FSTA Runs Dry
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA runs dry
BEagle - still banging on about "the expensive and procrastinating hand of QwintyQwoo" I see.
People who hadn't been involved used to say exactly the same back in the '60s about MOD(PE) as it then called itself.
Expensive - yes. But a damned sight less expensive in both money and lives than simply taking the maker's word (possibly supported by that new, never been there before, international rubber-stamp group) that everything's super.
Procrastinating - can be so, but more often it's the makers that take for ever to sort out a problem of their making - literally!
As a bright-eyed young jet jock, I used to think that aircraft manufacturers were wonderful chaps who built all this marvellous kit that we rushed around the sky in. Took a tutor at ETPS to open my eyes with his introduction to a morning lecture, delivered in ever such a quiet voice: "All aircraft manufacturers are rogues". (He had full attention from the class thereafter!) Sad but true.
Their aim: to get accepted the cheapest, nastiest piece of kit which they can persuade MOD to buy. Job of QwantiQwoo and its predecessors: to make sure that no unsafe kit is allowed into service AND to ensure that what does come into service actually meets the spec - which it often doesn't at first try. And that's before we get into the debate about how valid the spec was in the first place.
People who hadn't been involved used to say exactly the same back in the '60s about MOD(PE) as it then called itself.
Expensive - yes. But a damned sight less expensive in both money and lives than simply taking the maker's word (possibly supported by that new, never been there before, international rubber-stamp group) that everything's super.
Procrastinating - can be so, but more often it's the makers that take for ever to sort out a problem of their making - literally!
As a bright-eyed young jet jock, I used to think that aircraft manufacturers were wonderful chaps who built all this marvellous kit that we rushed around the sky in. Took a tutor at ETPS to open my eyes with his introduction to a morning lecture, delivered in ever such a quiet voice: "All aircraft manufacturers are rogues". (He had full attention from the class thereafter!) Sad but true.
Their aim: to get accepted the cheapest, nastiest piece of kit which they can persuade MOD to buy. Job of QwantiQwoo and its predecessors: to make sure that no unsafe kit is allowed into service AND to ensure that what does come into service actually meets the spec - which it often doesn't at first try. And that's before we get into the debate about how valid the spec was in the first place.
Sorry - but little support for QwintyQwoo. An overly-expensive quangoistic organisation living on past glory. Apologies to any aircrew who have to work for this outfit.
tlhIngan - A400M employment in AAR trails with a 2-person crew would only be feasible with a very capable mission planning system with advanced trail computational software. AirbusM have been given some indication of what would be needed; the ac could do it, but could a 2-person crew.......??
tlhIngan - A400M employment in AAR trails with a 2-person crew would only be feasible with a very capable mission planning system with advanced trail computational software. AirbusM have been given some indication of what would be needed; the ac could do it, but could a 2-person crew.......??
If, as has been alluded to above, we're only capable of going to war with Uncle Sam's finest, then shouldn't our new tanker be capable of boom and drogue refuelling? Also, as the Italiens and USAF appear to be going for the 767K then here's a good time to standardise a NATO tactical tanker.
Just a thought!
Just a thought!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just set it up for probe and drogue and then you only have to refill real aviators. The drogue is also a lot lighter and smaller, doesn't transfer as much gas as fast but if you are not refilling great big gas guzzlers it doesn't matter.
But would the 'real aviators' please read the b£oody book and do things the standard way, not the 'Navy way'! The book is called ATP56a, you'll recognise it as that dust covered tome lurking at the back of the bookshelf in your ready room!
If you can't find it, then try a Google search for it - then download it. Tell your mates to as well please!
If you can't find it, then try a Google search for it - then download it. Tell your mates to as well please!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like AMC are thinking about the software for trails and the like. But what about its main role of Tactical Airlift (LL and/or HL to short austere strips in an intense COMAO type environment and coupled with a third generation MANPAD/RF/AAA threat). Is someone thinking about the software for this and/or is a 3 man flightdeck a possibility (other nations support this idea)?
Perhaps this should have been in the A400 thread but its disappeared from my screen now. It doesn't really matter, the fact is, someone had better be thinking about multifunctional mission planning/operating software for 2-3 person flt deck that is fully spammed up for the A400s introduction to service. If not, we will have a re-run of the shambles that is the J Model software - 3 yrs with us and unable to fly LL!
Perhaps this should have been in the A400 thread but its disappeared from my screen now. It doesn't really matter, the fact is, someone had better be thinking about multifunctional mission planning/operating software for 2-3 person flt deck that is fully spammed up for the A400s introduction to service. If not, we will have a re-run of the shambles that is the J Model software - 3 yrs with us and unable to fly LL!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to a brainbash on FSTA logistics and the "Team" were adamant about the 2 flight deck crew environment.
