C17 v A400M
Re your last on new 'Elint' platform, why not just buy 6 x U2s. They are cheap, reliable and do the job of many with only one in the aircraft, and before anyone says they are an old ac, why are the cousins from the other side of the Atlantic still updating them. I once heard someone say that the U2 does roughly 90% of what our Waddington friends do with only one person in the air.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never ceases to amaze me how people quote airdisasters.com as some sort of authoritative source - it merely reveals their ignorance of risk, statistics, accidents and especially of aviation.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
KPAX,
Discussed on an earlier thread. The Bombardier is cheaper than the U2 (even excluding the cost of opening the production line). It has a similar range/endurance, but this can be extended with AAR. It also is a much more benign environment and allows equipment change and adjustment during the mission. Finally, it would be a common platform reducing support and training costs and dual role qualification for flight deck and mission crew.
It loses out on ceiling, but that's not considered a factor as the difference wouldn't put them outside the envelope of a modern SAM.
A more apposite question is to whether the role could be performed more cheaply by a UAV such as the Global Hawk with increased range/endurance.
Discussed on an earlier thread. The Bombardier is cheaper than the U2 (even excluding the cost of opening the production line). It has a similar range/endurance, but this can be extended with AAR. It also is a much more benign environment and allows equipment change and adjustment during the mission. Finally, it would be a common platform reducing support and training costs and dual role qualification for flight deck and mission crew.
It loses out on ceiling, but that's not considered a factor as the difference wouldn't put them outside the envelope of a modern SAM.
A more apposite question is to whether the role could be performed more cheaply by a UAV such as the Global Hawk with increased range/endurance.
Last edited by ORAC; 31st Oct 2002 at 04:44.
There was me thinking that the U2 had a five man crew! They sure can sing a lot of drivel though!
Prehaps we should do as the Army has done with its Apache and order the A400 and stick them into storage.
Prehaps we should do as the Army has done with its Apache and order the A400 and stick them into storage.
A400M, European defence, etc..
One point people have often made about this is that the A400 "doesn't exist". No. It won't exist unless somebody commits to buying it, as Airbus can hardly be expected to launch a big project without a reasonable prospect of selling 'em. If we have to always go off-the-shelf , then we are always going to be one step behind. If you want progress, you have to aim further ahead. The F-15 didn't exist when the USAF decided to back the project - neither did the F-35. If we want the ability to make our own aeroplanes, we have to actually do it - it means making a decision and taking a risk.
If we are all quite happy to rely entirely on the USA for ever more, then so be it. Unless the European aviation industry actually gets orders, it will always be unproven, risky, whatever. You can only get experience from doing it! And finally, of course, there won't be one any more. It will pass away quietly in a cloud of scrapped projects.....is this at all familiar? haven't we been here before? sometime in the 1960s?
If we are all quite happy to rely entirely on the USA for ever more, then so be it. Unless the European aviation industry actually gets orders, it will always be unproven, risky, whatever. You can only get experience from doing it! And finally, of course, there won't be one any more. It will pass away quietly in a cloud of scrapped projects.....is this at all familiar? haven't we been here before? sometime in the 1960s?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Steamchicken,
Don't tell us, tell the Germans. They're the ones who won't sign the contract. Earliest estimate is now around April next year - and even then they want to reduce their buy so the total order is below the minimum required number.
Several years ago the UK set a definite date, beyond which we said we could no longer wait, when we would have to order more C-130s and/or C-17s. That date has, of course, long gone. But the tales of consultations and meetings between the MOD and Boeing over a C-17 purchase are growing stronger by the day. On wonders when the MOD/treasury will eventually get fed up waiting.
Don't tell us, tell the Germans. They're the ones who won't sign the contract. Earliest estimate is now around April next year - and even then they want to reduce their buy so the total order is below the minimum required number.
Several years ago the UK set a definite date, beyond which we said we could no longer wait, when we would have to order more C-130s and/or C-17s. That date has, of course, long gone. But the tales of consultations and meetings between the MOD and Boeing over a C-17 purchase are growing stronger by the day. On wonders when the MOD/treasury will eventually get fed up waiting.
