Yet another RAF whitewash- A400 is simply unfit for purpose.
"How about Kawasaki C-2?"
Japanese aircraft are expensive and they don't have a recent history of ramping up production to reasonable levels.
The KC390 looks like a reasonable replacement for the Hercules and I think it will sell in numbers but its not a large aircraft as some have already pointed out
Japanese aircraft are expensive and they don't have a recent history of ramping up production to reasonable levels.
The KC390 looks like a reasonable replacement for the Hercules and I think it will sell in numbers but its not a large aircraft as some have already pointed out
That article is errrr....interesting....I can think of one reason why some of the parts mentioned may be experiencing corrosion, but will leave it there.
I'd say the RAF could do with two squadrons of C-390, if it's proven to be reliable by the initial non-Brazilian customers (far from home parts/tech support prove out besides reliability). They would complement the existing A400M and C-17 fleets imo.
More and more seems to be happening with tactical airlift - more customers, more jobs to do, more capabilities.
I'd say the RAF could do with two squadrons of C-390, if it's proven to be reliable by the initial non-Brazilian customers (far from home parts/tech support prove out besides reliability). They would complement the existing A400M and C-17 fleets imo.
More and more seems to be happening with tactical airlift - more customers, more jobs to do, more capabilities.
Easy.....unfit is unfit....you pick the explanation on how it comes to pass no matter where or who is involved.
Using a "what about....." reply confirms a statement made by a very well known Aeronautical Engineer and Test Pilot I know...."The harder you have to work to prove you do not have a problem....proves how big that problem you are trying to explain away really is.".
So stick to the script....is the A400 unfit for purpose...or not.
My comment covers the universe of "unfit" aircraft, ships, tanks, etc....and was not limited to the A400.
Using a "what about....." reply confirms a statement made by a very well known Aeronautical Engineer and Test Pilot I know...."The harder you have to work to prove you do not have a problem....proves how big that problem you are trying to explain away really is.".
So stick to the script....is the A400 unfit for purpose...or not.
My comment covers the universe of "unfit" aircraft, ships, tanks, etc....and was not limited to the A400.
20 years ago the FRES KURs said:
"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".
When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)
Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES.
"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".
When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)
Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES.
Last edited by tucumseh; 12th Sep 2022 at 07:40.
The A400M was specifically designed to meet European air force requirements. 5 major European companies joined forces within the 'Euroflag' group, pooling their experience and capabilities to produce an aircraft flxible enough to meet the needs of their respective air forces.
The programme was dogged by political and engine procurement issues as well as customer vacillation.
The RAF got what it specified; however, the Atlas isn't equipped to operate as a tanker.
The programme was dogged by political and engine procurement issues as well as customer vacillation.
The RAF got what it specified; however, the Atlas isn't equipped to operate as a tanker.
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Sep 2022 at 23:43.
I'd say the RAF could do with two squadrons of C-390...
Must be some sort of wind up, everyone knows anything made by Lockheed will corrode, P3s and C130s were known for extensive wing repairs, spar, and wing replacements.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...v30/V30N02.pdf
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/conte...v30/V30N02.pdf
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...132732.article
The increased speed is another facet in favour of the KC-390. Potentially the interior is also a nicer place to be for long periods.
As a tactical airlifter the Hercules is a finely crafted beast, and sometime you really do rely on static thrust - which a turboprop is master of.
But the RAF always seems so very keen to move the C-130 on, and I'm never really sure why - is cost of ownership really high?
20 years ago the FRES KURs said:
"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".
When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)
Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES.
"The dstl C130 Study [of 2002] for DEC DBE demonstrated that the C130 envelope places too stringent a constraint on FRES. The most efficient means of strategic air transport of a FRES-equipped force and its combat supplies is considered to be by A400M and other FLA. The use of these assets is able to meet the core Rapid Effect scenario timelines and threat constraints".
When you endorse something like that, it's very difficult to revert. It sets a date for the beginning of rundown of C-130 funding, never mind all the other platforms FRES was to replace. 20% cut in each of the remaining five years to OSD, so you better meet the new platform ISD. It's easy to slip a programme, but very difficult to sustain the old one without getting the 20% back - and it's already been committed elsewhere. FRES Initial Operating Capability was to be 2007. Full Operating Capability was to be 2014. (How did that work out?)
Now imagine the sheer number of programmes/capabilities affected by this. C-130 was lost in the noise. And very quickly so was FRES.
(I am vaguely remembering how the specs for a Sherman tank were derived, and it included transportability on various ships of various sizes).
I also think its a rather good looking aircraft too. Embraaer are definitely on to good things with their designs.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
But the RAF always seems so very keen to move the C-130 on, and I'm never really sure why - is cost of ownership really high?
We had the C-130, VC-10C and Belslow. The C-130 was seen as too small for the FRES and other planned loads and, with no “east of Suez”, the A-400 was seen as perfect to replace all in the AT role (Beagle can talk on the pax and AAR aspects.
Then 9/11 and Afghanistan happened and we ended up leading/buying C-17s just the A-400s started arriving, and we still needed the C-130s. Back to multiple types again
culling fleets saves money. We now see the need to keep the C-17, there is a political aspect for keeping the A-400 (with the belief all the problems are solvable and improvements achievable), which was already slated to go and would be politically embarrassing to now keep.
If the funds were available I am sure running on the J would be the preferred option, seeing as the training/logs etc are in place.
But buying another new type? Fantasy land.
The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were then bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that is still the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role (except for the RAF), but not as a strategic tanker as that is the job of the FSTA, the A330 MRTT – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it is.... Although there was, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS), as it then was, when a MRTT rather than a FSTA was being considered.
Thanks Beagle _ I'll save that explanation and read it one sentence a day - what s story! 
Beags has spent entirely too much time in government.
The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were then bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that is still the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role (except for the RAF), but not as a strategic tanker as that is the job of the FSTA, the A330 MRTT – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it is.... Although there was, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS), as it then was, when a MRTT rather than a FSTA was being considered.
I think he had a lesson from Sir Humphrey