Lots of chat about money and funding and interoperatbility with the PFI chums.
Looks like a re-run of the C130J debacle is on the cards despite the dire warnings!
Lots of chat about money and funding and interoperatbility with the PFI chums.
Looks like a re-run of the C130J debacle is on the cards despite the dire warnings!
A 3rd crewseat and work station will be available for certain applications. But the ac will normally be operated by 2 pilots with an ALM. Absolutely no question of a specific 'navigator' or 'air engineer' (as we currently understand the terms) being an A400M crew member on a regular basis - the 3rd crew person will be a 'Mission Systems Operator' with role-specific responsibilities.
The planned A400M flight deck displays make even those of the A330-200 seem crude.......
The planned A400M flight deck displays make even those of the A330-200 seem crude.......
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all know a 2 man flt deck for trail and Tac work won't cut the mustard! However, its expensive and no-one who makes those sort of decisions knows anything about the complexity involved in either specialisation. I agree with Klingon - standby for shambles MkII
So if you want to get it to work, you ask the end-user what would be needed in a 'price-is-no-limit' dream solution - but you do NOT let the end user cloud the issue by considering the cost. Then you see whether there's an appropriate COTS application available which could be ruggedised and might then satisfy the end-user when suitably modified. Then you employ an expert end-user to consult with the software team and aircraft designer so that you end up developing the COTS solution to a form which your consultant's expertise indicates will satisfy the end-user. You don't merely ask 'what' the end-user wants, you ask him 'how' he wants it to be done!
What you most certainly don't do is just to ask a remote-from-the-coal-face-it-won't-happen-in-my-tour Ministry desk-sucking blotter-jotter to attempt to specify the need and then to let a bunch of software nerds lose on it to produce something which, whilst ostensibly meeting the so-called spec on paper, is so user-unfriendly that you spend years trying to get the solution modified to the form the end-user would have wanted if you'd bothered to ask him in the first place!
An example? A famous fighter-bomber was designed with a clever opening canopy-cum-extending step because the nose was too far off the ground to use conventional kick-in steps. But the RAF used little stepladders instead - because when kitted out with full flying kit it wasn't possible for a pilot to climb up the step. "Bug.ger", said the designer, "if we'd known that we wouldn't have bothered with the step at all and that would have saved us lots of money and weight!".
What you most certainly don't do is just to ask a remote-from-the-coal-face-it-won't-happen-in-my-tour Ministry desk-sucking blotter-jotter to attempt to specify the need and then to let a bunch of software nerds lose on it to produce something which, whilst ostensibly meeting the so-called spec on paper, is so user-unfriendly that you spend years trying to get the solution modified to the form the end-user would have wanted if you'd bothered to ask him in the first place!
An example? A famous fighter-bomber was designed with a clever opening canopy-cum-extending step because the nose was too far off the ground to use conventional kick-in steps. But the RAF used little stepladders instead - because when kitted out with full flying kit it wasn't possible for a pilot to climb up the step. "Bug.ger", said the designer, "if we'd known that we wouldn't have bothered with the step at all and that would have saved us lots of money and weight!".
Last edited by BEagle; 21st May 2002 at 21:31.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds great! But I remember when the J model was sold to the RAF - it sounded brilliant but look what we got instead. Until we see a 'finished' product entered into service that hasn't been totally fu<ked around by industry and the MOD bean-counters, then I remain a sceptic. Would love to be proved wrong by AMC tho'!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ice Station Kilo
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
As you have stated, a mission specialist will be carried on certain missions. I have been led to beleive that all new a/c will have a Link system and a fully integrated DASS (except Merlin coz it was conceived 15+ years ago, and may not get any of this even at its mid-life update sometime next year!). If this is the case, where is the expertise going to come from?
The AEOp (sorry WSOp) branch is on the rise! You mark my words
1st Threshold
Edited to remove correct spelling at sauce
As you have stated, a mission specialist will be carried on certain missions. I have been led to beleive that all new a/c will have a Link system and a fully integrated DASS (except Merlin coz it was conceived 15+ years ago, and may not get any of this even at its mid-life update sometime next year!). If this is the case, where is the expertise going to come from?
The AEOp (sorry WSOp) branch is on the rise! You mark my words
1st Threshold
Edited to remove correct spelling at sauce
I'm sure that the 130J saga has also been studied by Airbus Mil! They are also acutely aware of the honesty surrounding the grandiose claims made by LM for the digitally-remastered C130 that the RAF has been saddled with.
Regarding the 3rd crew station, I doubt that there will be a need for a submarine-spotter to be carried on tactical low level overland sorties or to work with MIDS should that be fitted - which I sincerely hope it will as it would be utter folly not to cary it! Have AEOps any relevant AAR trail expertise? Somehow I doubt it; sometimes they are good at getting out-of-date and irrelevant weather from Artichoke on North Atlantic trails rather than current weather from other sources. Last time I did such a trail, we had to tell the so-called communications experts in the Nimrod how to obtain Canadian MACS access........
