument that we already have infrastructure for the C130J and C17 is also facile. Not quite sure how you define infrastructure, but I'll take a guess that you mean more than just 'hangarage'...
Clearly running a third fleet has a cost, but this doesn't disappear just because you're not buying A400M.
Your 'infrastructure' costs include a whole load of stuff we don't already have and need to use/buy for acquiring any more aircraft, European or American. Sims, crews, movers, ACHE, hangars, fuel, spares (and different spares), etc etc etc..
I've said it before but this argument isn't about us buying C17 and C130J to replace an A400M contract, it's about us justifying A400M to the treasury as something we need. If we don't win this argument, we won't be getting anything to replace the K.
One would not have to wait 3+ years to get the C-17 (or the J) in service and 5+ years to reach a level of maturity for squadron service. In other words, you can wait 5+ years to get what you can receive within the next 12 months, for a cheaper price.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moosemaster,
Want to point out what the K is doing at the moment aside from getting towed from one side of LYE to the other?
We have 2 AT fleets. The K lost a lot of its engineers to the J a while back.
Want to point out what the K is doing at the moment aside from getting towed from one side of LYE to the other?
We have 2 AT fleets. The K lost a lot of its engineers to the J a while back.
As the A400 was ordered to replace the K's, there will still be 3 fleets, except the "new" 3rd fleet will be more serviceable and more capable than the "old" 3rd fleet.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equivocator, your PPRuNe callsign is mis-leading! Far from having a doubtful or double meaning your last post was very erudite and obviously well informed .
I totally agree with what you say. The sad thing is that it reminds me of the old Irish joke..... Seamus asks Paddy the way to Dublin and Paddy replies "Seamus, if I were going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here!"
The problem is that through inept decision-making/procurement compounded by lack of funds military procurement (like almost everything else this government is responsible for) is a case of crisis management.
The sad truth is that long-lead procurement projects (of whatever type be they Nimrods, T45's, Astutes, FRES, A400's, Chinook Mk3, or Tankers.....the list goes on) have a tendency to run late, go over budget and suffer from additional delays due to the Treasury using cuts to the Defense Budget as a means of balancing all its other budgets which are less politically easy to cut. In short, the MOD gets the short straw time and time again and our senior "top brass" are powerless to prevent this or too focused on protecting their own service/career/pension....
It would be oh so different if the views expressed at the coal face, (and here on PPRuNe) were listened to by those is charge of such decisions....then perhaps we wouldn't suffer the "capability chasms" (I can't call them "gaps" anymore) such as lack of MPA/long range SAR, SHARs for the RN's air defence, Elint or strategic reconnaisance....
A little bit of "Quantative Easing" directed at the MOD would be a start....I'm only glad that I jumped ship after 10 years in the RAF and that my sons haven't set their hearts of following my footsteps too closely. Seeing the post and YouTube videos of "Fighter Pilot" which was being filmed when I was going through Linton I can't help but reflect on how much things must have changed - for the worse sadly
.
My admiration and respect goes to those still putting up with the frustrations of life in the armed forces who are collectively being dealt a pretty crap hand. The sad part is that even when the "pack is shuffled" (May 6th?) I don't think things will get any better - at least for a long, long time.
MB
.I totally agree with what you say. The sad thing is that it reminds me of the old Irish joke..... Seamus asks Paddy the way to Dublin and Paddy replies "Seamus, if I were going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here!"
The problem is that through inept decision-making/procurement compounded by lack of funds military procurement (like almost everything else this government is responsible for) is a case of crisis management.
The sad truth is that long-lead procurement projects (of whatever type be they Nimrods, T45's, Astutes, FRES, A400's, Chinook Mk3, or Tankers.....the list goes on) have a tendency to run late, go over budget and suffer from additional delays due to the Treasury using cuts to the Defense Budget as a means of balancing all its other budgets which are less politically easy to cut. In short, the MOD gets the short straw time and time again and our senior "top brass" are powerless to prevent this or too focused on protecting their own service/career/pension....
It would be oh so different if the views expressed at the coal face, (and here on PPRuNe) were listened to by those is charge of such decisions....then perhaps we wouldn't suffer the "capability chasms" (I can't call them "gaps" anymore) such as lack of MPA/long range SAR, SHARs for the RN's air defence, Elint or strategic reconnaisance....
A little bit of "Quantative Easing" directed at the MOD would be a start....I'm only glad that I jumped ship after 10 years in the RAF and that my sons haven't set their hearts of following my footsteps too closely. Seeing the post and YouTube videos of "Fighter Pilot" which was being filmed when I was going through Linton I can't help but reflect on how much things must have changed - for the worse sadly
.My admiration and respect goes to those still putting up with the frustrations of life in the armed forces who are collectively being dealt a pretty crap hand. The sad part is that even when the "pack is shuffled" (May 6th?) I don't think things will get any better - at least for a long, long time.
MB
A400M news
Well, things may be going down to the wire at Airbus, but they're still pressing on at Seville.
Airbus Military News
3 February 2010
Airbus Military fourth A400M assembly process begins
The final assembly process for the fourth Airbus Military A400M military airlifter has already begun in Seville (Spain). The wings for the aircraft, known as MSN4, arrived at the final assembly line of the aircraft, known as MSN4, on January 21st on board an Airbus Beluga. The vertical tailplane manufactured in Stade (Germany) is expected in mid-February followed by the fuselage and nose one month later. A400M MSN4 will have its maiden flight before the end of 2010.
3 February 2010
Airbus Military fourth A400M assembly process begins
The final assembly process for the fourth Airbus Military A400M military airlifter has already begun in Seville (Spain). The wings for the aircraft, known as MSN4, arrived at the final assembly line of the aircraft, known as MSN4, on January 21st on board an Airbus Beluga. The vertical tailplane manufactured in Stade (Germany) is expected in mid-February followed by the fuselage and nose one month later. A400M MSN4 will have its maiden flight before the end of 2010.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we wouldn't suffer the "capability chasms" (I can't call them "gaps" anymore)
