C17 v A400M
And a cheering couple of snippets for the anti-European Airbus sceptics....
1) Last year Airbus sold more airliners than Boeing did. 375 to 329. Ten years ago, Airbus could barely sell one third as many jets as Boeing.
2) Since 9/11 Boeing has made 21,000 of your fellow aerospace industry workers redundant (1/3 of its workforce) and 9,000 more may follow. Airbus has trimmed 6,000 jobs, but by making temporary layouts, juggling with overtime arrangements and imposing shorter working weeks, the actual number of workers made redundant was 500.
3) How did Boeing not clinch the 737 order from Easyjet - an existing 737 operator, with existing Boeing spares infrastructure in place, appropriate ground handling equipment, appropriately rated pilots, etc? Simply to be worth the hassle of changing, the Airbus case must have been compelling.
1) Last year Airbus sold more airliners than Boeing did. 375 to 329. Ten years ago, Airbus could barely sell one third as many jets as Boeing.
2) Since 9/11 Boeing has made 21,000 of your fellow aerospace industry workers redundant (1/3 of its workforce) and 9,000 more may follow. Airbus has trimmed 6,000 jobs, but by making temporary layouts, juggling with overtime arrangements and imposing shorter working weeks, the actual number of workers made redundant was 500.
3) How did Boeing not clinch the 737 order from Easyjet - an existing 737 operator, with existing Boeing spares infrastructure in place, appropriate ground handling equipment, appropriately rated pilots, etc? Simply to be worth the hassle of changing, the Airbus case must have been compelling.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Wolf.
It would appear from a careful analysis of recent statements by a fellow Ppruner with a journalistic bent, and directed at us, that his light hearted banter, friendly ripostes, and self-avowed admiration and affection for us “Antipodeans” can be attributed to his close proximity to any one of the current thirty-five fully operational nuclear reactors at Sellafield, Dungeness, Calder Hall, Aldermaston Burghfield et al, any one of which is considerably closer to every person in Britain, than any of the former Pacific Nuclear test sites are to New Zealand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only if he was an ill-informed and over-simplistic twit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) You have a totally twisted and unbalanced view of the Airbus and its merits. I suspect that you have an unqualified regard for anything American, perhaps with a liberal dash of anti-Europeanism (envy perhaps?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And a cheering couple of snippets for the anti-European Airbus sceptics....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would appear from a careful analysis of recent statements by a fellow Ppruner with a journalistic bent, and directed at us, that his light hearted banter, friendly ripostes, and self-avowed admiration and affection for us “Antipodeans” can be attributed to his close proximity to any one of the current thirty-five fully operational nuclear reactors at Sellafield, Dungeness, Calder Hall, Aldermaston Burghfield et al, any one of which is considerably closer to every person in Britain, than any of the former Pacific Nuclear test sites are to New Zealand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only if he was an ill-informed and over-simplistic twit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) You have a totally twisted and unbalanced view of the Airbus and its merits. I suspect that you have an unqualified regard for anything American, perhaps with a liberal dash of anti-Europeanism (envy perhaps?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You really are a bit of a clot, aren't you? All those atomic tests in the Pacific have obviously addled your brain....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And a cheering couple of snippets for the anti-European Airbus sceptics....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Wolf
"However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date. "
By how many decades? Where have you been Blue Wolf? Every newspaper and trade press discussion about every new Airbus type since the programme started has revolved around the benefits to the UK of building all the wings for Airbus.
Yours
Lybid
"However, I wasn't aware that Airbus wings were made in the UK, so perhaps I am a little out of date. "
By how many decades? Where have you been Blue Wolf? Every newspaper and trade press discussion about every new Airbus type since the programme started has revolved around the benefits to the UK of building all the wings for Airbus.
Yours
Lybid
Hectorus,
While I'm alarmingly close to Aldermaston, Burghfield, Culham and Harwell, I haven't noticed any mushroom clouds darkening our skies, and nor has old Jethro, who's lived in the village since time immemorial. That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed.
