A400 latest..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400 latest..
Sorry everyone, I've been away a while, and don't know the outcome of the A400-German thing. Have they stumped up all the cash, or just promised it? Are the British happy with this? Are we going to end up (eventually) with a piece of kit that doesn't exist yet and will take years (and millions to get right) or more of those wonderful, fluffy, C-17s? Not that I'm biased in any way.....
The German political parties sorted out an acceptable funding agreement a few days before the deadline of 31 Mar - so yes, the Bristol Bureaucrat should indeed be making an appearance at your local aerodrome in a few years' time.......hmmm
But with the US having opted for the 767 tanker - in common with Italy and Japan, Airbooos will now be so busy with the big A380 and A400M projects that, hopefully, the A330K proposal will quietly fade away.....
But with the US having opted for the 767 tanker - in common with Italy and Japan, Airbooos will now be so busy with the big A380 and A400M projects that, hopefully, the A330K proposal will quietly fade away.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I know you've said lots on the 330 vs 767 tanker, but fer the uninitiated, what are the main pros/cons? Would not the Euro option be better fer UK PLC? New jets vs retreads better? If we follow Uncle Sam in everything, don't we risk simply boosting the share price of Boeing/Lockheed M and not BAe?
I know you've said lots on the 330 vs 767 tanker, but fer the uninitiated, what are the main pros/cons? Would not the Euro option be better fer UK PLC? New jets vs retreads better? If we follow Uncle Sam in everything, don't we risk simply boosting the share price of Boeing/Lockheed M and not BAe?
Thank you, Lionel!
Sadbloke- just let the products compete on their own merit and to hell with politics and governmental meddling. BWoS could still contract for the 767K conversion (as was reported in the open media), RR engines are fittted to the BA 767-300ERs and there could be considerable €uropean work in any 767K programme.
Mind you, had we bought the A310MRTT when it was offered a few years ago.......
Sadbloke- just let the products compete on their own merit and to hell with politics and governmental meddling. BWoS could still contract for the 767K conversion (as was reported in the open media), RR engines are fittted to the BA 767-300ERs and there could be considerable €uropean work in any 767K programme.
Mind you, had we bought the A310MRTT when it was offered a few years ago.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Unfortunately, the only thing agreed was delay everything again. No one else is willing to proceed until the Germans commit to financial liability for the last 73 aircraft. For which the Greens will not give backing. The decision is now due in .................
When did we say the RAF had a last, final, no..we really mean it, OK...just one last chance.........deadline?
JDW: JDW
Partners report further A400M progress
CRAIG HOYLE JDW Aviation Editor
London
Europe's multinational A400M transport aircraft programme has edged towards a production decision later this year, following the confirmation of an agreement reached during a multinational policy group meeting held in Paris on 22 March.
While noting that there is still "no specified deadline" for fully meeting the terms of the 18 December 2001 contract for 196 of the new aircraft, a UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson late last month told Jane's Defence Weekly that: "A mechanism was identified [during the meeting] that should secure early signature of the contract by all the countries."
This is understood to require full consensus within the next few months, with military and industry sources saying that delaying a decision until after German parliamentary elections in September is "not on the cards".
While the issue of securing German funding for the A400M project was finalised ahead of a 31 March deadline, the remaining partner nations have yet to make a final decision on whether to risk being collectively liable should Berlin fail to acquire all of its stated requirement for 73 aircraft. "That issue still needs to be resolved," said the UK MoD official, who underlined London's continued commitment to procure the A400M.
An Airbus Military SAS spokesperson declined to make any comment on the current programme status.
When did we say the RAF had a last, final, no..we really mean it, OK...just one last chance.........deadline?
JDW: JDW
Partners report further A400M progress
CRAIG HOYLE JDW Aviation Editor
London
Europe's multinational A400M transport aircraft programme has edged towards a production decision later this year, following the confirmation of an agreement reached during a multinational policy group meeting held in Paris on 22 March.
