A400 latest..
Quite right, Mike R'O. opso - suggest a bit of editing might be in order, mate.
My comparison of An70 v A400M was wholly derived from open source material - Flug Revue on line. Personally I think that the A400M will actually be more employable than the C-17 would in RAF service under current operating rules. The ac lies somewhere between C130J and C-17 in terms of capabilities, there is always the prospect of occasional charter of An124 or even An225 for certain very specific loads - but otherwise the payload/range, tactical employment and flexibility offered by the numbers of A400M compared to the more expensive but fewer C17 airframes will probably facilitate a better overall capability.
Whichever way, An124/225 apart, I just hope that we'll stop seeing these decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft operated by bottom-of-the-market 'flag of convenience' orgainsations on our bases. Known in the 'trade', I understand, as 'tramp steamers'!
My comparison of An70 v A400M was wholly derived from open source material - Flug Revue on line. Personally I think that the A400M will actually be more employable than the C-17 would in RAF service under current operating rules. The ac lies somewhere between C130J and C-17 in terms of capabilities, there is always the prospect of occasional charter of An124 or even An225 for certain very specific loads - but otherwise the payload/range, tactical employment and flexibility offered by the numbers of A400M compared to the more expensive but fewer C17 airframes will probably facilitate a better overall capability.
Whichever way, An124/225 apart, I just hope that we'll stop seeing these decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft operated by bottom-of-the-market 'flag of convenience' orgainsations on our bases. Known in the 'trade', I understand, as 'tramp steamers'!
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, BEagle
I thought a glimmer of the rational argument had returned and then you threw in the 'tramp steamer' remark! How could you?
On the rational argument. This thread is about the A400M which is a European project for an aeroplane to meet a defined European spec. The question is, what happens if the A400M project fails to come to fruition for any reason? One would presume that the nearest alternative aircraft would substitute assuming that it met the spec. Lets not forget that this is for a ~200 aircraft European requirement and not just the UK.
In this case, my last comment holds true that the An70 is within a cats whisker of the FLA spec and outperfoms it on every parameter. At a price which might be conjectured to be around the 50million usd mark with western equipment then its cheaper than the A400M, the German MOD evaluation was that "The An70 is technically, operationally and financially better for Germany than the A400M", hence the argument going on in Germany. And at that price you could have at least 4 x An70 for every 1 x C-17 thereby carrying out four missions simultaneously or carrying about 150tons to one destination instead of 55 (or 76 tons if the limitations are ever removed).
The UK is obviously sold on the C-17 with the only difficulty being the number of airframes to fulfill simultaneous tasks as identified by BEagle. However, in a Europe in which the politicians are driving on towards further military cooperation, then the sharing of resources is something which is inevitable and in the greater scheme of a European requirement, there is sense in a larger C-17 fleet being operated by the RAF while smaller aircraft of the A400M/An70 size are provided by other European nations, once they have got their hands on them! In the spirit of compromise, and getting your hands on what you want, I am sure that the RAF would accept some task sharing with Europe if it justified getting more C-17s for the RAF and without the operational limitations imposed by the lease. Politically, this also puts the UK in charge of European foreign policy. Mr Bliar simply refuses to provide the airlift if he does not like the policy desired by the rest of Europe.
A European fleet comprising of the right mix of C-17s from the UK for the larger loads and An70 for multiple tasking makes sense for organic airlift on the balance sheet.
That leaves two questions. What to do in the meantime, and what to do about surge requirements? The answer is to go on doing what the UK and all other nations all over the world have been doing for the last decade which is to charter the An124.
The problem always arises with surge requirements when there is never enough airlift and then the An124 comes into its own carrying more cargo over greater distances than anything else in the inventory. (and every pilot can be confident that the wings don't fall off like Lockheed products). Whoops! sorry, Lids, reference is to C5 re-winging and C141 wings falling off on the ground c.f. robust structure of Antonov products - no reference to the C130.