Last edited by ORAC; 31st Oct 2002 at 20:33.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Jackonicko, and all the others who may not be fully aware of the consequences of the current 'dog-eat-dog' approach to selling new aircraft!
For Sale: Used Jets
Duck! Mounting horrors in the airline industry are starting to spread to the financial markets.
Behind Boeing Co.'s recent $250 million noncash charge for the third quarter to cover the declining value of planes leased by its finance arm, lies a calamity in the making. With one-fifth of the U.S. passenger fleet already grounded, used-jet prices are down 40% to 80%. If UAL files for Chapter 11, as everyone expects, another 110 or so planes, a fifth of the United fleet, will be looking for new users, further depressing prices.
Who loses? Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ), since United (nyse: UAL - news - people ) is its biggest customer. And banks and finance companies, which provided the capital for airplanes bought or leased by airliners. The top six carriers have borrowed $98 billion on (and off) their balance sheets and can't pay it all back, given that the airline industry is expected to lose a titanic $8 billion this year. About 50% of the U.S. jet fleet is leased from such companies as General Electric Capital Aviation Services (nyse: GE - news - people ), International Lease Finance Corp. (a unit of AIG) and CIT Group (nyse: CIT - news - people ).
GE has some $30 billion in financing outstanding and claims to be adequately capitalized despite having to take back upwards of 50 aircraft since Sept. 11. As the underlying planes have fallen in value, so has the value of the passthrough securities backed by the jets. Banks, insurers and mutual funds have plowed $40 billion into these bonds. The collateral was supposed to insulate them from losses.
"Many lenders can't sell these assets because there is no value in them," says Robert Agnew, president of Morten Beyer & Agnew, an aircraft valuation firm. US Airways, operating under Chapter 11, has mothballed 57 older jets in California's Mojave Desert. A majority of its Boeing planes, which it plans to phase out, are financed by GE, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, reports airline consultancy Back Aviation. US Air could drop its fleet of 311 jets down as low as 245, say attorneys familiar with the case.
Leasing companies have resisted taking writedowns by shifting used jets to Africa or Asia. The dangers: greater credit risk and planes likely to be worth a lot less when they come off lease. Stand by for a rough ride.
Forbes.com
For Sale: Used Jets
Duck! Mounting horrors in the airline industry are starting to spread to the financial markets.
Behind Boeing Co.'s recent $250 million noncash charge for the third quarter to cover the declining value of planes leased by its finance arm, lies a calamity in the making. With one-fifth of the U.S. passenger fleet already grounded, used-jet prices are down 40% to 80%. If UAL files for Chapter 11, as everyone expects, another 110 or so planes, a fifth of the United fleet, will be looking for new users, further depressing prices.
Who loses? Boeing (nyse: BA - news - people ), since United (nyse: UAL - news - people ) is its biggest customer. And banks and finance companies, which provided the capital for airplanes bought or leased by airliners. The top six carriers have borrowed $98 billion on (and off) their balance sheets and can't pay it all back, given that the airline industry is expected to lose a titanic $8 billion this year. About 50% of the U.S. jet fleet is leased from such companies as General Electric Capital Aviation Services (nyse: GE - news - people ), International Lease Finance Corp. (a unit of AIG) and CIT Group (nyse: CIT - news - people ).
GE has some $30 billion in financing outstanding and claims to be adequately capitalized despite having to take back upwards of 50 aircraft since Sept. 11. As the underlying planes have fallen in value, so has the value of the passthrough securities backed by the jets. Banks, insurers and mutual funds have plowed $40 billion into these bonds. The collateral was supposed to insulate them from losses.
"Many lenders can't sell these assets because there is no value in them," says Robert Agnew, president of Morten Beyer & Agnew, an aircraft valuation firm. US Airways, operating under Chapter 11, has mothballed 57 older jets in California's Mojave Desert. A majority of its Boeing planes, which it plans to phase out, are financed by GE, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, reports airline consultancy Back Aviation. US Air could drop its fleet of 311 jets down as low as 245, say attorneys familiar with the case.