Regarding the 3rd crew station, I doubt that there will be a need for a submarine-spotter to be carried on tactical low level overland sorties or to work with MIDS should that be fitted - which I sincerely hope it will as it would be utter folly not to cary it! Have AEOps any relevant AAR trail expertise? Somehow I doubt it; sometimes they are good at getting out-of-date and irrelevant weather from Artichoke on North Atlantic trails rather than current weather from other sources. Last time I did such a trail, we had to tell the so-called communications experts in the Nimrod how to obtain Canadian MACS access........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Famous fighter-bomber
BEagle
Apologies for being off-topic, but am I right to recall that a certain pilot also had to resort to a hazardous ground MDC firing because said steps wouldn't extend due to the fact that the nose was on the deck following a nosewheel collapse on landing - and therefore the canopy wouldn't open?
Great design!
A famous fighter-bomber was designed with a clever opening canopy-cum-extending step because the nose was too far off the ground to use conventional kick-in steps
Great design!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, I dont care whether its a WSOp/AEOp/Nav/3rd pilot or ALM/GE (current J practice), just as long as there is another pair of eyes/another brain in the cockpit who is part of the crew not just an observer. Its always the 'spare' bod who is not totally engrossed 'in the loop' who spots the obvious big mistake/other aircaft/flock of birds etc!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Retired to Wiltshire.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update to my last!
Sources at grope tell me that there will indeed be a Mission Specialist for AAR Trails who will most probably be a mythical beastie called a WIZZO (or something like it). This will in fact turn out not to be an AEOp but, suprise suprise, a redundant three fixes and an area of uncertainty vendor.
Equally not suprised if the majority of the heads of sheds on this project have influence in this direction.
Wonder what the training cost differential is between training a Nav for the job, who is then b***dy useless at any other time and an ALM who can be used in the cabin when not required for AAR flight deck duties.
I hear the boys on the C17 and C130J are happy with their Mission Specialists!
Sources at grope tell me that there will indeed be a Mission Specialist for AAR Trails who will most probably be a mythical beastie called a WIZZO (or something like it). This will in fact turn out not to be an AEOp but, suprise suprise, a redundant three fixes and an area of uncertainty vendor.
Equally not suprised if the majority of the heads of sheds on this project have influence in this direction.
Wonder what the training cost differential is between training a Nav for the job, who is then b***dy useless at any other time and an ALM who can be used in the cabin when not required for AAR flight deck duties.
I hear the boys on the C17 and C130J are happy with their Mission Specialists!
Last edited by Klingon; 22nd May 2002 at 18:27.
From today’s Sunday Times:
"June 09, 2002
Rolls pulls in allies to pursue aero deal
by Dominic O’Connell
ROLLS-ROYCE is to set up a pan-European company in an effort to win the £1.2 billion engine contract for the new A400M military transport aircraft.
Euro Prop International (EPI) will bring together Rolls-Royce, MTU and SNECMA, the German and French aero engine manufacturers; and ITP, the Spanish aerospace company in which Rolls-Royce holds a 47% stake.
A Rolls-Royce spokesman said that although the new company had not yet been formed, the partners had already submitted proposals to Airbus, the European aircraft maker that is to build the A400M.
EPI faces stiff competition from the American engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Its Canadian arm is bidding to win the contract and the Canadian government has expressed an interest in buying the A400M. A choice of engine is expected to be made within the next few weeks, and may even be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in July, according to industry sources.
The A400M is an £11.5 billion joint project between Britain, Germany, France, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. It will replace the partner countries’ ageing fleets of transport aircraft and be a cornerstone of the planned European rapid-reaction force.
But the project has been dogged by delays, notably in Germany, where MPs have been unwilling to provide guaranteed funding for the purchase of 73 of the aircraft. Last month, Portugal delayed its signing of the A400M contract.
While most industry sources believe the aircraft will be built eventually, they also expect even more delays. It is now unlikely to enter service before 2011, which could leave the Royal Air Force with a gap in its transport capability in the intervening years.
The Ministry of Defence, which will buy 25 A400Ms, is weighing up a stopgap purchase of 11 Boeing C-17 cargo planes in case the programme slips further. It could also buy more Lockheed C-130Js to augment its fleet."
More C130Js?? What a truly appalling idea……………
And yes, that’s ‘appalling’, not ‘appealing’!
"June 09, 2002
Rolls pulls in allies to pursue aero deal
by Dominic O’Connell
ROLLS-ROYCE is to set up a pan-European company in an effort to win the £1.2 billion engine contract for the new A400M military transport aircraft.
