A400 latest..
Ah - if you're referring to just large scale war fighting operations, then I agree. But there are also medium scale ones, 'air policing', 'enforcement'....all of which may require AT/AAR support amongst other things. Yes, there may well be a need for 'a lot - and quickly', but there'll also be ongoing 'after actions' to support as you indicate; many of us have been back and forth to the Falklands many times ever since the C130, VC10 and TriStar first started going there and have certainly been detached to the Gulf pretty often since the end of the First Gulf War. The SA airlift requirements of today are indeed less than they were 20 years ago, but you can't support all your theatres at the same time if you've only got a few very large ac - even if, as with C-17, they're very effective. Even they can't be in 2 places at once!
Last edited by BEagle; 6th May 2002 at 12:47.
I am not advocating an all C-17 fleet, just that we need more than just an all A400M fleet. We should go for a sensible mixture of large load strategic aircraft (C-17 or whatever) and smaller more tactical aircraft (A400M or C-130J or whatever).
Indeed there appears to be consensus building amongst contributers to this thread that this is the best option!!
Indeed there appears to be consensus building amongst contributers to this thread that this is the best option!!
Biggus - His verbis dictis, autem et ob has causas.....
C-17, A400M, KC-767 inter/intra theatre.....and 130J for the odd tactical intra-theatre task.
Seems about right?
Regards to Incontinentia Buttox!
C-17, A400M, KC-767 inter/intra theatre.....and 130J for the odd tactical intra-theatre task.
Seems about right?
Regards to Incontinentia Buttox!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorilla in answer to your question non…. but if you bother to read the words of Mr Wappy Tupper he’ll explain why.
PS your earlier comments about attrition rates are very funny – I’ll do a fly-by for your funeral smart boy.
PS your earlier comments about attrition rates are very funny – I’ll do a fly-by for your funeral smart boy.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROBO
Precious little chance of doing my funeral fly past in a J i'm afraid.
The good news is, that when we do lose the first few J's in the TAC environment, I won't have to put on my new number ones to attend any Flight Engineers funerals.
As for my remarks, well if you don't think that our Airships will come up with that solution to the current Kabul problem, then you clearly aren't in the same Air Farce as moi!!
The J model WILL be made to work in the Tac role, no matter how many lives it costs. Because thats the only way Air Officers who backed the project will not lose face!!
Precious little chance of doing my funeral fly past in a J i'm afraid.
The good news is, that when we do lose the first few J's in the TAC environment, I won't have to put on my new number ones to attend any Flight Engineers funerals.
As for my remarks, well if you don't think that our Airships will come up with that solution to the current Kabul problem, then you clearly aren't in the same Air Farce as moi!!
The J model WILL be made to work in the Tac role, no matter how many lives it costs. Because thats the only way Air Officers who backed the project will not lose face!!
Gorilla, for heavens sake stop believing that the more you slate the 'J' the worse it will be! I'd love to say that the only reason the 'K' doesn't spear in at every opportunity at LL is because there's an engineer clogging up the flight deck, but the HFs are able to work on the hour every hour for nearlly useless QNHs without you.
The 'J' is more capable at the Strat role than the K already and will be v. v. good at the TAC role thank you very much as the trials are proving. (And as the WC-10 doesn't do going in the weeds I can't really take too much umbrance from BEagles comments although up 'til now I've quite respected his more impartial posts).
As for C-17s to do one job, dream-on about 767s for another, A400 for a bit more and the Hercs to mop up the rest, yup it'd work, but the ONE thing specified in the initial procurement forecast was that the RAF DIDN'T want to operate 3 aircraft types (namely C-17, FLA as it was then and C130-J), never mind the 4 we've all worked ourselves up to so far.
The perfect aircraft was always going to be a cheap C-17. Failing that, a Herc with a bigger freight bay (ie A400 but now) and some passenger things to do the non-military stuff.
The 'J' is more capable at the Strat role than the K already and will be v. v. good at the TAC role thank you very much as the trials are proving. (And as the WC-10 doesn't do going in the weeds I can't really take too much umbrance from BEagles comments although up 'til now I've quite respected his more impartial posts).
As for C-17s to do one job, dream-on about 767s for another, A400 for a bit more and the Hercs to mop up the rest, yup it'd work, but the ONE thing specified in the initial procurement forecast was that the RAF DIDN'T want to operate 3 aircraft types (namely C-17, FLA as it was then and C130-J), never mind the 4 we've all worked ourselves up to so far.