Leasing companies have resisted taking writedowns by shifting used jets to Africa or Asia. The dangers: greater credit risk and planes likely to be worth a lot less when they come off lease. Stand by for a rough ride.
Forbes.com
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think grovelling would become you Jacko, but I accept that your mistakenly upset sensibilities were offended in good faith. You can say whatever you like about me as long as you do it with a smiley, and if I do the same I'm sure we'll both make a better contribution to a forum in which, after all is said and done, we are both guests.
True, there is no detailed analysis to explain the stats recorded on airdisasters.com. They are generalised figures to support what was a generalised claim. However, these are the same numbers quoted by the FAA and WAAS, and regardless of whose bedroom they might have been assembled in, they put the conclusions together quite neatly.
As with any other field, the statistics can and will be made to say anything one likes; my impression, built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", hence my admitted feelings of bias.
However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date.
I would hazard a guess that a good many Britons don't wish to think of themselves as "Europeans" any more than a sizeable proportion of New Zealanders don't regard ourselves as either "Pacific Islanders" or "South-East Asians". Maybe they do; in which case, my updated CV would list me as owing both halves of my lineage to two of Europe's most liberal countries.
I have, over the years, worked on and with a great range of different types of machinery from a wide range of source countries. In my experience much which has originated in continental Europe is characterised by design features which are incomprehensibly weird, making for maintenance difficulties and functional inefficiencies. I suspect that at least a part of this impression is due to cultural differences, and perhaps European engineers don't have the same problems with them.
Putting any complex machine together from parts sourced from separate manufacturers is always more difficult than doing the whole job under one roof. Aircraft are no exception. When the disparate manufacturers are also from different countries, certain of those difficulties must, almost by definition, be compounded, and perhaps this has an effect on the ultimate integrity of the machine in question.
I realise that aircraft manufacturers are really airframe builders, and that no-one makes their own engines, electronics, hydraulics, bearings, electrics, tyres, seat covers or window glass, and a host of other components; but the one roof philosophy I maintain has to be better in the long run.
That being the case, perhaps if there is to be a single strategic/tactical military airlift aircraft to do most if not quite all jobs on the list, Britain should just get on and build it. I know for a fact that UK industry is more than capable of the job without outside help.
True, there is no detailed analysis to explain the stats recorded on airdisasters.com. They are generalised figures to support what was a generalised claim. However, these are the same numbers quoted by the FAA and WAAS, and regardless of whose bedroom they might have been assembled in, they put the conclusions together quite neatly.
As with any other field, the statistics can and will be made to say anything one likes; my impression, built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", hence my admitted feelings of bias.
However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date.
I would hazard a guess that a good many Britons don't wish to think of themselves as "Europeans" any more than a sizeable proportion of New Zealanders don't regard ourselves as either "Pacific Islanders" or "South-East Asians". Maybe they do; in which case, my updated CV would list me as owing both halves of my lineage to two of Europe's most liberal countries.
I have, over the years, worked on and with a great range of different types of machinery from a wide range of source countries. In my experience much which has originated in continental Europe is characterised by design features which are incomprehensibly weird, making for maintenance difficulties and functional inefficiencies. I suspect that at least a part of this impression is due to cultural differences, and perhaps European engineers don't have the same problems with them.
Putting any complex machine together from parts sourced from separate manufacturers is always more difficult than doing the whole job under one roof. Aircraft are no exception. When the disparate manufacturers are also from different countries, certain of those difficulties must, almost by definition, be compounded, and perhaps this has an effect on the ultimate integrity of the machine in question.
I realise that aircraft manufacturers are really airframe builders, and that no-one makes their own engines, electronics, hydraulics, bearings, electrics, tyres, seat covers or window glass, and a host of other components; but the one roof philosophy I maintain has to be better in the long run.
That being the case, perhaps if there is to be a single strategic/tactical military airlift aircraft to do most if not quite all jobs on the list, Britain should just get on and build it. I know for a fact that UK industry is more than capable of the job without outside help.
