A400M first flight
It didn't.
As for M0.72 being 'too slow', the A400M has a cruise TAS 100 kt higher than the C130 and is as unlikely to be 'held down by Eurocontrol' as, for example, a Nimrod.
Not that much slower than a C-17 at altitude (M0.76?) but way faster than a C-130.
As for M0.72 being 'too slow', the A400M has a cruise TAS 100 kt higher than the C130 and is as unlikely to be 'held down by Eurocontrol' as, for example, a Nimrod.
Not that much slower than a C-17 at altitude (M0.76?) but way faster than a C-130.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard two prices for the A400m
One is that it is 90% and the other is 87% of the current C17 price.
If the statement is true and I have no reason to doubt the figures the A400M seems a liitle bit on the expensive side.
The source for the pricing comes from the USA Herky Bird site.
Regards
Col
One is that it is 90% and the other is 87% of the current C17 price.
If the statement is true and I have no reason to doubt the figures the A400M seems a liitle bit on the expensive side.
The source for the pricing comes from the USA Herky Bird site.
Regards
Col
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And not forgetting the cost of tidying up any extra snags that are yet to be ironed, cost of training infrastructure, cost of admin (IPT, logistics) cost of seperate eng sections and associated executive....
doe's not all that apply to any new bit of kit from the Vickers Victoria onward?
Aarboose could pull off a marketing coup here, just put their hands up say:"OK we Effed up" and pay up/deliver as per contract.
Price? Dunno, their problem. I'd guess they can afford it
Gain in future client relationship/sales? Dunno, good I'd think, can they afford not to?
Herkman,
Are you a Colin or a Colonel or a Colin who is a Colonel or some sort of mountain feature?
Curious Beags. You seem to compare it to the herk when it suits your needs, the C17 at other times.
If it's built primarily for theatre transport and thus filling the same role as the 130, then it's a better plane. If its role is strategic airlift, it fails to compare favorably against the C17.
If its designed for both then it's a compromise and has issues attributed to trying to be a jack of all trades.
If it's built primarily for theatre transport and thus filling the same role as the 130, then it's a better plane. If its role is strategic airlift, it fails to compare favorably against the C17.
If its designed for both then it's a compromise and has issues attributed to trying to be a jack of all trades.
Westie, the A400M spec was driven by a European Staff Requirement for an aircraft with the following operational characteristics:
Strategic mission performance:
Strategic mission performance:
- Long range
- Large cargo hold dimensions and volume combined with high payload
- High cruise speed
Tactical mission performance:- Large cargo hold dimensions and volume combined with high payload
- High cruise speed
- Short, soft field performance
- Good low speed characteristics
- Autonomous ground operation
It is designed to provide excellent strategic and tactical capabilities. Which is why it does indeed bridge the gap between the C-130 and the C-17.
- Good low speed characteristics
- Autonomous ground operation
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
Comparing prices with the C-17 misses the point. If you buy C-17s then you will also have to buy Herks, or a Herk-like thing. And if you buy Herks then you will also have to buy C-17s. All assuming that you want to perform the missions that the major European nations have decided they want to perform.
If you buy A400Ms then there is a plausible case that you don't need to buy Herks or C-17s. At some point you have to opt for the solution that comes closest to doing the mission, given the cash you're prepared to spend (or change the mission of course).
If A400M ever got stopped, you'd be able to hear the champagne corks popping at LockMart and Boeing from Wiltshire. And there are very good reasons for that.
If you buy A400Ms then there is a plausible case that you don't need to buy Herks or C-17s. At some point you have to opt for the solution that comes closest to doing the mission, given the cash you're prepared to spend (or change the mission of course).
If A400M ever got stopped, you'd be able to hear the champagne corks popping at LockMart and Boeing from Wiltshire. And there are very good reasons for that.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gainsey, my point which you missed completely, was that operating c-17 and 130J with additional aircraft would be much cheaper than adding a third type in the mix.
Yes, a new piece of kit, that can be covered by additional aircraft that are already in service.
Yes, a new piece of kit, that can be covered by additional aircraft that are already in service.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crap. Your figures for both are wrong.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...080204-081.pdf
just over 200 mill dollars for the 17, without the bulk discount. Oh, it works, is proven and is in service.