Euro Prop International (EPI) will bring together Rolls-Royce, MTU and SNECMA, the German and French aero engine manufacturers; and ITP, the Spanish aerospace company in which Rolls-Royce holds a 47% stake.
A Rolls-Royce spokesman said that although the new company had not yet been formed, the partners had already submitted proposals to Airbus, the European aircraft maker that is to build the A400M.
EPI faces stiff competition from the American engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Its Canadian arm is bidding to win the contract and the Canadian government has expressed an interest in buying the A400M. A choice of engine is expected to be made within the next few weeks, and may even be unveiled at the Farnborough air show in July, according to industry sources.
The A400M is an £11.5 billion joint project between Britain, Germany, France, Portugal, Turkey, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. It will replace the partner countries’ ageing fleets of transport aircraft and be a cornerstone of the planned European rapid-reaction force.
But the project has been dogged by delays, notably in Germany, where MPs have been unwilling to provide guaranteed funding for the purchase of 73 of the aircraft. Last month, Portugal delayed its signing of the A400M contract.
While most industry sources believe the aircraft will be built eventually, they also expect even more delays. It is now unlikely to enter service before 2011, which could leave the Royal Air Force with a gap in its transport capability in the intervening years.
The Ministry of Defence, which will buy 25 A400Ms, is weighing up a stopgap purchase of 11 Boeing C-17 cargo planes in case the programme slips further. It could also buy more Lockheed C-130Js to augment its fleet."
More C130Js?? What a truly appalling idea……………
And yes, that’s ‘appalling’, not ‘appealing’!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From DSD
---
The US Air Force is planning to deploy C-17 Globemaster III to Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. The plan, briefed to members of Congress, includes adding eight aircraft each to Hickam and Elmendorf to give Pacific Air Forces a new airlift capability.
"Pacific-based C-17s would be able to support strategic airlift requirements anywhere in the Pacific within 24 hours," said Brig. Gen. Paul Fletcher, PACAF director of plans and programmes. "We expect to be able to quickly respond to contingency or humanitarian relief operations anywhere in our area of responsibility much faster than can be done with continental US-based assets or our current tactical
---
That's 16 - and just to fill the Northern and Pacific gaps!
Also from DSD
---
Several of the world's air forces will be converting commercial airliners for the aerial tanker role in the coming years. Germany will take delivery of Airbus A310s fitted out in a tanker/transport configuration; Israel Aircraft Industries will convert additional Boeing 707s for that country's aerial refuelling needs; and the United Kingdom is expected to convert 20 to 30 ex-British Airways Boeing 767s for its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft requirement. [My italics - see below!]
The Royal Australian Air Force needs to replace five 707 tankers and is closely monitoring the US Air Force's new tanker program. The latter is expected to lease 767s, suitably modified, from Boeing, as replacements for its 450-strong KC-135 contingent. The first 100 767s, at least, will be new production aircraft and are thus not included in the Forecast International calculations.
---
So its a fact then..... The US numbers [450 KC135 replacements alone].... *sigh*
---
The US Air Force is planning to deploy C-17 Globemaster III to Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, and Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. The plan, briefed to members of Congress, includes adding eight aircraft each to Hickam and Elmendorf to give Pacific Air Forces a new airlift capability.
"Pacific-based C-17s would be able to support strategic airlift requirements anywhere in the Pacific within 24 hours," said Brig. Gen. Paul Fletcher, PACAF director of plans and programmes. "We expect to be able to quickly respond to contingency or humanitarian relief operations anywhere in our area of responsibility much faster than can be done with continental US-based assets or our current tactical
---
That's 16 - and just to fill the Northern and Pacific gaps!
Also from DSD
---
Several of the world's air forces will be converting commercial airliners for the aerial tanker role in the coming years. Germany will take delivery of Airbus A310s fitted out in a tanker/transport configuration; Israel Aircraft Industries will convert additional Boeing 707s for that country's aerial refuelling needs; and the United Kingdom is expected to convert 20 to 30 ex-British Airways Boeing 767s for its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft requirement. [My italics - see below!]
The Royal Australian Air Force needs to replace five 707 tankers and is closely monitoring the US Air Force's new tanker program. The latter is expected to lease 767s, suitably modified, from Boeing, as replacements for its 450-strong KC-135 contingent. The first 100 767s, at least, will be new production aircraft and are thus not included in the Forecast International calculations.
---
So its a fact then..... The US numbers [450 KC135 replacements alone].... *sigh*
Some people still keep mentioning an appalling awful backward step - to allow Arfur Daley of Cambridgeshire to convert some more ancient, clapped-out DeathStars into 3-point tankers.....
Which has support amongst the Air Engineers alone...
Which has support amongst the Air Engineers alone...