Perhaps it explains why I can't be bothered to dredge back and quote your bon mots back at you? Perhaps there is a similar explanation as to why you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts? Or perhaps I'm doing you a grave injustice and You'll explain why this manufacturer of such inferior and dangerous aeroplanes has risen to its current position, and is now threatening to overtake your beloved Boeing?
Actually I have nothing against antipodeans at all, it's just anti-European and bone-headedly and blindly pro-American people who I have a problem with.... and I don't mean Blue Wolf either. In other words, it's personal, not nationalistic!
Although Jethro tells me that our genetic stock hereabouts was much improved when they transported the trouble-makers, criminals and soft-headed to the colonies.....
While I'm alarmingly close to Aldermaston, Burghfield, Culham and Harwell, I haven't noticed any mushroom clouds darkening our skies, and nor has old Jethro, who's lived in the village since time immemorial. That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed.
Perhaps it explains why I can't be bothered to dredge back and quote your bon mots back at you? Perhaps there is a similar explanation as to why you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts? Or perhaps I'm doing you a grave injustice and You'll explain why this manufacturer of such inferior and dangerous aeroplanes has risen to its current position, and is now threatening to overtake your beloved Boeing?Actually I have nothing against antipodeans at all, it's just anti-European and bone-headedly and blindly pro-American people who I have a problem with.... and I don't mean Blue Wolf either. In other words, it's personal, not nationalistic!
Although Jethro tells me that our genetic stock hereabouts was much improved when they transported the trouble-makers, criminals and soft-headed to the colonies.....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry you have lost the plot, Jacko, but the thought of you wearing your "Jockey’s" around your head is quite humorous.
IF you did bother to check my posts I venture to suggest that you will find that I have not, as you so charmingly espoused it "you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts?"
I venture to suggest that it is you who has so far steadfastly refused to answer a question which I put to you on two occasions.
Not having met you, I would hesitate to label you, but I'll give you the benefit of your own self analysis: "That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed."
Continuing this topic does neither of us any credit, and certainly detracts from the tenure of both Pprune and the topic of the post.
Regards,
HectorusRex
PS Further research may enlighten you that the nearest penal colonies were in Australian territories.
IF you did bother to check my posts I venture to suggest that you will find that I have not, as you so charmingly espoused it "you prefer to scatter ill-informed anti-Airbus prejudice around while steadfastly ignoring the facts?"
I venture to suggest that it is you who has so far steadfastly refused to answer a question which I put to you on two occasions.
Not having met you, I would hesitate to label you, but I'll give you the benefit of your own self analysis: "That may be, of course, memory loss due to irradiation, or it may be that I've disappeared so far up my own posterior that I haven't noticed."
Continuing this topic does neither of us any credit, and certainly detracts from the tenure of both Pprune and the topic of the post.
Regards,
HectorusRex
PS Further research may enlighten you that the nearest penal colonies were in Australian territories.
Dons scouser wig and affects Barry/Gary/Terry accent.....
"Eh, eh, eh...now then, now then....calm down, calm down......!!"
I note from the Weekly Learmouth that our anitpodean Oz-mate chums have done precisely what many feel we should have done regarding a certain future aircraft programme. Having 'observed' our Brizzle waterworks in action, or should that be inaction, they've shut the door on PFI for their new tanker and have gone for conventional procurement...a bit like Japan, Canada, Germany, Italy have. They've specified a mutli-role tanker transport requirement with an upper deck cargo door, a specific fuel/distance requirement an EW suite identical to the Wedgetail.....and are waiting for manufacturers to tender. They've also earmarked sufficient funding......
