A400 at risk?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400 at risk?
From today's DT - Germans may ground deal!:
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html</A>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/21/wdeal21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/21/ixnewstop.html</A>
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All great news for the RAF, IMHO. The C-17 seems to be the best thing since sliced bread (what was the best thing before sliced bread?). The A/C and the Sqn have surely proved themselves by now, so more of the same can only be a good thing, instead of us having to (no doubt) wait years before a brand new design has it's problems ironed out. (That, I promise, was NOT a snide dig at the 130J's, just so nobody misunderstands...).
Or perhaps more realistically, the advantages of the A400M over the An-70 - which carries slightly more slightly further slightly quicker, has already been built and is about 60% of the anticipated cost of the A400M?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say that I think the A400M will fall by the wayside and probably we'll end up buying C-17's to meet the demand for strategic transport. What about the tactical/specops/paradroping requirement? I'm stumped as to what could meet that requirement....
Thom
Thom
Not really a surprise though is it? Did anyone ever believe that the Germans would buy over 70 of these aircraft, instead of having made up the number in an attempt to increase their percentage of the job sharing?. .Nice demo of Europe fighting from common ground for a common goal though.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EvilThom,. .Surely the 25(?) C-130J's will take the Tac role in time, leaving the C-17's to do the Strat work. Of course, there is always the arguement that anything you can do in Albert, you can do in the Slapper/Bhudda. Apart from shaking the pax's fillings loose, of course... 
Not sure I share the enthusiasm about C130J doing Tac stuff its been a bit of a disaster so far in what it has been allowed to do. As for A400 it's a pity the runway at Lye is too short to operate at max TO wt. I concur on the C17 but lets not tie ourselves up on such a limiting lease -we should have just bought them in the first place.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Decision in the German courts on Tuesday:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm</a>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1783000/1783042.stm</a>
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the Germans had come up with the cash late last week -- and that it is under constitutional challenge from an odd coalition of conservatives and communists.
As for the A400M vs C-17 story, if the slow death of the A400M means that the RAF will purchase its existing C-17s and get some more, the sooner the better. For far too long the British military procurement budget has been a very poor substitute for an industrial policy -- if we're serious about the military let's buy the best equipment avaliable for the money available, especially as large real increases in budgets are pretty unlikely!
ToT
As for the A400M vs C-17 story, if the slow death of the A400M means that the RAF will purchase its existing C-17s and get some more, the sooner the better. For far too long the British military procurement budget has been a very poor substitute for an industrial policy -- if we're serious about the military let's buy the best equipment avaliable for the money available, especially as large real increases in budgets are pretty unlikely!
ToT
Guest
Posts: n/a
It would appear that Herr Scharping hasn't/didn't ask the beancounters if he could spend several Billon DM on the lion's share of the A400M order...BRG is having to tighten her belt considerably at the mo..and this project will probably go! <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spent a couple of days at Guantanamo Bay last week, and as much as this pains a C-141 pilot to say, the C-17's were pretty impressive. They took off and landed in seemingly half the runway length it took us...and unexpectectedly the USAF is not shy about throwing them into the fray irregardless of their high cost and value..Not a perfect plane by far, but earning a reputation..
From Defence Systems Daily (who allow such articles to be e-mailed to colleagues):
<< The A400M saga continues to splutter its way forward. Germany was given a two month reprieve to find the necessary money last week, after Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping conceded that the vote in the Bundestag, to fund the final cost of 33of the 73 aircraft Germany had signed for out of the 2003 budget, was only a decision in principle and not binding on the next parliament. . .The Policy Group, representatives of the eight European countries participating in the A400M military transport aircraft, meeting in Paris on 31 January, the date by which Germany was to have committed itself to the full 73 aircraft, decided to extend the deadline for commitment to March 31. . .The first instalment of Euro 5.1 billion, from this year's budget, for 40 aircraft, still has to get through the necessary Bundestag procedural hurdles. Opposition parties, mindful of the latest EU censure over Germany's overall budget deficit, which is greater than that allowed for under euro-zone rules are likely to make that a rough passage. . .As each delay occurs the enthusiasm of some partners lessens. Italy has already pulled out of the project, and the UK, satisfied with the performance of its leased C-17s, and anxious to replace its ageing fleet of C-130s, could well follow suit, if the delays continue to push the in service date back beyond the 2008 marker. . .Germany has said it will buy 73 A400Ms, France 50, Spain 27, Britain 25, Turkey 10, Belgium seven, Portugal three and Luxembourg one. Airbus Military, a subsidiary of Airbus has said it will only build the aircraft if it gets firm orders for the financially viable figure of 180 aircraft, and only if the order follows commercial best practice, with regular stage payments. Germany has already said it would prefer to pay for the aircraft as they are delivered. >>
So it looks as though the Bristol Bureaucrat isn't dead just yet..........