J is around 50 million quid per pop, and performs admirably.
Where you get those figures from? Airbus?
Quite frankly, the only reason I see us remaining in the project is European jobs. Which, in face of the cutbacks that are coming up, is not the MODs problem. Despite the airbus's fantastic specs, I believe it is a cost we can ill-afford. Anyone doubting this needs to appraise the economic status of the UK again.
We could afford 18 C-17s for the equivalent (current) cost of A400M, at 2.4 billion Euros, at current exchange rates, alternatively, we could buy a whopping 8 C-17s and another 22 Js. And have change. We already have established IPTs, training, procedures and support elements for both C-17 and C130J, know the platform and have no developmental risks. Lets face facts, the time line is thus:
Tories get elected. Call emergency budget.
Chop A400M.
Buy 4-5 new C-17
Buy 5-10 new J.
Use the rest on plugging our gaping budget deficit.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...080204-081.pdf
just over 200 mill dollars for the 17, without the bulk discount. Oh, it works, is proven and is in service.
J is around 50 million quid per pop, and performs admirably.
Where you get those figures from? Airbus?
Quite frankly, the only reason I see us remaining in the project is European jobs. Which, in face of the cutbacks that are coming up, is not the MODs problem. Despite the airbus's fantastic specs, I believe it is a cost we can ill-afford. Anyone doubting this needs to appraise the economic status of the UK again.
We could afford 18 C-17s for the equivalent (current) cost of A400M, at 2.4 billion Euros, at current exchange rates, alternatively, we could buy a whopping 8 C-17s and another 22 Js. And have change. We already have established IPTs, training, procedures and support elements for both C-17 and C130J, know the platform and have no developmental risks. Lets face facts, the time line is thus:
Tories get elected. Call emergency budget.
Chop A400M.
Buy 4-5 new C-17
Buy 5-10 new J.
Use the rest on plugging our gaping budget deficit.
Last edited by VinRouge; 14th Dec 2009 at 00:01.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equivocator
I've been asleep so just read you learned piece.
You sound tired and emotional. Get a little sleep, relax, maybe even take a Valium. It will all be OK.
Yes the A400 is reasonably priced and will be a wonderful success. And yes UK should continue to buy it. UK has no financial problems, seems to be well governed and floating upright (for the moment). No need to be especially concerned re value for money spent or risk of sticking with buying one thing leading to scrimping on equipment for the people who are actually dodging bullets/IED's.
By the way A400 looks to be a potentially and almost certainly desirable piece of kit. Price seems to be a touchy point.
John
PS Before anyone launches into any comment on Australian Government or Aust Military procurement policy/successes, I readily admit we are imperfectly governed.
I've been asleep so just read you learned piece.
You sound tired and emotional. Get a little sleep, relax, maybe even take a Valium. It will all be OK.
Yes the A400 is reasonably priced and will be a wonderful success. And yes UK should continue to buy it. UK has no financial problems, seems to be well governed and floating upright (for the moment). No need to be especially concerned re value for money spent or risk of sticking with buying one thing leading to scrimping on equipment for the people who are actually dodging bullets/IED's.
By the way A400 looks to be a potentially and almost certainly desirable piece of kit. Price seems to be a touchy point.
John
PS Before anyone launches into any comment on Australian Government or Aust Military procurement policy/successes, I readily admit we are imperfectly governed.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 14th Dec 2009 at 01:52. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C130 with jets became the C141???
Dan Winterland. Don't know what makes you think the C141 was a C130 with jets. About all they had in common was that each is a high wing four engine aircraft built by Lockheed. End of story.
At some point you have to opt for the solution that comes closest to doing the mission, given the cash you're prepared to spend (or change the mission of course).
I do have to ask however, what makes you think a single platform approach would be better served by a A400 rather than the C17?
"Dan Winterland. Don't know what makes you think the C141 was a C130 with jets. About all they had in common was that each is a high wing four engine aircraft built by Lockheed. End of story"
The C141 was a farily short notice requirement for a strategic jet transport. Lockheed thought it best to develope their existing design. The C141 has the same fuselage section as the C130 and has the same loading and pallet system. This was from a USAF exchange pilot in the RAF I used to fly with and who was a C141 instructor. It's backed up by a couple of websites I googled.