The perfect aircraft was always going to be a cheap C-17. Failing that, a Herc with a bigger freight bay (ie A400 but now) and some passenger things to do the non-military stuff.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: here
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong again, Gorilla
The J will work in the tac environment, not because it will be forced to but due to the fact that:
The boys at Lyn are working their nuts off despite poor funding and a ridiculously short timescale.
The kit on board the aircraft makes it safer than any Flt Eng I've ever flown with.
The J will work in the tac environment, not because it will be forced to but due to the fact that:
The boys at Lyn are working their nuts off despite poor funding and a ridiculously short timescale.
The kit on board the aircraft makes it safer than any Flt Eng I've ever flown with.
Last edited by Wappy Tupper; 6th May 2002 at 22:47.
Perhaps - just as a single type works just fine for OS and AD?
Although the FTA is supposed to meet all strategic and tactical AT requirements and FSTA is supposed to meet our future AAR needs (and some limited AT), the truth is that no matter how good our STSA is, it is only a Short Term solution. But the need for C-17 scale capability has been proved - so it'd be a brave person who assumed that this need could be taken over entirely by A400M.
Tranche 2 of the 130 replacement and most of FTA could be met by A400M which could also offer a very useful AAR role. Having bought 130J, it makes obvious sense to try to make it work as it was supposed to all along. If you include FSTA, then that still makes 4 types..........which is fewer than at present!
Although the FTA is supposed to meet all strategic and tactical AT requirements and FSTA is supposed to meet our future AAR needs (and some limited AT), the truth is that no matter how good our STSA is, it is only a Short Term solution. But the need for C-17 scale capability has been proved - so it'd be a brave person who assumed that this need could be taken over entirely by A400M.
Tranche 2 of the 130 replacement and most of FTA could be met by A400M which could also offer a very useful AAR role. Having bought 130J, it makes obvious sense to try to make it work as it was supposed to all along. If you include FSTA, then that still makes 4 types..........which is fewer than at present!
The need for C-17 style capability was proven well before the first Antanov charter! However, and this is heresy I know for an operator, there is no point having a fleet with both 130J AND A400M.
The 130J is an extremely capable aircraft with excellent modern avionics, and has the benefit of already being in service with more capabilities being introduced via the RtoS almost weekly. The A400 has all this to go through, after the political wrangling is complete, and will also arrive with no TAC clearances etc etc. However; the A400 will have a bigger boot! And the whole point of the aircraft is to fit in the loads that the RAF/Army/Navy want to put on board. If the A400 comes on line and Lyneham is shut (bl@@dy he!!, heresy pt2) the only reason to keep the ‘J’ would be the cost of re-training crews to operate another type if the ‘J’ were sold. (And before the uneducated get going, by that point the ‘J’ will have proven itself even to you as well as other buyers.) There is no point having 2 aircraft with such overlapping roles!
Given that we can’t afford flying suits never mind C-17s but still need tanker/troop transport, that’s 2 types.
The 130J is an extremely capable aircraft with excellent modern avionics, and has the benefit of already being in service with more capabilities being introduced via the RtoS almost weekly. The A400 has all this to go through, after the political wrangling is complete, and will also arrive with no TAC clearances etc etc. However; the A400 will have a bigger boot! And the whole point of the aircraft is to fit in the loads that the RAF/Army/Navy want to put on board. If the A400 comes on line and Lyneham is shut (bl@@dy he!!, heresy pt2) the only reason to keep the ‘J’ would be the cost of re-training crews to operate another type if the ‘J’ were sold. (And before the uneducated get going, by that point the ‘J’ will have proven itself even to you as well as other buyers.) There is no point having 2 aircraft with such overlapping roles!
Given that we can’t afford flying suits never mind C-17s but still need tanker/troop transport, that’s 2 types.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought chaps. Our colonial chums have gone "firm" on 180 C17s and are currently trying to up to 220. Looking goodfor it too. This means the cost is only going to come down, quite substantially I'd imagine. What, traditionally happens to the cost of Euro ventures? It would not be inconcievable for the prices to end up close, even, embarrassingly for the C17 to be cheaper. Besides who on earth in their right mind would swap the very busy and capable a/c they have now for something inferior? It makes no sense.
RoboAlbert - re your allegation concerning the A400M take-off performance, under JAR 25 at normal MTOM of 126.5T, the ac requires a balanced field length of 5500 ft at ISA+15, sea level, hard wet runway. Which would indicate that the RW at Lyneham should be long enough.
