A400 Grizzly
Mr Enders and his Jump
I agree that 6 and then 10 parachutists having jumped from Grizzly does not prove anything other than to provide some information to the development and clearance teams. However, perhaps the fact that Tom Enders has done it can be seen as a corporate gesture of confidence in the product - a thought to be modified by any sane aircrew man's view of jumping out of any serviceable airframe.
In the old days when some engineering work led to the requirement for an air test it was common for the techy(ies) concerned to fly on that air test as a gesture of solidarity (and, no doubt, pour encourager) - could not TE's jump be seen in a similar light?
In the old days when some engineering work led to the requirement for an air test it was common for the techy(ies) concerned to fly on that air test as a gesture of solidarity (and, no doubt, pour encourager) - could not TE's jump be seen in a similar light?
Baron Gilbert expressed some strong views in the recent Lords debate, together with the hope that Hansard would not (again) mince his words ... which appear to have remained unminced:
(I have to admit it was that jolly sailor (yes, him) who drew my attention to the debate:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noble Lord
The Noble Lord certainly has it in for the A400M, as does The Register, apparently. While short on facts, his (unabbreviated) sentences remind me of how, in days of yore, columnists and others used to write (rather more moderately, for they were not writing in a "privileged environment") about Airbus civil projects, leading to the supposition that they were being fed material by a certain company then based on the upper west coast of the US.
As the A400M is designed to carry loads that the C-130 can't, perhaps the anti-Grizzlies are being "talked to over lunch" by people from (or near to) ... ???
With the growth of military loads, it was reasonable to see a "market opportunity" and get together to supply a need that would grow - after all, the quoted numbers of C-130s "out there" make a reasonably-sized target to aim at. The numbers ordered so far are those by the "launch customers", so "1600 Herks versus 170 Grizzlies" is an apples & oranges affair, as other figures he quoted would seem to be.
There is a market out there, and it's worth going for British Noble Naysayers or no !
As the A400M is designed to carry loads that the C-130 can't, perhaps the anti-Grizzlies are being "talked to over lunch" by people from (or near to) ... ???
With the growth of military loads, it was reasonable to see a "market opportunity" and get together to supply a need that would grow - after all, the quoted numbers of C-130s "out there" make a reasonably-sized target to aim at. The numbers ordered so far are those by the "launch customers", so "1600 Herks versus 170 Grizzlies" is an apples & oranges affair, as other figures he quoted would seem to be.
There is a market out there, and it's worth going for British Noble Naysayers or no !
It makes you wonder.
I find it irritating in the extreme how some of these characters talk with such apparent authority and condescending arrogance, when in reality they have little or no grasp of key facts which should influence their views.
As an example, he tries to make a point about there being 2500+ of C130s around in the world, which is therefore good for commonality and interoperability, whilst being seemingly completely ignorant of the fact that the UK C130Js* are very different to the huge numbers of 1950/60s generation of C130 he refers to - and only 200 or so C130Js have been built so far - about the same as A400M orders today. Some more C130Js are on order, but this is 10-15 years after its introduction.
It is not possible for Gilbert to argue this is a trivial error in his facts - it shows a fundamental lack of understanding that is key to his argument.
Given he demonstrably has poor subject knowledge - one can only speculate as to why he therefore seems to care about C130 vs A400M vs C17 (the latter of which isn't a practical tactical option for the UK anyway). Either in Boeings pocket, or perhaps Marshalls in Cambridge, whose nice line in the C130J support business looks less certain post SDSR.
* obviously the Ks are irrelevant in this debate
I find it irritating in the extreme how some of these characters talk with such apparent authority and condescending arrogance, when in reality they have little or no grasp of key facts which should influence their views.
As an example, he tries to make a point about there being 2500+ of C130s around in the world, which is therefore good for commonality and interoperability, whilst being seemingly completely ignorant of the fact that the UK C130Js* are very different to the huge numbers of 1950/60s generation of C130 he refers to - and only 200 or so C130Js have been built so far - about the same as A400M orders today. Some more C130Js are on order, but this is 10-15 years after its introduction.
It is not possible for Gilbert to argue this is a trivial error in his facts - it shows a fundamental lack of understanding that is key to his argument.
Given he demonstrably has poor subject knowledge - one can only speculate as to why he therefore seems to care about C130 vs A400M vs C17 (the latter of which isn't a practical tactical option for the UK anyway). Either in Boeings pocket, or perhaps Marshalls in Cambridge, whose nice line in the C130J support business looks less certain post SDSR.
* obviously the Ks are irrelevant in this debate
Last edited by JFZ90; 21st Nov 2010 at 17:02.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: between the M6 and M25
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just more thoughts
there is a lot of heated discussion about the A400m, some of it misguided IMHO. Having operated on C130's (J+K) for 20yrs I for one am looking forward to the 'atlas' (think that's what it will be called) coming into service. From now on, we have to be smart about procurement, we need the most modern and capable ac (=better bang for the buck) and the A400m is the only viable option.
Our american friends may well realise how much better than the Herc it is and buy them also; that is after they stop wasting money flying SKE constantly. Times are changing and following a recent brief by CAS I am not sure there is a place for many of us, experience seems to be unimportant. He gave reasons why the cuts have been made but papered over the future. He is a very bright chap but was more concerned with 'how to get promoted to 1*' rather than the troops.
Slightly off topic there, sorry. Rant over.