The 'packaging' of the product to provide greater compatibility with NATO standards both in the cockpit and in its product support is a relatively minor issue which could be managed in the manner proposed by the An124 bid in STSA. But that is only ever going to come about after the order is placed for some specified service. We cannot expect the likes of Antonov to invest the sort of sums required on spec, especially after they have won the objective analysis of two European procurement processes in the UK and Germany and then been turned over by the politicians.
Lids
I never said a word against the C130 or any of its crews. The point I was making was about the demonstration of willingness to commit shown by the operators and crews of civil aircraft which have no DAS at all and whose political environment counted against them in some quarters in the STSA process.
BEagle
Pleased to see you seperate the An124/225 from your comment about 'decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft '.
There is nothing decrepit about the An124, or the IL76 for that matter. Bl**dy good aeroplanes, especially for the task for which they were designed. To improve the level of understanding by our dear reader(s), both Antonov Airlines and Volga Dnepr have been audited by the UK CAA and have been judged to have operating standards equivalent to those required under JAR OPs and both are designated as national cargo flag carriers so the 'flag of convenience' does not refer to them either.
Tramp steamers? Well, if not often going to the same place twice, (except Kabul of course), is called 'tramping', then you could be right. Alternatively, you could call it providing customer service as required.
Yours
Lybid
I thought a glimmer of the rational argument had returned and then you threw in the 'tramp steamer' remark! How could you?
On the rational argument. This thread is about the A400M which is a European project for an aeroplane to meet a defined European spec. The question is, what happens if the A400M project fails to come to fruition for any reason? One would presume that the nearest alternative aircraft would substitute assuming that it met the spec. Lets not forget that this is for a ~200 aircraft European requirement and not just the UK.
In this case, my last comment holds true that the An70 is within a cats whisker of the FLA spec and outperfoms it on every parameter. At a price which might be conjectured to be around the 50million usd mark with western equipment then its cheaper than the A400M, the German MOD evaluation was that "The An70 is technically, operationally and financially better for Germany than the A400M", hence the argument going on in Germany. And at that price you could have at least 4 x An70 for every 1 x C-17 thereby carrying out four missions simultaneously or carrying about 150tons to one destination instead of 55 (or 76 tons if the limitations are ever removed).
The UK is obviously sold on the C-17 with the only difficulty being the number of airframes to fulfill simultaneous tasks as identified by BEagle. However, in a Europe in which the politicians are driving on towards further military cooperation, then the sharing of resources is something which is inevitable and in the greater scheme of a European requirement, there is sense in a larger C-17 fleet being operated by the RAF while smaller aircraft of the A400M/An70 size are provided by other European nations, once they have got their hands on them! In the spirit of compromise, and getting your hands on what you want, I am sure that the RAF would accept some task sharing with Europe if it justified getting more C-17s for the RAF and without the operational limitations imposed by the lease. Politically, this also puts the UK in charge of European foreign policy. Mr Bliar simply refuses to provide the airlift if he does not like the policy desired by the rest of Europe.
A European fleet comprising of the right mix of C-17s from the UK for the larger loads and An70 for multiple tasking makes sense for organic airlift on the balance sheet.
That leaves two questions. What to do in the meantime, and what to do about surge requirements? The answer is to go on doing what the UK and all other nations all over the world have been doing for the last decade which is to charter the An124.
The problem always arises with surge requirements when there is never enough airlift and then the An124 comes into its own carrying more cargo over greater distances than anything else in the inventory. (and every pilot can be confident that the wings don't fall off like Lockheed products). Whoops! sorry, Lids, reference is to C5 re-winging and C141 wings falling off on the ground c.f. robust structure of Antonov products - no reference to the C130.
The 'packaging' of the product to provide greater compatibility with NATO standards both in the cockpit and in its product support is a relatively minor issue which could be managed in the manner proposed by the An124 bid in STSA. But that is only ever going to come about after the order is placed for some specified service. We cannot expect the likes of Antonov to invest the sort of sums required on spec, especially after they have won the objective analysis of two European procurement processes in the UK and Germany and then been turned over by the politicians.
Lids
I never said a word against the C130 or any of its crews. The point I was making was about the demonstration of willingness to commit shown by the operators and crews of civil aircraft which have no DAS at all and whose political environment counted against them in some quarters in the STSA process.