So it seems that our chums downunda can indeed teach us a lesson or two. Whether they end up with A310MRTT (currently being developed for the Germans and Canadians), Boeing KC767 (currently being developed for virtually everyone else) or A330K (currently being proposed as one of the PFI solutions for the RAF), it'll be on conventional requirement/cost/compliance grounds. They've specified a preference for new airframes, but haven't ruled out recycled exisiting airliners.
Goodonya!!
....and don't confuse the A400M design and potential with the wretched government wrangling over funding! Nothing wrong with this excellent aeroplane if its future users would only stop arguing and start funding!
"Eh, eh, eh...now then, now then....calm down, calm down......!!"
I note from the Weekly Learmouth that our anitpodean Oz-mate chums have done precisely what many feel we should have done regarding a certain future aircraft programme. Having 'observed' our Brizzle waterworks in action, or should that be inaction, they've shut the door on PFI for their new tanker and have gone for conventional procurement...a bit like Japan, Canada, Germany, Italy have. They've specified a mutli-role tanker transport requirement with an upper deck cargo door, a specific fuel/distance requirement an EW suite identical to the Wedgetail.....and are waiting for manufacturers to tender. They've also earmarked sufficient funding......
So it seems that our chums downunda can indeed teach us a lesson or two. Whether they end up with A310MRTT (currently being developed for the Germans and Canadians), Boeing KC767 (currently being developed for virtually everyone else) or A330K (currently being proposed as one of the PFI solutions for the RAF), it'll be on conventional requirement/cost/compliance grounds. They've specified a preference for new airframes, but haven't ruled out recycled exisiting airliners.
Goodonya!!
....and don't confuse the A400M design and potential with the wretched government wrangling over funding! Nothing wrong with this excellent aeroplane if its future users would only stop arguing and start funding!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle:
You're right, there's nothing wrong with the design of the A400M - bar it requiring the most powerful turboprop ever developed, and that numerous "fully compliant" bids for this have later turned out to be too heavy and underpowered.
P&WC reckon their new three-shaft design could generate 15,000 shp, and RR more than 11,000, but it's gone a bit chicken-and-egg: while Airbus could pick one of them now and give the project added impetus, they are unlikely to do so before the project go-ahead, if and when that comes.
Still, if the technological challenge of the A400M is something, what about the Boeing Pelican concept (the wing in ground-effect thing that could carry the equivalent of 17 MBTs) with four props - now there's a design challenge!
You're right, there's nothing wrong with the design of the A400M - bar it requiring the most powerful turboprop ever developed, and that numerous "fully compliant" bids for this have later turned out to be too heavy and underpowered.
P&WC reckon their new three-shaft design could generate 15,000 shp, and RR more than 11,000, but it's gone a bit chicken-and-egg: while Airbus could pick one of them now and give the project added impetus, they are unlikely to do so before the project go-ahead, if and when that comes.
Still, if the technological challenge of the A400M is something, what about the Boeing Pelican concept (the wing in ground-effect thing that could carry the equivalent of 17 MBTs) with four props - now there's a design challenge!
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I thought Weds used to be sports afternoon!
That flying wing project would be more of a dosh than a design challenge!!
The way the A400 is going, it will finish up like the Belfast - with an order for a dozen aircraft with huge development costs for an engine that isn't used on anything else. I wonder what the final cost of those uprated Tynes was?
I thought Weds used to be sports afternoon!
That flying wing project would be more of a dosh than a design challenge!!
The way the A400 is going, it will finish up like the Belfast - with an order for a dozen aircraft with huge development costs for an engine that isn't used on anything else. I wonder what the final cost of those uprated Tynes was?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There's an article in the Times today confirming the restructuring of NATO with the demise of SACLANT etc. The sting, however, was in the tail.
--------------
"European countries have agreed to start spending large sums of money on buying key equipment to improve Nato’s overall military capabilities. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Nato’s Secretary-General, has won promises from a number of countries to fill gaps in their capabilities. Lord Robertson told The Times that in talks with Nato ministers last week he got each to commit his government to buying or leasing specific equipment immediately.