The C141 was a farily short notice requirement for a strategic jet transport. Lockheed thought it best to develope their existing design. The C141 has the same fuselage section as the C130 and has the same loading and pallet system. This was from a USAF exchange pilot in the RAF I used to fly with and who was a C141 instructor. It's backed up by a couple of websites I googled.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C130 to C141
Dan the fuselage section of the Starlifter is the same dimensions as the C130 and they both used the Brooks and Perkins loading system, however there the similarities pretty much end. The C141 has a 25 degree wing sweep, pylon mounted TF33's, "T" tail, Clam Shell rear cargo doors and MLG mounted in external gear fairings, all features which differ substantially to the C130. One could hardly say the B707, B727 and B737 are all the same, however they too share the same fuselage and cockpit dimensions.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,146
Received 3,006 Likes
on
1,273 Posts
Odd to see the South African flag over the door considering they have cancelled their order stating it is to expensive.
Re the C-141:
So OK, ideas from the C-130, but not much else.
Payload of about 78% of that of the A400M, incidentally.....
In the 1950s, the US Air Force's Military Air Transport Service (MATS) was reliant on piston-engined cargolifters, such as the Douglas C-124 Globemaster. By the end of the decade, MATS had decided that they needed a more capable cargolifter, and in the spring of 1960 the USAF issued a request for proposals under the designation "Specific Operational Requirement 182 (SOR 182)". SOR 182 specified an aircraft with a cargo capacity of 27,200 kilograms (60,000 pounds) and a range of 6,480 kilometers (4,025 miles). Lockheed's proposal was selected, with an initial contract for five "development, test, and evaluation (DT&E)" aircraft awarded on 13 March 1961. The aircraft was given the designation "C-141 Starlifter".
The Starlifter incorporated ideas from Lockheed's earlier C-130 Hercules cargolifter, including a high wing; a loading ramp under the high tail; clamshell rear doors that could be opened in flight for airdrops; and main landing gear that retracted into fairings alongside the fuselage to ensure an unobstructed cargo hold. The Starlifter differed from the Hercules in having wings with a sweepback of 25 degrees and a tee tail, instead of straight wings and a conventional tail; and four Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-7 turbofans with 43.2 kN (9,525 kgp / 21,000 lbf) thrust each mounted in pods on underwing pylons, instead of turboprops mounted on the wing. There were typically five flight crew.
In practice, MAC found that the Starlifter's cargo hold volume was small compared to its weight-lifting capability, meaning the aircraft often ran out of space well before it met its weight limit. To resolve this problem, in 1976 the USAF began a program to "stretch" the Starlifter with fuselage "plugs" in front of and behind the wing, increasing the length of the aircraft by 7.11 meters (23 feet 4 inches) and providing space for three more standard pallets, for a total of 13. The upgrade also involved the addition of a boom-refueling receptacle behind the cockpit.
The Starlifter incorporated ideas from Lockheed's earlier C-130 Hercules cargolifter, including a high wing; a loading ramp under the high tail; clamshell rear doors that could be opened in flight for airdrops; and main landing gear that retracted into fairings alongside the fuselage to ensure an unobstructed cargo hold. The Starlifter differed from the Hercules in having wings with a sweepback of 25 degrees and a tee tail, instead of straight wings and a conventional tail; and four Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-7 turbofans with 43.2 kN (9,525 kgp / 21,000 lbf) thrust each mounted in pods on underwing pylons, instead of turboprops mounted on the wing. There were typically five flight crew.
In practice, MAC found that the Starlifter's cargo hold volume was small compared to its weight-lifting capability, meaning the aircraft often ran out of space well before it met its weight limit. To resolve this problem, in 1976 the USAF began a program to "stretch" the Starlifter with fuselage "plugs" in front of and behind the wing, increasing the length of the aircraft by 7.11 meters (23 feet 4 inches) and providing space for three more standard pallets, for a total of 13. The upgrade also involved the addition of a boom-refueling receptacle behind the cockpit.
Payload of about 78% of that of the A400M, incidentally.....