BEagle
Pleased to see you seperate the An124/225 from your comment about 'decrepit old ex-sov mil aircraft '.
There is nothing decrepit about the An124, or the IL76 for that matter. Bl**dy good aeroplanes, especially for the task for which they were designed. To improve the level of understanding by our dear reader(s), both Antonov Airlines and Volga Dnepr have been audited by the UK CAA and have been judged to have operating standards equivalent to those required under JAR OPs and both are designated as national cargo flag carriers so the 'flag of convenience' does not refer to them either.
Tramp steamers? Well, if not often going to the same place twice, (except Kabul of course), is called 'tramping', then you could be right. Alternatively, you could call it providing customer service as required.
Yours
Lybid
Tovarich Lybid - sorry that you didn't like the 'tramp steamer' comment - it's a bit of a personal thing, I'm afraid. A certain cheapo Il-76 operating airline caused over £40K worth of damage to property at a Secret Airbase in mid-England and, despite this being witnessed, are refusing to admit liability! Not, I hasten to add, our friends at Volga-Dnepr or Antonov Airlines.... I've seen countless incidents of dangerous operation displayed by some 'flag of convenience' operators - ridiculously fast taxying, barely comprehensible RT, unapproved runway entry.... Not just from former Soviet bloc operators, but from cheap and nasty outfits operating Western aircraft under contract.
An70 is indeed a good competitor to A400M - but I don't think that there's a cat in hell's chance of the politicians accepting the loss in jobs that would result if A400M were ditched in favour of it.
An70 is indeed a good competitor to A400M - but I don't think that there's a cat in hell's chance of the politicians accepting the loss in jobs that would result if A400M were ditched in favour of it.
Last edited by BEagle; 15th Apr 2002 at 17:34.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
..on the nail. Politics!
Whatever happened to objective assessment?
Of course no one will ditch the A400M in favour of anything else. The same way that the UK will not kill the A400M by turning away as it has threatened to do so many times and the RAF would so dearly like to happen so that it can convert the C-17 lease into a purchase. 'Must have A400M contract by 31 Dec..etc ..or else..
No, the political blame would then settle on the UK and that would never do. The only possibility is if it dies of inertia and the German constitutional wrangle was the best bet of that happening. Now there seems to have been the usual political back room deal done with the Greens so they have withdrawn their constitutional objections and the political fudge has been spread over the cracks again. Oh well..
Yours aye,
Lybid
..on the nail. Politics!
Whatever happened to objective assessment?
Of course no one will ditch the A400M in favour of anything else. The same way that the UK will not kill the A400M by turning away as it has threatened to do so many times and the RAF would so dearly like to happen so that it can convert the C-17 lease into a purchase. 'Must have A400M contract by 31 Dec..etc ..or else..
No, the political blame would then settle on the UK and that would never do. The only possibility is if it dies of inertia and the German constitutional wrangle was the best bet of that happening. Now there seems to have been the usual political back room deal done with the Greens so they have withdrawn their constitutional objections and the political fudge has been spread over the cracks again. Oh well..
Yours aye,
Lybid
Last edited by Lybid; 15th Apr 2002 at 21:56.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - APRIL 17, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partners confident of April order for A400M transport
J A C LEWIS JDW Correspondent
Paris
A firm order for a first batch of Europe's new A400M transport aircraft is likely to be placed later this month by the armaments agency representing the eight European nations buying the airlifter, according to the French Ministry of Defence.
Gen Alain Raevel, a ministry spokesman, said French Defence Minister Alain Richard signed a letter on 10 April concerning Germany's funding of 73 A400Ms, and that ministers from the other seven partner nations were doing likewise.
He said the letter was tantamount to a final contract. "In principle, it will clear the way for [Europe's arms procurement agency] OCCAR to place a firm order for a first batch of A400Ms by the end of April," he said, adding: "Nothing now will stand in the way of the process."
The OCCAR agency is to manage the $18 billion project under which Airbus Military SAS will build 196 A400Ms. First deliveries of the aircraft are due for mid-2008.