While noting that there is still "no specified deadline" for fully meeting the terms of the 18 December 2001 contract for 196 of the new aircraft, a UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson late last month told Jane's Defence Weekly that: "A mechanism was identified [during the meeting] that should secure early signature of the contract by all the countries."
This is understood to require full consensus within the next few months, with military and industry sources saying that delaying a decision until after German parliamentary elections in September is "not on the cards".
While the issue of securing German funding for the A400M project was finalised ahead of a 31 March deadline, the remaining partner nations have yet to make a final decision on whether to risk being collectively liable should Berlin fail to acquire all of its stated requirement for 73 aircraft. "That issue still needs to be resolved," said the UK MoD official, who underlined London's continued commitment to procure the A400M.
An Airbus Military SAS spokesperson declined to make any comment on the current programme status.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See also Dominic O'Connell in the Sunday Times Bus. section today.
Boeing and Lockheed lobbying the US under secretary of defence to lobby the European ministers to buy American because the European product will never materialise.....
I hear the UK C-17s have exceeded their expensive lease hours and are now presumably in the 'even more expensive' category so the MOD is following the most cost-effective airlift solution for Afghanistan and chartering An124s..... Hmmmmm..
Mind you they are only doing what France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Poland etc etc have done and continue to do. Funny old thing how the An124 keeps on providing the solution but the whole world chooses to be blind.
One German military gentleman has actually calculated that the cost per hour is about one quarter of what it costs the Luftwaffe to operate a C160.
Lybid
Boeing and Lockheed lobbying the US under secretary of defence to lobby the European ministers to buy American because the European product will never materialise.....
I hear the UK C-17s have exceeded their expensive lease hours and are now presumably in the 'even more expensive' category so the MOD is following the most cost-effective airlift solution for Afghanistan and chartering An124s..... Hmmmmm..
Mind you they are only doing what France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Poland etc etc have done and continue to do. Funny old thing how the An124 keeps on providing the solution but the whole world chooses to be blind.
One German military gentleman has actually calculated that the cost per hour is about one quarter of what it costs the Luftwaffe to operate a C160.
Lybid
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkD
Sorry, can't help with the detail. Just repeating what the Antonov maquis in Germany is reporting. Someone who should know what they are talking about, a sort of Bosch BEagle you might say, has calculated the cost of providing C160s and was comparing it with the cost of An124 airlift.
Anyway, when did accurate detail come into this question? A DERA/DPA approved An124 solution at a 50% cost saving over C-17s didn't deter the Hoon monster from wasting more than 100 million pounds of our money with his decision on STSA. Plus the fact (that's F..A..C..T) that Boeing confirmed on UK national radio that by the time the C-17 lease is complete the MOD might as well have bought the C-17s. Joined up government? Just some/any government would be useful.
Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive. The point I was making by reference to O'Connel's article was the cheek of Boeing/Lockheed to propose that Europe buys C-17 and C130 because the A400M is not going to make it. This simply ignores the fact that the only way that Europe has gone to war in Afghanistan and various other places over the last decade has been courtesy of the An124. The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul less an unknown amount by C-17. Would be interested to know just how many sorties and with what payload the C-17 has operated?
The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....
Yours
Lybid
Sorry, can't help with the detail. Just repeating what the Antonov maquis in Germany is reporting. Someone who should know what they are talking about, a sort of Bosch BEagle you might say, has calculated the cost of providing C160s and was comparing it with the cost of An124 airlift.
Anyway, when did accurate detail come into this question? A DERA/DPA approved An124 solution at a 50% cost saving over C-17s didn't deter the Hoon monster from wasting more than 100 million pounds of our money with his decision on STSA. Plus the fact (that's F..A..C..T) that Boeing confirmed on UK national radio that by the time the C-17 lease is complete the MOD might as well have bought the C-17s. Joined up government? Just some/any government would be useful.
Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive. The point I was making by reference to O'Connel's article was the cheek of Boeing/Lockheed to propose that Europe buys C-17 and C130 because the A400M is not going to make it. This simply ignores the fact that the only way that Europe has gone to war in Afghanistan and various other places over the last decade has been courtesy of the An124. The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul less an unknown amount by C-17. Would be interested to know just how many sorties and with what payload the C-17 has operated?
The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....
Yours
Lybid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pantsville
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish to appear pedantic, but;
BEagle; just let the products compete on their own merit and to hell with politics and governmental meddling.
Absolutely, old chap, can't say fairer than that! Show me a more successful project, in terms of aims acheived, than the RAF C-17, in the recent past.
Lybid; Surely the fact that the extended hours now being used by he C-17 just prove its usefulness. The expense must surely be down to the fact that the a/c were leased as a short term solution to a problem NOW. The cost now reflects the speed at which the implementation system (both training and supply) has been addressed.
"The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul.." just simply isn't true. Fact.
Another fact is that the C-17 is here, now, and has been doing the job to a level far above any body's expectations for many months. I believe that if we were to buy the things now, then the costs (long term) would reduce greatly.
Who would have bet the enourmous sum of money involved, on having aircraft delivered, and crews trained, within a year of our political masters making the descision to obtain them, with any other of the consortiums?
Surely the C-17 purchase price can be negotiable, after all, what better advert is there than for the 1st foreign user to BUY some, after such a relatively short period in service.
BEagle; just let the products compete on their own merit and to hell with politics and governmental meddling.
Absolutely, old chap, can't say fairer than that! Show me a more successful project, in terms of aims acheived, than the RAF C-17, in the recent past.
Lybid; Surely the fact that the extended hours now being used by he C-17 just prove its usefulness. The expense must surely be down to the fact that the a/c were leased as a short term solution to a problem NOW. The cost now reflects the speed at which the implementation system (both training and supply) has been addressed.
"The An124 has delivered almost all the European military equipment into Bagram and Kabul.." just simply isn't true. Fact.
Another fact is that the C-17 is here, now, and has been doing the job to a level far above any body's expectations for many months. I believe that if we were to buy the things now, then the costs (long term) would reduce greatly.
Who would have bet the enourmous sum of money involved, on having aircraft delivered, and crews trained, within a year of our political masters making the descision to obtain them, with any other of the consortiums?
Surely the C-17 purchase price can be negotiable, after all, what better advert is there than for the 1st foreign user to BUY some, after such a relatively short period in service.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brize
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF C-17s have been the most successful intro into service in RAF history. They are flying almost daily into Kabul and more besides. This is all despite the still extreme learning curve that all on 99 are on. The aircraft is selling itself, hence the constant demand and the overrun on its predicted usage.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lybid said:
You hear wrong; the C17 has not exceeded the lease hours yet - even the RAF contract team couldn't have bought so few hours that we could burn 5 years' worth in a year! UK PLC is still well within the hours already bought on the lease. However, it is true to say that they are operating well over their target because demand for their capability is so high and, that as a result, the bought hours are not going to last anywhere near the five years of the lease. Not even close.
The number of hours burnt also has nothing to do with the decision to charter An-124s. That call is because the total tonnage of frt needed to sustain so many peacekeepers, an increasingly significant war fighting force and maintain APOD/FMBs for ourselves and other nations - remember that we are still the lead nation - is so high that there is no way that the 4 ac of 99 Sqn could achieve it. In fact, with more personnel, 99 Sqn could increase the flow rate and PJHQ would gladly take the additional lift at the expense of the charter companies who are charging a fortune - more than the C-17 costs per kg delivered!
Also:
Unfortunately, whilst I know the answers to both of those questions only too well, I have not yet seen them in the public domain and so can't share them with you. If I see the figures accurately reported somewhere, I will be only too happy to cross-post to here. However, the bulk of the UK deployment has not been by An-124, but by a variety of RAF AT, C-17 included. Please remember that a lot of the An-124 flights in to theatre have been for other ISAF contributing nations. I'd happily believe that the bulk of the total airlift has been by An-124, but I KNOW that this is not the case for the UK kit.