During the 1960s Boeing had a virtual, effective monopoly in the supply of commercial jet airliners, unthreatened by the Caravelle, VC10 et al.
By combining its efforts the European industry has produced a family of aircraft which represent real competition to Boeing's product range. Today Airbus types compete head-on with Boeing aircraft, and often win on technical, economic and operational grounds. You can point to government support and subsidies, but only if you accept that the way in which military orders have been placed have provided Boeing with equivalent (or greater) support, and that restrictions on foreign designed aircraft have hindered open competition in the vital US market.
For Airbus to have successfully competed and established a product range, it has had to produce aircraft which are at least equal to (and probably better than) their Boeing equivalents. To gain orders from dyed in the wool long term Boeing customers has not been easy, and it is in the nature of competition that a newcomer to any marketplace must perform better than its established rivals. This is especially true in a conservative and risk-averse marketplace, naturally.
Of course Boeing and Airbus aircraft types have both advantages and disadvantages and neither company has produced the 'perfect jetliner'. It is difficult to directly compare aircraft from the two manufacturers, because they are surprisingly different and are the product of surprising differences in culture, philosophy and concept.
Boeing have made a virtue out of conservatism and a 'building block' approach, while Airbus have championed technological innovation. This has been most clear in the area of Flight Control System design, but was also reflected in the two companies different approach to the apparent requirement (pre 9/11) to very large aircraft, Boeing choosing to stretch its 747 while Airbus took a more radical approach.
You yourself admit that your impression, "built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", and that this was responsible for your admitted feelings of bias. I think that there has been considerable media bias in favour of Boeing (which I find unsurprising, since Boeing looks after journos so much better than Airbus, and makes our job so much easier), quite apart from the generally pro-American bias which runs through aerospace.
In days gone by, US aircraft types procured by the UK MoD tended to be thoroughly tried and tested and proven, whereas UK- and European-built aircraft arrived brand new, entirely untested and riddled with teething troubles. Small wonder that US products gained a reputation for reliability and quality, and local products the reverse.
It's only relatively recently, with aircraft like the C-130J and the Longbow Apache, that the US reputation for 'technological invincibility' has taken a knock.
At the end of the day, the only conclusion a sane and balanced observer could reach is that neither the US nor Europe has a monopoly on great design and superb products, nor on trouble-prone, poorly designed disasters.
And so to write off the A400M simply on the basis of its provenance is, frankly, silly.
Moroever, while an airlift solution which relies on the C-17 is certain to be popular (and rather expensive) one which includes the C-130J is likely to be problematic. Some believe that the C-130J should have incorporated new engines, perhaps new props (but perhaps not composite props), and some new displays, but with a three or four man flight deck and perhaps with some of the aerodynamic refinements tested on the HTTB. I'm not sure that sticking with the existing Hercules cross-section is necessarily the best option, and I think that the A400M's size and performance offer some compelling advantages.
But only if the Germans get off the pot and the aircraft actually happens.....
By combining its efforts the European industry has produced a family of aircraft which represent real competition to Boeing's product range. Today Airbus types compete head-on with Boeing aircraft, and often win on technical, economic and operational grounds. You can point to government support and subsidies, but only if you accept that the way in which military orders have been placed have provided Boeing with equivalent (or greater) support, and that restrictions on foreign designed aircraft have hindered open competition in the vital US market.
For Airbus to have successfully competed and established a product range, it has had to produce aircraft which are at least equal to (and probably better than) their Boeing equivalents. To gain orders from dyed in the wool long term Boeing customers has not been easy, and it is in the nature of competition that a newcomer to any marketplace must perform better than its established rivals. This is especially true in a conservative and risk-averse marketplace, naturally.
Of course Boeing and Airbus aircraft types have both advantages and disadvantages and neither company has produced the 'perfect jetliner'. It is difficult to directly compare aircraft from the two manufacturers, because they are surprisingly different and are the product of surprising differences in culture, philosophy and concept.