Mind you, getting an ac with a large T-tail and an overall height of 48 ft 3 in into one of those funny little hangars over there might prove difficult.........
Mind you, getting an ac with a large T-tail and an overall height of 48 ft 3 in into one of those funny little hangars over there might prove difficult.........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'm just curious. Since they rejected the planned engine because it could not guarantee to meet the perfromance requirement, and a decision on which of the new paper engines being proposed will not be made till next month, how any one can be so precise in the figures?
And, of course, any new engine is a risk. Take, as an example, the PW6000, which is slipping to the right as it continues to exceed guaranteed fuel performance figures by around 6%.
I believe the PW6000 shares a common technology core with the PW800, which provides the core of their proposed engine for the A400M.......
And, of course, any new engine is a risk. Take, as an example, the PW6000, which is slipping to the right as it continues to exceed guaranteed fuel performance figures by around 6%.
I believe the PW6000 shares a common technology core with the PW800, which provides the core of their proposed engine for the A400M.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Delayed again.
AWST:
The German parliamentary budget committee on July 3 approved the purchase of the Taurus KEPD-350 land-attack cruise missile, according to German industry sources, but decisions on both the A400M military airlifter and Meteor radar-guided air-to-air missile were deferred.
The parliament will be in recess until September, potentially leaving both the A400M and the Meteor procurements in limbo. German industrialists pointed to internal politics within the government as the cause of the latest delay on the A400M.
A decision on approving participation in the six-nation Meteor program could come in September, but industrialists are concerned that approval of the A400M now could slip to beyond the national elections. If this happens, a program go-ahead would be forthcoming no earlier than the fourth quarter of this year. Failure to finally push ahead with the A400M is causing embarrassment among German industry officials and consternation among some of Germany's partner nations. Britain and France have become exasperated with Germany's postponements.
The A400M has been plagued by political dithering, and some British industrialists are now warning squadron-level operational service of the aircraft is credible no sooner than 2012-13.
Senior British defense officials have in recent weeks made it clear they are considering procurement approaches based on U.S. transport aircraft, to provide an alternative should the situation on the A400M become unacceptable. A British Defense Ministry spokesman said the U.K. needed to see early progress, but would not elaborate. As far as the British-led Meteor is concerned, the sources suggested it could be approved by the German budget committee in September.
AWST:
The German parliamentary budget committee on July 3 approved the purchase of the Taurus KEPD-350 land-attack cruise missile, according to German industry sources, but decisions on both the A400M military airlifter and Meteor radar-guided air-to-air missile were deferred.
The parliament will be in recess until September, potentially leaving both the A400M and the Meteor procurements in limbo. German industrialists pointed to internal politics within the government as the cause of the latest delay on the A400M.
A decision on approving participation in the six-nation Meteor program could come in September, but industrialists are concerned that approval of the A400M now could slip to beyond the national elections. If this happens, a program go-ahead would be forthcoming no earlier than the fourth quarter of this year. Failure to finally push ahead with the A400M is causing embarrassment among German industry officials and consternation among some of Germany's partner nations. Britain and France have become exasperated with Germany's postponements.
The A400M has been plagued by political dithering, and some British industrialists are now warning squadron-level operational service of the aircraft is credible no sooner than 2012-13.
Senior British defense officials have in recent weeks made it clear they are considering procurement approaches based on U.S. transport aircraft, to provide an alternative should the situation on the A400M become unacceptable. A British Defense Ministry spokesman said the U.K. needed to see early progress, but would not elaborate. As far as the British-led Meteor is concerned, the sources suggested it could be approved by the German budget committee in September.
A little knowledge..........
......and, according to yesterday's leaks regarding Hoon's latest review, the C-17s will be going back to Spamland when A400M comes ino service.
......and, according to yesterday's leaks regarding Hoon's latest review, the C-17s will be going back to Spamland when A400M comes ino service.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A400M: Operational service of the aircraft is credible no sooner than 2012-13.
C-17: Entered service 2001. 7 year lease with an option to extend to 9 years = 2010.
Better get out the cheque book. Wouldn't be surprised to end up paying at least twice the purchase price by the end.
The other question is the cost and practicability of keeping the K flying.
C-17: Entered service 2001. 7 year lease with an option to extend to 9 years = 2010.
Better get out the cheque book. Wouldn't be surprised to end up paying at least twice the purchase price by the end.
The other question is the cost and practicability of keeping the K flying.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well I imagine this will kill any competition to the A-400M (if and when it gets the go-ahead) from the AN-70.