As for the DAS issue - the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. Also, because of the most adavanced nav kit on the charter An-124s over Afghanistan being a window, they demanded day slots so that they could find the airfield, as did a number of the other nations. The night slots were all that the UK was left with for a time and unsurprisingly, the ac with the best nav kit are also the ones with DAS. Further than that I'm not willing to discuss on an open forum.
I hear the UK C-17s have exceeded their expensive lease hours and are now presumably in the 'even more expensive' category so the MOD is following the most cost-effective airlift solution for Afghanistan and chartering An124s..... Hmmmmm..
The number of hours burnt also has nothing to do with the decision to charter An-124s. That call is because the total tonnage of frt needed to sustain so many peacekeepers, an increasingly significant war fighting force and maintain APOD/FMBs for ourselves and other nations - remember that we are still the lead nation - is so high that there is no way that the 4 ac of 99 Sqn could achieve it. In fact, with more personnel, 99 Sqn could increase the flow rate and PJHQ would gladly take the additional lift at the expense of the charter companies who are charging a fortune - more than the C-17 costs per kg delivered!
Also:
Would be interested to know just how many sorties and with what payload the C-17 has operated?
The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....
The other interesting issue was that when the RAF was only prepared to operate into the area with C130 K with full DAS, they were chartering An124's and asking those untrustworthy Ukrainians and Russians who are such a political risk to put their lives and aeroplanes on the line operating into the same destinations.
And a grand job they have made of it too....
As for the DAS issue - the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. Also, because of the most adavanced nav kit on the charter An-124s over Afghanistan being a window, they demanded day slots so that they could find the airfield, as did a number of the other nations. The night slots were all that the UK was left with for a time and unsurprisingly, the ac with the best nav kit are also the ones with DAS. Further than that I'm not willing to discuss on an open forum.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: a secret airbase not far from you
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C17 is the best aeroplane we've never owned, not a criticism, just a fact. It is monotonously reliable, enormously useful and the crews are slogging their guts out. I hope that the contract folk don't screw it up, or it will leave service before the venerable Vickers 'Whisper Jet' 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lybid - You are so far off the mark it is simply funny!!!!! You don't have the faintest idea about the facts of the matter.
Opso has quite rightly put the facts straight as far as is possible on this public forum. The C-17 is still within hours, is doing a first class job and may become the platform of choice for more than just a few more countries around the world.
An124 - Well, where do I start? Field performance, tearing up tyres like nobodys business. And at vast expense to the taxpayer every time it flys, which is far, far less than C-17.
Lybid - please stop posting until you know what you're talking about.
Roll on C-17!!!
Opso has quite rightly put the facts straight as far as is possible on this public forum. The C-17 is still within hours, is doing a first class job and may become the platform of choice for more than just a few more countries around the world.
An124 - Well, where do I start? Field performance, tearing up tyres like nobodys business. And at vast expense to the taxpayer every time it flys, which is far, far less than C-17.
Lybid - please stop posting until you know what you're talking about.
Roll on C-17!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bootscooter
My quote
Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive.
Unquote
I was not knocking the C-17. The point that wrankles with the Antonov lobby is the distorted acquisition programme which allowed Hoon to let legitimate bidders waste their time and effort proposing an An124 solution which met the specified UK requirement but Hoon was never going to go for. That is all water under the bridge.
My request for some govt/any govt was that the UK got itself into a ridiculous procurement situation where it has forced itself into a lease which will ultimately cost more than buying the aeroplanes. That is just not rational.
Now to my knowledge the An124s have carried lots of cargo for the UK, plus the contingents from France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands. By my count that seems to cover most of the European contributions other than the UK.