Boeing have made a virtue out of conservatism and a 'building block' approach, while Airbus have championed technological innovation. This has been most clear in the area of Flight Control System design, but was also reflected in the two companies different approach to the apparent requirement (pre 9/11) to very large aircraft, Boeing choosing to stretch its 747 while Airbus took a more radical approach.
You yourself admit that your impression, "built up over the years, was that almost every news report of a plane crash from wherever in the world, included the phrase "the aircraft, an Airbus whatever...", and that this was responsible for your admitted feelings of bias. I think that there has been considerable media bias in favour of Boeing (which I find unsurprising, since Boeing looks after journos so much better than Airbus, and makes our job so much easier), quite apart from the generally pro-American bias which runs through aerospace.
In days gone by, US aircraft types procured by the UK MoD tended to be thoroughly tried and tested and proven, whereas UK- and European-built aircraft arrived brand new, entirely untested and riddled with teething troubles. Small wonder that US products gained a reputation for reliability and quality, and local products the reverse.
It's only relatively recently, with aircraft like the C-130J and the Longbow Apache, that the US reputation for 'technological invincibility' has taken a knock.
At the end of the day, the only conclusion a sane and balanced observer could reach is that neither the US nor Europe has a monopoly on great design and superb products, nor on trouble-prone, poorly designed disasters.
And so to write off the A400M simply on the basis of its provenance is, frankly, silly.
Moroever, while an airlift solution which relies on the C-17 is certain to be popular (and rather expensive) one which includes the C-130J is likely to be problematic. Some believe that the C-130J should have incorporated new engines, perhaps new props (but perhaps not composite props), and some new displays, but with a three or four man flight deck and perhaps with some of the aerodynamic refinements tested on the HTTB. I'm not sure that sticking with the existing Hercules cross-section is necessarily the best option, and I think that the A400M's size and performance offer some compelling advantages.
But only if the Germans get off the pot and the aircraft actually happens.....
Oh well, as the Stability and Growth Pact looks likely to be junked by the European finance ministers' council next Thursday, the Germans might soon be in a better position to sign the papers.
PS, I really doubt whether or not the British aircraft industry alone could realistically and economically design and build a new airlift aircraft off its own bat any more. Looking at our incredibly awful procurement record, you'd have to be completely mad.
PS, I really doubt whether or not the British aircraft industry alone could realistically and economically design and build a new airlift aircraft off its own bat any more. Looking at our incredibly awful procurement record, you'd have to be completely mad.
The Nimrod R is no longer the secret beast it once was, and merely mentioning it, mentioning the crew complement, and making generalised remarks about operating philosophy is hardly ground-breaking or dangerous.
Moreover if our US cousins feel that the Rivet Joint could, in theory, and in some circumstances, be replaced by a U-2S (given the right datalinks and ground stations) then so too could a Nimrod R. It's interesting to note that when the Nimrod R was selected to replace Comet Rs, one alternative examined was a Vulcan R, carrying only a single operator, and thus relying largely on ground-based analysis, and in the 1960s that wouldn't have been anywhere near real time.
I think (and this is pure opinion) that this is the wrong way to go, however, and feel that any move away from the present tried and trusted (if manpower intensive) and highly successful approach used now is potentially risky. When working on the EP-3E story after the Chinese collision, the respect that the Nimrod R operators were held in by their US counterparts was absolutely astonishing. I'd therefore sooner see the Nimrod R replaced by something Boeing 737 or Airbus sized (or by an A400M), and not by a Global Express, and certainly not by a U-2.
Moreover if our US cousins feel that the Rivet Joint could, in theory, and in some circumstances, be replaced by a U-2S (given the right datalinks and ground stations) then so too could a Nimrod R. It's interesting to note that when the Nimrod R was selected to replace Comet Rs, one alternative examined was a Vulcan R, carrying only a single operator, and thus relying largely on ground-based analysis, and in the 1960s that wouldn't have been anywhere near real time.