An initial contract for the A400M programme was signed on 18 December 2001, but the project ran into difficulties when the German Parliament approved funding for 40 aircraft, but refused to fully commit to buying 33 more at this time. A compromise on the issue was reached in late March (Jane's Defence Weekly 2 April).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partners confident of April order for A400M transport
J A C LEWIS JDW Correspondent
Paris
A firm order for a first batch of Europe's new A400M transport aircraft is likely to be placed later this month by the armaments agency representing the eight European nations buying the airlifter, according to the French Ministry of Defence.
Gen Alain Raevel, a ministry spokesman, said French Defence Minister Alain Richard signed a letter on 10 April concerning Germany's funding of 73 A400Ms, and that ministers from the other seven partner nations were doing likewise.
He said the letter was tantamount to a final contract. "In principle, it will clear the way for [Europe's arms procurement agency] OCCAR to place a firm order for a first batch of A400Ms by the end of April," he said, adding: "Nothing now will stand in the way of the process."
The OCCAR agency is to manage the $18 billion project under which Airbus Military SAS will build 196 A400Ms. First deliveries of the aircraft are due for mid-2008.
An initial contract for the A400M programme was signed on 18 December 2001, but the project ran into difficulties when the German Parliament approved funding for 40 aircraft, but refused to fully commit to buying 33 more at this time. A compromise on the issue was reached in late March (Jane's Defence Weekly 2 April).
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*** Prague Gives the An-70 a Big Lift
Sorry to be 'off message' but thought you might find this interesting. (Or at least in the same ball park)
From the Moscow Times
*** Prague Gives the An-70 a Big Lift
The An-70 military transport aircraft, rejected by NATO member-states in favor of the yet-to-be built A400M, has now got at least one NATO customer—and perhaps a new lease on life.
In a deal to settle Russia’s Soviet-era debt, the Czech Republic will take delivery of three An-70s by the end of 2005 or early 2006 as part of an effort to re-arm its military.
The agreement was signed late Tuesday along with 14 other contracts to settle the last $1.1 billion portion of Russia‘s debt.
“We have managed to get rid of one of the most important obstacles and resolved the debt problem,“ Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told businessmen at the Russian Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. “Now we are entering another stage of not only economic but also cultural, political and even military cooperation.“
Zeman said the Czech government had picked the An-70 at the recommendation of its military, but refused to elaborate.
For the An-70, a joint project between Russia and Ukraine that had touted itself as a plane for Europe but was rejected in 2000, the decision could be a vote of confidence.
The An-70 is a medium-haul, short take-off military transport aircraft that can carry up to 35 tons of cargo and fly up to 5,000 kilometers nonstop.
Leonid Terentyev, head of An-70 maker Medium-Transport Aircraft Consortium, said in a recent interview that he had been negotiating for some time with the Czech Defense Ministry over the jets.
The first An-70 aircraft are to roll off the production line in 2004 for service in both the Russian and Ukrainian air forces. Russia is expected to buy 164 aircraft by 2018, and Ukraine could take 65. Prague is the first foreign customer.
Terentyev said he hopes the plane, which is being built at the Polyot plant in Omsk, will find more foreign customers than just the Czech Republic.
Lybid
From the Moscow Times
*** Prague Gives the An-70 a Big Lift
The An-70 military transport aircraft, rejected by NATO member-states in favor of the yet-to-be built A400M, has now got at least one NATO customer—and perhaps a new lease on life.
In a deal to settle Russia’s Soviet-era debt, the Czech Republic will take delivery of three An-70s by the end of 2005 or early 2006 as part of an effort to re-arm its military.
The agreement was signed late Tuesday along with 14 other contracts to settle the last $1.1 billion portion of Russia‘s debt.
“We have managed to get rid of one of the most important obstacles and resolved the debt problem,“ Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told businessmen at the Russian Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. “Now we are entering another stage of not only economic but also cultural, political and even military cooperation.“
Zeman said the Czech government had picked the An-70 at the recommendation of its military, but refused to elaborate.
For the An-70, a joint project between Russia and Ukraine that had touted itself as a plane for Europe but was rejected in 2000, the decision could be a vote of confidence.