Bitsleftover
No argument - its a great aeroplane. But if the rest of Europe is struggling with increasing military commitments and reducing defence budgets then how are they going to afford them the C-17s and C130Js that Boeing/Lockheed want their govt to lobby for on their behalf? As BEagle was quoted, let there be an objective assessment. If you do so then Germany has already selected the An70, but the objective assessment was overruled by the politicians. More capable aeroplane at a lower price than the A400M. The UK has already made its own decision about the C-17 and that is a lost cause. But to lobby expensive US products into a market that cannot afford them seems crazy.
Opso
You disagree at the beginning of the paragraph and then agree at the end. I would interpret what you write as meaning that the annual hours are being exceeded as I presumed and the MOD is hoping that things will quieten down so that the later years can be run at less than the average yearly rate so that the 7 years total stays within the hours bought. Its all a matter of presentation and whether pigs have wings..
I really wasnt expecting any answers to my questions on sorties and payloads.
Quote
'the charter companies...both hiked their prices..'
Unquote
To the best of my knowledge the UK has an enabling contract with a broker, Air Partner, (choosing to add commission to the taxpayers expenditure for some inexplicable reason) who use Volga Dnepr at a pitifully low fixed rate. Antonov Airlines has not, to my knowledge, done any UK outbound cargo having consistently quoted a more rational hourly rate. It has, however carried some cargo back at a substantially lower cost than was otherwise available.
An equivalent C5, when they were available, would have cost about 12,000 usd/hr ACMI plus DOCs of about 6k/hr giving total 18k usd/hr. My understanding is that the VDA ACMI rate is marginally more than half the ACMI rate of the equivalent US aeroplane. c.f. B747 ACMI rate around 5-6k if you need a reference point.
I have difficulty with your assertion about the cost per kg without knowing which set of numbers you might be using. Assuming that it is the programme lifetime cost used by Mr Hoon then the C-17 aircraft hours must cost at least 100% more than An124 and assuming the C-17 is carrying 55t to which it was supposedly restricted by the lease agreement and the An124 is carrying 80 tons in order to carry round trip fuel, then you can do the comparison and you will understand my puzzlement.
Quote
'...the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. '
Unquote
An undeserved jibe, Opso. Perhaps mine was also. Consider it unreservedly withdrawn. Bear in mind the civil operators of any nationality have supported the military for many a year. Yes its business. Its how these operators, Evergreen, Southern, HeavyLift in its day, Safair etc as well as our Russian and Ukrainian friends make their money so that they are around for the next time you need them. Dont knock it.
Daytime slots had nothing to do with nav equipment, the An124 is as well equipped as any other large transport. But it cannot operate in mountainous terrain with no navaids. But you will have seen no British civil operators in Kabul as they were unable to operate into an airfield with no ATC, no fire cover etc. Its those untrustworthy Russians and Ukrainians whose teams from their Dept of Transport did an evaluation of Kabul and gave exemptions for their operators to work there. I didnt see any CAA Flight Ops Inspectors hitting the road to Kabul.
Before anyone else loses slates from their roof, let me repeat, I am not knocking the C-17. Its a great aeroplane. My original point was the presumption by the US that Europe does not have an option and the blindness of most on this side of the Atlantic in failing to see that the An124, and IL76 for that matter, have been the mainstays of European military airlift for the last decade.
Stirring the pot, as ever.
Lybid
My quote
Great aeroplanes, C-17s. Just awful expensive.
Unquote
I was not knocking the C-17. The point that wrankles with the Antonov lobby is the distorted acquisition programme which allowed Hoon to let legitimate bidders waste their time and effort proposing an An124 solution which met the specified UK requirement but Hoon was never going to go for. That is all water under the bridge.
My request for some govt/any govt was that the UK got itself into a ridiculous procurement situation where it has forced itself into a lease which will ultimately cost more than buying the aeroplanes. That is just not rational.
Now to my knowledge the An124s have carried lots of cargo for the UK, plus the contingents from France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands. By my count that seems to cover most of the European contributions other than the UK.