Germany will lease several strategic-range transport aircraft, either the US C17 Globemaster or the Russian Antonov. Britain, which has four C17s under a seven-year leasing arrangement, is likely to extend the deal with Boeing".
------------------
With the budgetary problems they have already, one has to wonder what the implications are for the A-400M.
It would seem nonsensical to operate/lease 2 types; and if they've already narrowed it down to the C-17 or an Antonov (A-74? Though it's having problems in the test program I believe).
--------------
"European countries have agreed to start spending large sums of money on buying key equipment to improve Nato’s overall military capabilities. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Nato’s Secretary-General, has won promises from a number of countries to fill gaps in their capabilities. Lord Robertson told The Times that in talks with Nato ministers last week he got each to commit his government to buying or leasing specific equipment immediately.
Germany will lease several strategic-range transport aircraft, either the US C17 Globemaster or the Russian Antonov. Britain, which has four C17s under a seven-year leasing arrangement, is likely to extend the deal with Boeing".
------------------
With the budgetary problems they have already, one has to wonder what the implications are for the A-400M.
It would seem nonsensical to operate/lease 2 types; and if they've already narrowed it down to the C-17 or an Antonov (A-74? Though it's having problems in the test program I believe).
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - can you please stop harping on about how great the A400M is. Its guess work, they havent even finalised the design yet. If it were purely left to Airbus Im sure it would be great, but the fact is all of the associated governments will, without fail, cock it up. Keep the C130s, get more C17s and we are laughing. And relax.
No - sorry, BB, but I happen to think that, given half a chance, the A400M will be an excellent aeroplane.....
I'm certain that its payload/ range performance will be far better than that of the old C130K - or the C130J. Though not as good as the vastly more expensive C17 - nor, of course, as good as the An225 if we must compare apples and oranges!
It could also make a perfectly good AAR aeroplane - if EADS weren't trying to develop the A330-200 tanker at the same time.
Having done a bit of number-crunching on the Oz tanker-transport requirement described in 'Flight', the required fuel volume would appear to be in the order of 85-90 tonnes minimum. Which rules out A400M and A310MRTT, is probably tight for KC767 but is within the published capability of A330-200. Or of old TriShaws.......
I'm certain that its payload/ range performance will be far better than that of the old C130K - or the C130J. Though not as good as the vastly more expensive C17 - nor, of course, as good as the An225 if we must compare apples and oranges!
It could also make a perfectly good AAR aeroplane - if EADS weren't trying to develop the A330-200 tanker at the same time.
Having done a bit of number-crunching on the Oz tanker-transport requirement described in 'Flight', the required fuel volume would appear to be in the order of 85-90 tonnes minimum. Which rules out A400M and A310MRTT, is probably tight for KC767 but is within the published capability of A330-200. Or of old TriShaws.......
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Nov 2002 at 06:05.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AW & ST:
Prague May Spring
Airlift Surprise
ANDY NATIVI/GENOA and DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON
Key European capability shortfalls will be featured high on the agenda at this week's NATO summit, with efforts to address military airlift and alliance ground surveillance needs.
This week could see the emergence of a road map directing the creation of an airlift-equivalent of NATO's E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System squadron........
Under what is in effect a master plan for DCI plus, perhaps a misnomer with DCI minus more accurate, NATO nations will sign off to specific commitments at the Prague meeting, including military airlift.
GERMANY IS TO LEAD the NATO effort to plug its glaring shortfall in airlift capacity, irrespective of Berlin having so far hamstrung efforts to launch Europe's A400M military airlifter program.
This initiative could see NATO either lease or purchase a squadron of heavy-lift aircraft, with the Boeing C-17 and the Ukrainian Antonov An-124 in the frame. While the latter candidate may prove politically attractive to Berlin, the C-17 option will provide interoperability with the U.S. Air Force.