The An-70 is a medium-haul, short take-off military transport aircraft that can carry up to 35 tons of cargo and fly up to 5,000 kilometers nonstop.
Leonid Terentyev, head of An-70 maker Medium-Transport Aircraft Consortium, said in a recent interview that he had been negotiating for some time with the Czech Defense Ministry over the jets.
The first An-70 aircraft are to roll off the production line in 2004 for service in both the Russian and Ukrainian air forces. Russia is expected to buy 164 aircraft by 2018, and Ukraine could take 65. Prague is the first foreign customer.
Terentyev said he hopes the plane, which is being built at the Polyot plant in Omsk, will find more foreign customers than just the Czech Republic.
Lybid
What utter common sense from those very nice folk in the Czech Republic! I've only been there once - a couple of years after the velvet revolution - but we had a terrific time and they couldn't have been friendlier. I'll never forget the invitation we had at Hradec Kralove; " The Commander in Chief of the Czech Republic invites you to a hangar party, including (etc etc)...a striptease show. (Which featured some gorgeous young ladies - shame they received 'airshow zaps' quite so quickly!). Can't quite see "Air Chief Marshal Sir Hardly B£oody-Worthitt invites you to a strip show" being allowed in the PC-misery land of the UK!!
The question I would pose to the A400M sales mob is simple, Brian: "Please explain why you consider that the A400M is a significantly better alternative to the An70 which has already been selected by another NATO member, particularly when interoperability is such a key consideration"
The question I would pose to the A400M sales mob is simple, Brian: "Please explain why you consider that the A400M is a significantly better alternative to the An70 which has already been selected by another NATO member, particularly when interoperability is such a key consideration"
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Apr 2002 at 20:24.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST 22 April:
"Britain has signed off on the A400M military airlifter Common Agreement, which covers German funding and penalty details. Contract go-ahead is anticipated by the end of the month".
Which means either the UK has caved in over any possible cost inplications or the German government has lied to the Greens.
Cynically, I'd put my money on a UK backdown, with any cost implications of a (the) German order reduction being borne by the present RAF budget.
I would love to be proved wrong.
"Britain has signed off on the A400M military airlifter Common Agreement, which covers German funding and penalty details. Contract go-ahead is anticipated by the end of the month".
Which means either the UK has caved in over any possible cost inplications or the German government has lied to the Greens.
Cynically, I'd put my money on a UK backdown, with any cost implications of a (the) German order reduction being borne by the present RAF budget.
I would love to be proved wrong.
Don't worry about the Greens - the current Key personalities in German politics are as follows. Gerhard Schröder - Socialist prime minister, wants the aeroplanes. The Big Man. His main election point is that he is the big swinging dick. Joschka Fischer - Foreign Minister. Parliamentary leader of the Greens. He agrees with Schröder's agenda - that is, that Germany is a normal country and can take part in the "Concert of Powers", or as it is now called, the international community. He managed to take his party with him on German involvement in Afghanistan. Possibly the strongest leadership figure in German politics, certainly a future chancellor. Edmund Stoiber - head of the Bavarian hard-right CSU party. Chosen by their ally, the conservative CDU, as top candidate. Right-wing to the point of pain, but restricted by the CDU's moderation. Would certainly buy the aeroplanes.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plot thickens - according to a German press agency the financial penalties for the Germans, if they do not buy their full quota of Ac, are still in place. Rudolph Scharping, the German Defence Minister, has been accused, by the opposition parties, of misleading Parliament, leading to calls for his resignation. The fact that the obligations are still in place would seem to have been confirmed by Brigitte Schulte, a Minister in the German Defence Department who stated that the indemnities were in accord with international practices.
What next??? this is better than a Lynda La Plant Thriller!!!!
What next??? this is better than a Lynda La Plant Thriller!!!!
Having seen the very latest gen on the A400M's capabilities, you will be pleased to know that it's going to be a very capable aeroplane indeed. I shall do some private number crunching in the next few days, but my initial assessment is that in just one of its role applications it will offer very reasonable AAR trail potential, probably as good as the VC10 in 'West of Suez' applications! Unless you're a passenger though - but there'll be other ways of shifting the talking freight!
