A400M first flight
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of looks, I cannot see the C130-C141 connection. The C133 cargomaster always looked like a larger C130 to my eyes.
OK OK, so it's roughly the same age as the first herks, and from a different company, with different technology
OK OK, so it's roughly the same age as the first herks, and from a different company, with different technology
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C141 - C130
The C130 does not have Clamshell rear cargo doors. It has a Cargo ramp, hinged at the bottom and a Cargo door which is hinged at the top. The ramp comes down and the door goes up for loading, unloading and airdropping. Unlike the C130, I can't see more than 2000 A400M's being built.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
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.
As for the aircraft itself, I am becoming dis-interested.
Now FRES, there is a cock up of exceptional proportions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Odd to see the South African flag over the door considering they have cancelled their order stating it is to expensive. "
Yeah, but you're still going to be be charged for the prototype....
Yeah, but you're still going to be be charged for the prototype....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRES - 47 tonnes ? - What are you smoking
A lot of comment is being made about a 3 type AT fleet. At the rate the ..Js are working theyll be knackered by the early twenties anyway so just buy another 20 A400M s - back to a 2 type fleet in no time!
A lot of comment is being made about a 3 type AT fleet. At the rate the ..Js are working theyll be knackered by the early twenties anyway so just buy another 20 A400M s - back to a 2 type fleet in no time!
"The INTRODUCER"
Thread Starter
All war is done "on the cheap' Westie, because of tedious other stuff like education, health systems, transport, social care... Not as sexy but do help make the wars worthwhile. Last one not done on the cheap was WWII, a period not known for major social advances.
I repeat my point, a fleet of A400Ms beats a mixed fleet anyway you look at it. And particularly from the taxpayers' viewpoint.
I repeat my point, a fleet of A400Ms beats a mixed fleet anyway you look at it. And particularly from the taxpayers' viewpoint.
Latest costs from the FY10 (May 2009) estimates are at: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...090511-090.pdf
205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).
84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).
So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.
As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.
Sack the jugglers in the EP office
The B Word
205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).
84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).
So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.
As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.
Sack the jugglers in the EP office
The B Word
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest costs from the FY10 (May 2009) estimates are at: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...090511-090.pdf
205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).
84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).
So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.
As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.
Sack the jugglers in the EP office
The B Word
205x C17s have cost the USAF $55,355M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $270M each or £165M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY08 prices are $220M each or £135M (for a buy of 15 aircraft).
84x C130Js have cost the USAF $6,948M all in (including spares, spt and DAS) that comes to $82M each or £51M each (current exch rate).
Basic airframe costs at FY10 prices are $95M each or £58M (for a buy of 3 aircraft).
So if A400M is costing us 2.4Bn Euro ($3,528M) for 18 airframes including support, you can see that would buy us 42x C130Js or 13x C17s.
As Vin Rouge said previously, 9x C17s and 13x C130Js to join our extant fleet would get my vote - with enough change to buy some UAVs.
Sack the jugglers in the EP office
The B Word
All war is done "on the cheap' Westie,
Adequitely providing for the military means you give them what they need or you scale down the mission to avoid over reaching. If you can't provide the assets (helo's perhaps) then you don't fight a half ass effort with an inadequite number of them. That only gets people killed.
Now before your chest swells out, that statement has at times applied to cockups in the US military as well. That said, it seems the US is doing a better job of providing for its troops than the UK is doing for thiers.
Its not a matter of spending all the nations wealth on the military while neglecting other obligations. It's about balance, try to understand the difference.
One only need look at some of the examples given here. Granted they are simple in the comparisons but I'd say some willy waving is going on, buy Euro and all that when it would seem a mix of C17's and J models would work better.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear dear Equivi (may I call you Equivi?).
Don't take it all to heart. Not everyone is against you. Paronoia can be corrosive.
I don't know how may Mastiffs have been lost by UK (and I wont employ juvenile tactic of belittling you by asking you the exact number).
UK should buy the loverly A400 and keep all those wonderful EU people in work. Full steam ahead I say! It's all going swimmingly at present. No need to review any past decisions in the light of current information.
Kind Regards
John
Don't take it all to heart. Not everyone is against you. Paronoia can be corrosive.
I don't know how may Mastiffs have been lost by UK (and I wont employ juvenile tactic of belittling you by asking you the exact number).
UK should buy the loverly A400 and keep all those wonderful EU people in work. Full steam ahead I say! It's all going swimmingly at present. No need to review any past decisions in the light of current information.