Our american friends may well realise how much better than the Herc it is and buy them also; that is after they stop wasting money flying SKE constantly. Times are changing and following a recent brief by CAS I am not sure there is a place for many of us, experience seems to be unimportant. He gave reasons why the cuts have been made but papered over the future. He is a very bright chap but was more concerned with 'how to get promoted to 1*' rather than the troops.
Slightly off topic there, sorry. Rant over.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am rather surprised by your comments and have some concerns with them.
The C130K was basically an E model and the main changes if I recall correctly was the floor change which allowed the RAF to use AD systems from obsolete transports.
I also understand that the intergration of the Auto pilot was a night mare as was some problems with the radios.
No where before have I seen statements that the J models were delivered in a non standard situation.
Could you please table the changes made to the J.
Thanks
Col
The C130K was basically an E model and the main changes if I recall correctly was the floor change which allowed the RAF to use AD systems from obsolete transports.
I also understand that the intergration of the Auto pilot was a night mare as was some problems with the radios.
No where before have I seen statements that the J models were delivered in a non standard situation.
Could you please table the changes made to the J.
Thanks
Col
Gilbert referred to the benefits to us of interoperability with "2500 C130J s" in the world.
I admit that he wasnt that clear on what he actually meant by interoperability, though I interpreted it as support related - I.e easier to support around the world with many operators. Obvious C130J differences to C130"classics", such as totally new engines and avionics render this argument rather meaningless.
I admit that he wasnt that clear on what he actually meant by interoperability, though I interpreted it as support related - I.e easier to support around the world with many operators. Obvious C130J differences to C130"classics", such as totally new engines and avionics render this argument rather meaningless.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col the UK c130j was delivered with a different cargo handling system to standard, different ramp ads arms , different software standard and different digital maps to the standard US off the line models at the time. We just have to be different ! Oh and you can jump with a sports chute from the top of a building but that doesnt make it a good ad platform ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Grizzly is Dead, Long Live ATLAS!
Hot rumour has it that the MOD has finally come up with its own name for the A400M - ATLAS 
Definitely an improvement on the Airbus nickname!!
Definitely an improvement on the Airbus nickname!!
Just to correct billynospares; As launch customers for the J the UK aircraft were the standard. It could be said that it was the US that took them non standard. Admittedly the standard of J the UK accepted wasn't up to much, but for once you can blame the Lockheed accountants who designed it (to quote a Lockheed engineer) rather than the UK MOD.
Having gone through the painful birth of the J it was sole destroying to watch Airbus make the same mistakes.
Having gone through the painful birth of the J it was sole destroying to watch Airbus make the same mistakes.
Of course that should read soul destroying, although I did use quite a lot of sole leather walking around Tolouse, Hamburg and Bremen whilst Airbus created tons of paperwork as a way of avoiding designing or building anything.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Building ...
While some people were "walking around Toulouse, Hamburg and Bremen ...", the paper being generated was possibly in response to communications with OCCAR, or even directly with individual members of the consortium. The pre-launch and actual launch phases did tend to generate lots of paper, which e-mail might have reduced, but inter-factory communications as well as with customers still have to take place, plus of course the usual before and after meetings stuff .
Meanwhile, the factories concerned (and others) were indeed very busy, and getting busier, building very successful single- and twin - aisle famiies, and even (depending on when the walk-abouts took place) designing the A380.
Thus, I trust that your comments were made with tongue in cheek ... The end-product seems to be well worth the wait.
PS. Care to expand on the "same old mistakes" bit ???
Meanwhile, the factories concerned (and others) were indeed very busy, and getting busier, building very successful single- and twin - aisle famiies, and even (depending on when the walk-abouts took place) designing the A380.
Thus, I trust that your comments were made with tongue in cheek ... The end-product seems to be well worth the wait.
PS. Care to expand on the "same old mistakes" bit ???
Last edited by Jig Peter; 23rd Nov 2010 at 16:16. Reason: Add PS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VX275
As launch customers for the J the UK aircraft were the standard. It could be said that it was the US that took them non standard. Admittedly the standard of J the UK accepted wasn't up to much, but for once you can blame the Lockheed accountants who designed it (to quote a Lockheed engineer) rather than the UK MOD.
The UK did bear much of the development brunt and pains that go with being a launch customer, no doubt, but that certainly wasn't Lockheed's fault, nor the UK MoD, really - it is what it is. Although there were certainly issues with avionics compatibility early on.
Speaking of the floor and the 364L pallet system - RAF didn't care for that much in the beginning. But once C17 was online and the pallets went from Herk to Moose w/o being torn down and rebuilt, as roll-on/roll-off, the light bulb went on!
Ah the Dash4a in the J saga, what a SNAFU that was. Dash 4a rails being butchered to fit out of tolerance airframes. Aircraft being flown without structurally important bolts etc.
Oh and by the way Skydel wasn't Beverley it was Argosy, Britannia, VC 10, Andover as well as K Herc and funnily enough shared a common origin with Dash4a - yes Dash4a and Skydel are as old as each other.
I believe that the RAFs J should have had ECHS from the start going for Dash4a was as backward a step as Skydel.
Oh and by the way Skydel wasn't Beverley it was Argosy, Britannia, VC 10, Andover as well as K Herc and funnily enough shared a common origin with Dash4a - yes Dash4a and Skydel are as old as each other.
I believe that the RAFs J should have had ECHS from the start going for Dash4a was as backward a step as Skydel.