I'm sure the A400M always looked good on paper! But then Eurofighter was going to beat son of Flanker, the Nimrod AEW was going to be better than Boeing's offering, and the J Herc was going to do everything in the world with a crew of none.
I wonder what it will be like after all the options are removed, to be purchased in 'the next fiscal cycle'.
Not that I'm cynical or anything.....
I wonder what it will be like after all the options are removed, to be purchased in 'the next fiscal cycle'.
Not that I'm cynical or anything.....
Now that we're in the era of CAD/CAM, I know that the A400M is lurking in Airbooooos Mil's computer just waiting for the moment that someone is authorised to go 'File - Print' or rather 'File - Build'!
The payload-range contours have improved significantly since the last brochure as has the performance envelope; importantly it can now easily achieve 300 KIAS at FL 220 in the AAR role which will now make it entirely adequate for use as a tanker with up to 62 tonnes of fuel. But it will also be able to do a whole load of other things as well such as tactical airlift, strategic air lift, air drop.... Hence it will be a very useful ac with a whole host of applications and will enjoy A380 technology - several generations advanced on C-17 technology, incidentally - including some very Gucci avionics. Although it can't match C-17 for payload-range and 767K or A330K as a strategic AT/AAR aeroplane, it will be able to match considerable areas of these aeroplanes' flight envelopes in the one airframe.
I think that the RAF will definitely like it - and if all the A400M squadrons are trained in all TS, AT and AAR roles, it'll be a very enjoyable and rewarding challenge for future RAF pilots to meet.
...and personally I'd send the whole damn C130J fleet back to LM and demand my money back! Then buy even more A400Ms. But it needs a name - 'Bristol Bureaucrat' is perhaps rather too harsh?
The payload-range contours have improved significantly since the last brochure as has the performance envelope; importantly it can now easily achieve 300 KIAS at FL 220 in the AAR role which will now make it entirely adequate for use as a tanker with up to 62 tonnes of fuel. But it will also be able to do a whole load of other things as well such as tactical airlift, strategic air lift, air drop.... Hence it will be a very useful ac with a whole host of applications and will enjoy A380 technology - several generations advanced on C-17 technology, incidentally - including some very Gucci avionics. Although it can't match C-17 for payload-range and 767K or A330K as a strategic AT/AAR aeroplane, it will be able to match considerable areas of these aeroplanes' flight envelopes in the one airframe.
I think that the RAF will definitely like it - and if all the A400M squadrons are trained in all TS, AT and AAR roles, it'll be a very enjoyable and rewarding challenge for future RAF pilots to meet.
...and personally I'd send the whole damn C130J fleet back to LM and demand my money back! Then buy even more A400Ms. But it needs a name - 'Bristol Bureaucrat' is perhaps rather too harsh?
Beags, you've changed your tune!
Is it really you, or has British Waste-A-Space cobbled together a drone (sorry - a Clone:-))?
Apart from a couple of specialised frames, do you really think that there is a significant requirement for an ac with such TS cabilities? This forum has discussed the future of para-dropping, low-level drops etc...........SKE - don't make me laugh.
Our fine SF chaps will be given some C130 'J-okes' and they will make them work - they will be told too!!
Agree, send the 'J' back, scrap them, sell them to Romania, give them to our Full Time Reservists (ANG-style), anything but fool ourselves that we haven't been sold a dud!
After witnessing the capabilities of the C-17 first-hand - bring them on.
Useless fact time: To date, we've spent enough on Antonov charter to purchase , outright, 1.5 C-17s (the half could be used as a procedures trainer) Author: visiting bod who is soon to retire.
Does anybody think that the A400M will be used as it should be? Or will it be used like we've abused the Herc?
Must go, off to Akronelli (Is that Strat or Tac AT?)
Is it really you, or has British Waste-A-Space cobbled together a drone (sorry - a Clone:-))?
Apart from a couple of specialised frames, do you really think that there is a significant requirement for an ac with such TS cabilities? This forum has discussed the future of para-dropping, low-level drops etc...........SKE - don't make me laugh.
