Germany to pull out of the A400 program

[Coochycool]

Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.

Well look where we are now. Given the humble sales numbers that C-17 attained, is it not equally arguable that A400 will most likely end up in the same situation? Certainly if Germany cancels. Being different for the sake of being different (and supporting airbus jobs), both sides end up with eye wateringly expensive development costs which are tough to be profitable on.

Much though C-17 was initially deemed to be a stop gap solution for the RAF, if one follows subsequent history, is it not about time we started accepting the writing on the wall. Which is that we have become increasingly dependent on larger usually US led programmes (Airseeker/P8/F35) in pursuit of economies of scale.

Or shall we continue the Mod Procurement /MRA4 route

[Uncle Ginsters]

It seems someone else may be hedging their bets:

First Freefall Parachute Trial Sees RAF C-17 Jump into the Tactical Arena

[dmcg]

Excellent Freudian slip at the end of the C17 article!

[KenV]

Out of interest, what does the US have planned to replace the C17s?

Right now, absolutely nothing. Current USAF plans are to fly the C-17 for 100 hundred years. That's right, a full century. Not too outrageous an assumption given that the youngest B-52 is already over 60 years old and they will fly for at least another two decades. And whereas the B-52 was never designed for such a long life, the C-17 (especially the 40th and later ones) have a 30,000+ design service life and USAF is already working to ensure service life to three lifetimes, or over 90,000 hours. In other words, your great great grandchildren could be flying C-17s in the next century. So USAF is in no hurry to develop a replacement. Who knows, maybe they'll have transporter beams by then and there'll be no need for air transports. ;-)

And interestingly, while RAF leased C-17s as in interim mesure until enough A400s were acquired, that has changed. Until recently RAF C-17s were "offically" strictly strategic transports with no tactical mission. But RAF has used them tactically many times and is now making that official. All RAF C-17s have been upgraded to the latest block 19 standard (not even USAF has that.) and RAF will be using all of the C-17's capabilities for the first time. This is a big deal because the UK's airdrop equipment is not compatible with C-17, so a lot of new airdrop equipment will need to be purchased to accomplish that. And RAF C-17 crews will need to be trained not only for these tactical missions, but also boom refueling, which was (as I undersand it) not part of the original lease agreement. I don't know what this means for A400 which was supposed to be the premier tactical airlifter.

[KenV]

Well I dont think its unreasonable that the C-17 line would not have been sitting half as idle if the Grizzly hadnt been in anyone's pipeline projection. I imagine plenty European nations must have looked at C-17 whilst still on the drawing board and thought it would be nice to have, but sadly too expensive.

Too expensive? Depends on how you look at it. Is buying 50 to 75 C-17s across Europe cheaper or more expensive than developing and building 75 to 100 A400s across Europe? India, Australia, Canada and a consortium of small European nations were able to afford C-17s. And they didn't have to just look at a "paper" airplane "still on the drawing board" as was suggested. Many C-17s were already built and serving before the A400 program was even launched. Of course all this ignores the political implications of the A400 program and the jobs it would (theoretically) create. Further, at this time the point is moot. The C-17 production line no longer exists and the ONLY alternative for an outsize transport is A400. If Europe needs an outsize military air transport, A400 MUST be made to work, no matter the cost to accomplish that.

[Arclite01]

any second-hand C17's are going have good residuals and resale values........

Arc

[Davef68]

Interesting development:

UPDATE 1-Indonesia to buy Airbus A400M military transport planes -minister

It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people. I can't remember if it was the French or Germans who forced the original FLA design to be props rather than jets, or why, but that was the start of the slide IMO.

[NutLoose]

It's the ultimate aircraft designed by committee, with compromises to suit particular people..

Well, so was the Jaguar and that worked out ok..... ok, you have me there

[Davef68]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Well, so was the Jaguar and that worked out ok..... ok, you have me there

The Jaguar at least only had a committee of 2, 3 if you count Dassault as the reluctant co-optee that would do anything to scupper the project. Tyhoon and Tornado both also suffered politically if not technically from being multi-nation projects.