I think (and this is pure opinion) that this is the wrong way to go, however, and feel that any move away from the present tried and trusted (if manpower intensive) and highly successful approach used now is potentially risky. When working on the EP-3E story after the Chinese collision, the respect that the Nimrod R operators were held in by their US counterparts was absolutely astonishing. I'd therefore sooner see the Nimrod R replaced by something Boeing 737 or Airbus sized (or by an A400M), and not by a Global Express, and certainly not by a U-2.
The plethora of aircraft types operated (or to be operated) by the RAF is already alarming. Adding another (the 737) to the mix would make matters worse. Three extra MRA4s (if that misbegotten project actually survives), A400Ms (if procured in the transport role) or 767/A330 airframes (whichever is used for FSTA, especially if the same airframe was used as an AWACS replacement) would therefore be better.
Nothing against the 737 per se.
Nothing against the 737 per se.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Actually Jacko the advantages of a common fleet are not what they once were. With the advent of contracted support for most if not all procurements since the J the RAF carries out first and limited second line servicing, the rest is contracted.
ASTOR, MRA4, FSTA, MFTS etc etc will all be subject to seperate power by the hour deals, airframe leases, contractor owned spares and the like.
If the RAF were to, say, choose a common airframe such as the Global express to replace the MR1, PR9 and 32(TR) as well as the ASTOR deal then they would only reap any benefit if they ordered them all at the same time from the same contractor, and that ain't 'gonna happen!
Certain advantages in type ratings etc though undoubtedly.
Proone
.......I'm not here..................
Actually Jacko the advantages of a common fleet are not what they once were. With the advent of contracted support for most if not all procurements since the J the RAF carries out first and limited second line servicing, the rest is contracted.
ASTOR, MRA4, FSTA, MFTS etc etc will all be subject to seperate power by the hour deals, airframe leases, contractor owned spares and the like.
If the RAF were to, say, choose a common airframe such as the Global express to replace the MR1, PR9 and 32(TR) as well as the ASTOR deal then they would only reap any benefit if they ordered them all at the same time from the same contractor, and that ain't 'gonna happen!
Certain advantages in type ratings etc though undoubtedly.
Proone
.......I'm not here..................
A worrying rumour - toungue in check
Haven't you heard the rumour that the Treasury has been trying to force the MOD into prematurely retiring the Nimrod R1 and replacing it with......
Future Intelligence And Signals Collection Organisation (or FIASCO for short). The preferred platform for FIASCO is a Cessna with a bloke in the back carrying a scanner.
"It's just like the Nimrod" said Government spokesperson Wayne Kerr "It flies and you can listen to signals, exactly like the Nimrod".
At the same time, No 10's PR Guru Anne "R" Sole announced that the Nimrod was an unacceptable name as it was from the Old Testament, which was part of the the bible, and therefore might offend minorities. She also annouced plans for the new aircraft to be "personed" by wheelchair bound lesbians. In addition to maintenance, these differently abled gay women will also be found in the newly named "Pilot space".
The limp wristed Gaurdian writers applauded and cried with delight, before celibrating with a meal of organic lentils and mineral water.
At an RAF base "somewhere in the UK", an aircraft (type not disclosed) was hastily loaded with bombs.
"That'll learn the f***ing beancounters b********" said the pilot as he climbed into his aircraft......
Future Intelligence And Signals Collection Organisation (or FIASCO for short). The preferred platform for FIASCO is a Cessna with a bloke in the back carrying a scanner.
"It's just like the Nimrod" said Government spokesperson Wayne Kerr "It flies and you can listen to signals, exactly like the Nimrod".
At the same time, No 10's PR Guru Anne "R" Sole announced that the Nimrod was an unacceptable name as it was from the Old Testament, which was part of the the bible, and therefore might offend minorities. She also annouced plans for the new aircraft to be "personed" by wheelchair bound lesbians. In addition to maintenance, these differently abled gay women will also be found in the newly named "Pilot space".
The limp wristed Gaurdian writers applauded and cried with delight, before celibrating with a meal of organic lentils and mineral water.
At an RAF base "somewhere in the UK", an aircraft (type not disclosed) was hastily loaded with bombs.
"That'll learn the f***ing beancounters b********" said the pilot as he climbed into his aircraft......