Kind Regards
John
Last edited by rjtjrt; 14th Dec 2009 at 21:04. Reason: Typing
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eqiuvi
Thanks for the slow explaination. It is appreciated from such an erudite respondent.
I say again - by any measure A400 is very expensive for what you get, especially when compared to the competition. The information in this thread almost exclusively supports this contention.
A400 is desirable but a mix of C-130J and C-17 much more useful in the real world of Mastiffs etc.
The UK can thank God you don't have a role in procurement but if you do God help them - the lunatics have actually taken over the assylum known as Whitehall. Fixed ideas despite the facts is what has made the mess most of us are in.
John
PS at least I sign my posts!
Thanks for the slow explaination. It is appreciated from such an erudite respondent.
I say again - by any measure A400 is very expensive for what you get, especially when compared to the competition. The information in this thread almost exclusively supports this contention.
A400 is desirable but a mix of C-130J and C-17 much more useful in the real world of Mastiffs etc.
The UK can thank God you don't have a role in procurement but if you do God help them - the lunatics have actually taken over the assylum known as Whitehall. Fixed ideas despite the facts is what has made the mess most of us are in.
John
PS at least I sign my posts!
Don't forget that there was originally supposed to be a Future Large Aircraft (FLA) which was intended to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA).
Although the C130J was ordered as Tranche 1 of FTA as a tactical AT replacement for most C130Ks, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the 'real' FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA will hence become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA.
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA....
Although the C130J was ordered as Tranche 1 of FTA as a tactical AT replacement for most C130Ks, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the 'real' FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA will hence become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA.
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eqiuvocator (sorry to revert to such a formal salutation)
What fun all this repartee!
Let me see. First you complain indignantly when I have the temerity to opine re relative cost of A400 using publically available info. If I or anyone wasn't an insider of said company any post was to be dismissed. Now it is a rumour network and we can all use our individual facts. Also re the jibe "insults" - look at your early posts compared to mine.
Hyperbole and inconsistent thinking/posting weaken your position.
On the available info A400 not competitive in price with available and proven solutions to tactical and strategic airlift. If you have information to dispute this post it.
As I have already said by all means buy the aircraft which does sound to potentially be a very useful airlifter - just the price that seems to be getting ridiculous in comparison.
Again at least I sign my posts
John
PS Perhaps this is getting out of hand and wasting time and bandwidth.
What fun all this repartee!
Let me see. First you complain indignantly when I have the temerity to opine re relative cost of A400 using publically available info. If I or anyone wasn't an insider of said company any post was to be dismissed. Now it is a rumour network and we can all use our individual facts. Also re the jibe "insults" - look at your early posts compared to mine.
Hyperbole and inconsistent thinking/posting weaken your position.
On the available info A400 not competitive in price with available and proven solutions to tactical and strategic airlift. If you have information to dispute this post it.
As I have already said by all means buy the aircraft which does sound to potentially be a very useful airlifter - just the price that seems to be getting ridiculous in comparison.
Again at least I sign my posts
John
PS Perhaps this is getting out of hand and wasting time and bandwidth.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 15th Dec 2009 at 01:06.
Call me cynical...maybe the design guys at Boeing might like to do a dyson vs hoover on the lookeeelikeee'ness of the A400M to some big jet I that fly
..come one give me 0.5% of the out of court settlement for noticing!!!
..come one give me 0.5% of the out of court settlement for noticing!!!
C17 is the answer for Strat flying.
Take a long look at it's theatre capabilities and you might be surprised. Iffin I had to pick a stablemate for the J, it would be the C17. It crosses the boundry between missions currently in a proven manner, in a war time environment. Meanwhile, has the 400 even retracted its landing gear? Excuse me, undercarrige.
Meanwhile, has the 400 even retracted its landing gear? Excuse me, undercarrige.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-17 for Strat!!
Are you kidding me! even the yanks dont do that. They sensibly ship their gear to a middle east hub and then hop it into theater with C17s. The RAF should be doing the same(outsize loads exempt). It might even reduce flow clashes at the, extremly busy heathrow like, military AT hub!
A 747 carries two C17 loads of pallets and burns much less that C17s carrying the same weight. The UK should stop flogging its fleet and crews and put them in cyprus/barhain/the deid/UAE/omam somewhere where they can use there potential!!
A 747 carries two C17 loads of pallets and burns much less that C17s carrying the same weight. The UK should stop flogging its fleet and crews and put them in cyprus/barhain/the deid/UAE/omam somewhere where they can use there potential!!