[sandiego89]

I wonder if anyone has strolled down to the old file cabinet at Lockheed Marietta and dusted off the Fat Hercules (or fatter?) file , the C-130XL. Around 2008/2009 two or three versions were being looked at, a lesser change version that moved the wheel wells out giving a constant cross section, moving the wing higher atop the fuselage, and a full blown new fatter fuselage. Wings, engines, cockpit, tail pretty much J, giving some compatibility with the regular C-130 fleets.


I do wonder about Coochycools idea for a Dornier 328 type engine swap to turbofans. Surely that would only be a last resort if the engine issues can't be fixed, and would be a majorly expensive and time consuming process for the A-400- but intriguing. Maybe that would reduce turbulence and help resolve the inability to pass fuel to helicopters and the concerns about paradrops as well?

[Haraka]

IIRC the FLA ( Future Large Aircraft) c.1982 was originally envisaged as going to be a turbofan.
Then there was the love affair with " unducted fans" etc. in the mid 80's. The turbofan idea got downgraded on FLA as it evolved ( to fund "civil" UDF production ?) . I remember the horrific noise of the DC-9(?) UDF flying test bed at Farnborough in '86 followed by a general loss of interest in UDFs for the civil market . Apart from the (abortive) An 70, has this type of engine/Propfan propulsor had any other potential applications ?

[Genstabler]

There is an A400 pootling about at medium level over the N York Moors and Scarborough at this moment. Noisy blighter. Visible Periodically through gaps in the cloud cover and seems to be flying a racetrack, unless there is more than one of them. Any idea what it might be up to?

[Genstabler]

Just flown back over us in Westerly direction travelling faster this time. Not so noisy at speed.

[chopper2004]

@Haraka, yep

[Davef68]

Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD or economics.

[NutLoose]

Gas turbines can reverse as well, the Vicky Ten used to do it on reverse thrust.

[cessnapete]

Well remember while on BOAC Command Course, backing up the VC10. Although not a company approved procedure we all did a three point turn at Prestwick, on the disused runway, in the event of being stuck without a tug for push backs etc. Reversed easily with quite low power, F/Eng was on long lead ic, head out of forward door giving directions. Main thing to remember, feet on floor and stop by selecting forward thrust!

[Ken Scott]

I once observed a Canadian DC9 reverse off its stand at Calgary. Made a considerable noise so probably not SOP.......

[tdracer]

DC-9 and MD-80 could readily back with reversers - some operators did use that as SOP back in the 1980s (I was on an MD-80 more than once that used the reversers to back out of the gate). In addition to not needed the tug, since the aircraft was under control of the captain they didn't need as many ground crew spotters so there was a significant labor savings. However it did present a FOD risk and is pretty abusive on the engine in general - I think the operators quickly realized the increased engine maintenance cancelled out the labor savings.
Most commercial jets can back up with their reversers provided the ground is reasonably level - I was on a test on a 767 ~25 years ago where we demonstrated backing with the reversers. But it's so abusive to the engines and is such a FOD risk that no one does it unless it's an emergency.


The YC-14 could readily back using the reversers (and with the engines above the wing there was minimal FOD risk), - I suspect the C-17 can as well.

[unmanned_droid]

It would be interesting to consider a "coaler" style solution for turbofans rather than the props. Unfortunately you would need a new wing, and maybe an even bigger tail design if you were to move away from the prop driven option. Say approx 3 years of solid work from aero concept to production.

The prop flow has to be a huge factor in the loads/aero.

I had the 'pleasure' of working on the wing. Glad it was only a fleeting visit.

I'm also glad I wasn't one of the guys drilling out fake battle damage in their NBC kit, inside the box, in summer. Full respect for them for cracking on with it.