JDW - 27 Jan:
Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation Air Forces (RFAF), used a 15 January press conference in Moscow to launch a scathing criticism of the Russian/Ukrainian An-70 transport aircraft.
Although around $3.5 billion has been spent on the project over the last 16 years, the official noted that "382 failures, including 52 engine stops, happened during 386 hours of flight" and described these results as unsatisfactory. "The An-70 was intended as a replacement for the An-12, but the project began growing and unnecessarily neared the class of the Il-76," Gen Mikhailov said. Russia needs an aircraft with a cargo capacity of around 20 tonnes to replace the An-12, but the An-70's normal payload of 35 tonnes and maximum payload of 47 tonnes puts the aircraft outside this class.
"We have to admit that an error has been made and choose another aircraft," said the air force chief, identifying Russia's proposed Tu-330 and Il-214 projects as possible An-12 replacements. The Tu-330 concept shares 70% commonality with the Tu-204 airliner, while the Il-214 is a collaborative effort with India, which will provide 47% of the aircraft's development costs.
Gen Mikhailov went on to describe the modernised Il-76MF as both cheaper and "about 2.8 times better" than the An-70. The RFAF has around 220 Il-76s, most of which are in the MD configuration and are suitable for upgrade to the enhanced standard, new-build examples of which could also be acquired.....
...Plans to manufacture an initial five aircraft for each country from 2002-04 are now viewed as unrealistic because the RFAF is no longer funding the project, said Leonid Terentyev, director of the Russian-Ukrainian Medium Transport Aircraft consortium.......
JDW - 27 Jan:
Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation Air Forces (RFAF), used a 15 January press conference in Moscow to launch a scathing criticism of the Russian/Ukrainian An-70 transport aircraft.
Although around $3.5 billion has been spent on the project over the last 16 years, the official noted that "382 failures, including 52 engine stops, happened during 386 hours of flight" and described these results as unsatisfactory. "The An-70 was intended as a replacement for the An-12, but the project began growing and unnecessarily neared the class of the Il-76," Gen Mikhailov said. Russia needs an aircraft with a cargo capacity of around 20 tonnes to replace the An-12, but the An-70's normal payload of 35 tonnes and maximum payload of 47 tonnes puts the aircraft outside this class.
"We have to admit that an error has been made and choose another aircraft," said the air force chief, identifying Russia's proposed Tu-330 and Il-214 projects as possible An-12 replacements. The Tu-330 concept shares 70% commonality with the Tu-204 airliner, while the Il-214 is a collaborative effort with India, which will provide 47% of the aircraft's development costs.
Gen Mikhailov went on to describe the modernised Il-76MF as both cheaper and "about 2.8 times better" than the An-70. The RFAF has around 220 Il-76s, most of which are in the MD configuration and are suitable for upgrade to the enhanced standard, new-build examples of which could also be acquired.....
...Plans to manufacture an initial five aircraft for each country from 2002-04 are now viewed as unrealistic because the RFAF is no longer funding the project, said Leonid Terentyev, director of the Russian-Ukrainian Medium Transport Aircraft consortium.......
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
I must admit to a growing sense of deja vu. The An-70 has all the hallmarks of the British aviation industry.
A great product developed for a customer who provides insufficient funding for effective development. Programme screwed by political changes part way through the development and then has the legs cut away from under it by the military customer chopping the order at the last minute. Where have we heard all that before?
The flight test performance figures indicate it has the potential to be a great aircraft. Throw half of the 5-8 billion euros at it that we are about to throw at the A400M and we taxpayers could save an awful lot of money - and I am sure that even the combination of three new lots of technology in airframe, engines and props could not withstand that barrage of currency without turning into a reliable product.
It will be a great shame if it fails to make it.
Yours
Lybid
I must admit to a growing sense of deja vu. The An-70 has all the hallmarks of the British aviation industry.
A great product developed for a customer who provides insufficient funding for effective development. Programme screwed by political changes part way through the development and then has the legs cut away from under it by the military customer chopping the order at the last minute. Where have we heard all that before?
The flight test performance figures indicate it has the potential to be a great aircraft. Throw half of the 5-8 billion euros at it that we are about to throw at the A400M and we taxpayers could save an awful lot of money - and I am sure that even the combination of three new lots of technology in airframe, engines and props could not withstand that barrage of currency without turning into a reliable product.
It will be a great shame if it fails to make it.
Yours
Lybid