Our fine SF chaps will be given some C130 'J-okes' and they will make them work - they will be told too!!
Agree, send the 'J' back, scrap them, sell them to Romania, give them to our Full Time Reservists (ANG-style), anything but fool ourselves that we haven't been sold a dud!
After witnessing the capabilities of the C-17 first-hand - bring them on.
Useless fact time: To date, we've spent enough on Antonov charter to purchase , outright, 1.5 C-17s (the half could be used as a procedures trainer) Author: visiting bod who is soon to retire.
Does anybody think that the A400M will be used as it should be? Or will it be used like we've abused the Herc?
Must go, off to Akronelli (Is that Strat or Tac AT?)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: neither here nor there
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Looking at the date/time of your post, didn't get offered a job by a certain man yesterday did you? Chief of A400M spin for you perhaps? Or how about the A400 Pprune officer? You could push the A330K case too as a secondary duty
Looking at the date/time of your post, didn't get offered a job by a certain man yesterday did you? Chief of A400M spin for you perhaps? Or how about the A400 Pprune officer? You could push the A330K case too as a secondary duty
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Yes, I remember 14 years ago the J model catalog looked superb with its swish specs and nice promises. And indeed the Royal Air Farce did like it, as witnessed by the huge number of ex senior officers who now work for Lockheed!!
Tha A400M is still but a dream, just like Nimrod MRA4. Unfortunately we need Strat and Tac aircraft today, not 6 to 9 years from now!!
If we don't procure something fast then we are going to have big problems in the forthcoming big show!!
Still never stopped us before has it!! I know, I have a cunning plan. Lets make the J model do Tac, lets set an attrition rate of say 4 aircraft and crews (well it is dangerous isn't it??) I reckon that should give us about 9 to 12 months to play with.
Problem solved any one for dinner. Baahh
Yes, I remember 14 years ago the J model catalog looked superb with its swish specs and nice promises. And indeed the Royal Air Farce did like it, as witnessed by the huge number of ex senior officers who now work for Lockheed!!
Tha A400M is still but a dream, just like Nimrod MRA4. Unfortunately we need Strat and Tac aircraft today, not 6 to 9 years from now!!
If we don't procure something fast then we are going to have big problems in the forthcoming big show!!
Still never stopped us before has it!! I know, I have a cunning plan. Lets make the J model do Tac, lets set an attrition rate of say 4 aircraft and crews (well it is dangerous isn't it??) I reckon that should give us about 9 to 12 months to play with.
Problem solved any one for dinner. Baahh
No, Lionel - the timing was down to my late return home after doing my civil ME MPA IR Skill Test yesterday. I have been looking at A400M since the days of 'solution 10' when it was truly a crock of $hit. By the time they'd hardened the spec the payload range and, more importantly for the AAR role, the flight envelope had improved dramatically - and that's the only reason I've changed my tune!
It'll probably be the only RAF ME aeroplane which will have state-of-the-art avionics and will also be fun to fly. I had a prowl around the mock-up several years ago and the cargo area is vastly better than a C130Junk. But it won't be as comfy for self-loading freight as it will be to travel in the 767K....oops, I mean FSTA.
It'll probably be the only RAF ME aeroplane which will have state-of-the-art avionics and will also be fun to fly. I had a prowl around the mock-up several years ago and the cargo area is vastly better than a C130Junk. But it won't be as comfy for self-loading freight as it will be to travel in the 767K....oops, I mean FSTA.
Sorry - I was talking about modern aeroplanes. Not that 'new wine in old skin' thing known as C130J....
J is for Joke? Or should that be Junk.......or Just another 1960s era Hercules tarted up with some 1990s avionics?
Will it cruise at 300 KIAS at FL 220? How about M0.72 at FL 370??
J is for Joke? Or should that be Junk.......or Just another 1960s era Hercules tarted up with some 1990s avionics?
Will it cruise at 300 KIAS at FL 220? How about M0.72 at FL 370??
Last edited by BEagle; 4th May 2002 at 23:07.