Bitsleftover
No argument - its a great aeroplane. But if the rest of Europe is struggling with increasing military commitments and reducing defence budgets then how are they going to afford them the C-17s and C130Js that Boeing/Lockheed want their govt to lobby for on their behalf? As BEagle was quoted, let there be an objective assessment. If you do so then Germany has already selected the An70, but the objective assessment was overruled by the politicians. More capable aeroplane at a lower price than the A400M. The UK has already made its own decision about the C-17 and that is a lost cause. But to lobby expensive US products into a market that cannot afford them seems crazy.
Opso
You disagree at the beginning of the paragraph and then agree at the end. I would interpret what you write as meaning that the annual hours are being exceeded as I presumed and the MOD is hoping that things will quieten down so that the later years can be run at less than the average yearly rate so that the 7 years total stays within the hours bought. Its all a matter of presentation and whether pigs have wings..
I really wasnt expecting any answers to my questions on sorties and payloads.
Quote
'the charter companies...both hiked their prices..'
Unquote
To the best of my knowledge the UK has an enabling contract with a broker, Air Partner, (choosing to add commission to the taxpayers expenditure for some inexplicable reason) who use Volga Dnepr at a pitifully low fixed rate. Antonov Airlines has not, to my knowledge, done any UK outbound cargo having consistently quoted a more rational hourly rate. It has, however carried some cargo back at a substantially lower cost than was otherwise available.
An equivalent C5, when they were available, would have cost about 12,000 usd/hr ACMI plus DOCs of about 6k/hr giving total 18k usd/hr. My understanding is that the VDA ACMI rate is marginally more than half the ACMI rate of the equivalent US aeroplane. c.f. B747 ACMI rate around 5-6k if you need a reference point.
I have difficulty with your assertion about the cost per kg without knowing which set of numbers you might be using. Assuming that it is the programme lifetime cost used by Mr Hoon then the C-17 aircraft hours must cost at least 100% more than An124 and assuming the C-17 is carrying 55t to which it was supposedly restricted by the lease agreement and the An124 is carrying 80 tons in order to carry round trip fuel, then you can do the comparison and you will understand my puzzlement.
Quote
'...the charter companies are commercial concerns and both hiked their prices through the roof for this job, figuring the risk to their employees is worth the profit to their bosses. '
Unquote
An undeserved jibe, Opso. Perhaps mine was also. Consider it unreservedly withdrawn. Bear in mind the civil operators of any nationality have supported the military for many a year. Yes its business. Its how these operators, Evergreen, Southern, HeavyLift in its day, Safair etc as well as our Russian and Ukrainian friends make their money so that they are around for the next time you need them. Dont knock it.
Daytime slots had nothing to do with nav equipment, the An124 is as well equipped as any other large transport. But it cannot operate in mountainous terrain with no navaids. But you will have seen no British civil operators in Kabul as they were unable to operate into an airfield with no ATC, no fire cover etc. Its those untrustworthy Russians and Ukrainians whose teams from their Dept of Transport did an evaluation of Kabul and gave exemptions for their operators to work there. I didnt see any CAA Flight Ops Inspectors hitting the road to Kabul.
Before anyone else loses slates from their roof, let me repeat, I am not knocking the C-17. Its a great aeroplane. My original point was the presumption by the US that Europe does not have an option and the blindness of most on this side of the Atlantic in failing to see that the An124, and IL76 for that matter, have been the mainstays of European military airlift for the last decade.
Stirring the pot, as ever.
Lybid
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4rackets
Welcome.
Did I really get you so wound up that you had to register to tell me so..?
There is a rational discussion in here somewhere... I just can't quite remember where we left it.
Yours
Lybid
Welcome.
Did I really get you so wound up that you had to register to tell me so..?
There is a rational discussion in here somewhere... I just can't quite remember where we left it.
Yours
Lybid
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word about the C130k crews. Bearing in mind this is an open forum I would like to correct Lybid. With very little publicity the C130 k and I stress K crews have been doing a remarkable job in Afghanistan, surviving some very serious incidents in an airframe that is quite frankly shockingly short of defensive equipment. With very little support from our senior officers i hope that one day their efforts will be recognized.