<< The A400M saga continues to splutter its way forward. Germany was given a two month reprieve to find the necessary money last week, after Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping conceded that the vote in the Bundestag, to fund the final cost of 33of the 73 aircraft Germany had signed for out of the 2003 budget, was only a decision in principle and not binding on the next parliament. . .The Policy Group, representatives of the eight European countries participating in the A400M military transport aircraft, meeting in Paris on 31 January, the date by which Germany was to have committed itself to the full 73 aircraft, decided to extend the deadline for commitment to March 31. . .The first instalment of Euro 5.1 billion, from this year's budget, for 40 aircraft, still has to get through the necessary Bundestag procedural hurdles. Opposition parties, mindful of the latest EU censure over Germany's overall budget deficit, which is greater than that allowed for under euro-zone rules are likely to make that a rough passage. . .As each delay occurs the enthusiasm of some partners lessens. Italy has already pulled out of the project, and the UK, satisfied with the performance of its leased C-17s, and anxious to replace its ageing fleet of C-130s, could well follow suit, if the delays continue to push the in service date back beyond the 2008 marker. . .Germany has said it will buy 73 A400Ms, France 50, Spain 27, Britain 25, Turkey 10, Belgium seven, Portugal three and Luxembourg one. Airbus Military, a subsidiary of Airbus has said it will only build the aircraft if it gets firm orders for the financially viable figure of 180 aircraft, and only if the order follows commercial best practice, with regular stage payments. Germany has already said it would prefer to pay for the aircraft as they are delivered. >>
So it looks as though the Bristol Bureaucrat isn't dead just yet..........
vascodegama - sorry for the delay in replying to your post, but which bit of the C130J ops has been a disaster?
Oh, and the advertised performance of A400M (yeah yeah I know) means it could fit on Lyneham's runway, but probably not the dispersal.
Apart from that, you sound quite well informed.
Oh, and the advertised performance of A400M (yeah yeah I know) means it could fit on Lyneham's runway, but probably not the dispersal.
Apart from that, you sound quite well informed.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
propulike.
Maybe vascodegama has a point. My understanding of the Tac trials is they were not outstanding due to software error's.
Add that to the other problems the A/C is throwing up, pax numbers limited - strip capability - and the fact that they are all now sat in wilts waiting for some costly repair work one does start to wonder if the queen's shilling was wisely invested.
Still it keeps me in beer and more importantly......... at home!!
Maybe vascodegama has a point. My understanding of the Tac trials is they were not outstanding due to software error's.
Add that to the other problems the A/C is throwing up, pax numbers limited - strip capability - and the fact that they are all now sat in wilts waiting for some costly repair work one does start to wonder if the queen's shilling was wisely invested.
Still it keeps me in beer and more importantly......... at home!!
A B i W,. .Oh blimey, I suppose I should never drink and surf. However, now I've bitten....
The TAC trials went very well as far as I can tell from the people on them, especially as they say the software was actually pretty good.
Strip capability – I don’t know yet, but same undercarriage, similar wing and better engines don’t bode badly!
Limited pax numbers - routinely yes, but passengers are only meant to carried on a Herc as a last resort (and quite bl@@dy rightly too).
All broken in the good Wiltshire? Like I was told, 'We're going to ground the fleet AND bring all the aircraft back to UK.' “They” thought better of it after talking to the engineers. (Or perhaps it was the cost of shipping charges that put them off!) There are still an awful lot on the dispersal though. Perhaps the crews should work harder...
As far as the aircraft goes, everything it’s allowed to do within the RtoS it does to a standard generally greater than the K. The RtoS is annoying in areas (crosswind limits especially), although the rocket scientists tell us it’s for the good of our health. As far as other snags go, I may start a ‘Heard about the J Model’ thread ‘cos rumour control throws up some that even the aircraft haven’t thought of!
Anyway, to change the subject completely, heard about the A400M . . . . .
The TAC trials went very well as far as I can tell from the people on them, especially as they say the software was actually pretty good.
Strip capability – I don’t know yet, but same undercarriage, similar wing and better engines don’t bode badly!
Limited pax numbers - routinely yes, but passengers are only meant to carried on a Herc as a last resort (and quite bl@@dy rightly too).
All broken in the good Wiltshire? Like I was told, 'We're going to ground the fleet AND bring all the aircraft back to UK.' “They” thought better of it after talking to the engineers. (Or perhaps it was the cost of shipping charges that put them off!) There are still an awful lot on the dispersal though. Perhaps the crews should work harder...
As far as the aircraft goes, everything it’s allowed to do within the RtoS it does to a standard generally greater than the K. The RtoS is annoying in areas (crosswind limits especially), although the rocket scientists tell us it’s for the good of our health. As far as other snags go, I may start a ‘Heard about the J Model’ thread ‘cos rumour control throws up some that even the aircraft haven’t thought of!
Anyway, to change the subject completely, heard about the A400M . . . . .
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
propulike,. . sorry mate but it was not an attempted wind up. I have been on the mighty 6 propped beast for over a year now and it's as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. I would not go back to the classic today, tomorrow or the next day and it would take a f****ng big lottery win to get me off the "J"
my only concern is that it has so far not come up to scratch in a few fairly important dept's which makes me wonder if we got the best deal poss?
as regards the A400 I just hope the bean counters don't trim too many of the vitals out of as they have done with our electric jet.
apologies again.
my only concern is that it has so far not come up to scratch in a few fairly important dept's which makes me wonder if we got the best deal poss?
as regards the A400 I just hope the bean counters don't trim too many of the vitals out of as they have done with our electric jet.
apologies again.