One possible model for NATO would be to follow the lease route adopted by Britain. The British have four C-17 aircraft on lease from Boeing, ostensibly as a stopgap until the A400M is delivered....
-------------------------------------------------------
A400M Still In Limbo
MUNICH
As a result of Germany's reluctance to commit to earlier plans to procure 73 Airbus A400M airlifters, program go-ahead is now expected to be delayed until 2003. Service entry date would further slip to 2009.
German Defense Minister Peter Struck is scheduled to submit an updated procurement plan by the end of the month. If Germany reduces its A400M order, he said, the aircraft price would remain unchanged--a key concern for other participating countries.
According to French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, an unchanged A400M price is still possible, as Italy and Portugal are reevaluating their proposed orders. Italy, which was no longer expected to buy A400Ms, is reportedly considering a 10-aircraft commitment, while Portugal is interested in ordering three. If such purchases materialize, Germany could reduce its A400M commitment to 60 without endangering the program.
The initial production run, based on the participating air forces' orders, would remain a combined 196 aircraft.....
--------------------------------------------------------
So, if I read this right:
1. Germany is going to lead the effort to establish a European airlift capability based around the C-17 or AN-124; even though they can't afford the A-400Ms they've signed up for.
2. Germany wants to reduce it's A-400M buy - but needs the unit price not to increase, otherwise there are no savings. The only way that is going to happen is if they can persuade the Portuguese to reinstate their order and the Italians to increase theirs.
Meanwhile, the Italians have budget problems which look like they might not even be able to meet the Eurofighter funding commitments and have signed an order for C-27s as well as C-130Js.
And as for Portugal, the same issue of AW & ST states:
"In Europe, C-27J managers expect the program to benefit from the turmoil in the European A400M airlifter program. Portugal and Ireland are becoming strong candidates for the aircraft, according to Romagnoli. Portugal is in the market for 12-16 aircraft, and also has expressed interest in C-130Js".
So, being squeezed out by the C-17/AN-124 at the top end and by the C-27/C-130J at the bottom end. Anyone want to put odds on the A-400M ever getting the go ahead?
Prague May Spring
Airlift Surprise
ANDY NATIVI/GENOA and DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON
Key European capability shortfalls will be featured high on the agenda at this week's NATO summit, with efforts to address military airlift and alliance ground surveillance needs.
This week could see the emergence of a road map directing the creation of an airlift-equivalent of NATO's E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System squadron........
Under what is in effect a master plan for DCI plus, perhaps a misnomer with DCI minus more accurate, NATO nations will sign off to specific commitments at the Prague meeting, including military airlift.
GERMANY IS TO LEAD the NATO effort to plug its glaring shortfall in airlift capacity, irrespective of Berlin having so far hamstrung efforts to launch Europe's A400M military airlifter program.
This initiative could see NATO either lease or purchase a squadron of heavy-lift aircraft, with the Boeing C-17 and the Ukrainian Antonov An-124 in the frame. While the latter candidate may prove politically attractive to Berlin, the C-17 option will provide interoperability with the U.S. Air Force.
One possible model for NATO would be to follow the lease route adopted by Britain. The British have four C-17 aircraft on lease from Boeing, ostensibly as a stopgap until the A400M is delivered....
-------------------------------------------------------
A400M Still In Limbo
MUNICH
As a result of Germany's reluctance to commit to earlier plans to procure 73 Airbus A400M airlifters, program go-ahead is now expected to be delayed until 2003. Service entry date would further slip to 2009.
German Defense Minister Peter Struck is scheduled to submit an updated procurement plan by the end of the month. If Germany reduces its A400M order, he said, the aircraft price would remain unchanged--a key concern for other participating countries.
According to French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, an unchanged A400M price is still possible, as Italy and Portugal are reevaluating their proposed orders. Italy, which was no longer expected to buy A400Ms, is reportedly considering a 10-aircraft commitment, while Portugal is interested in ordering three. If such purchases materialize, Germany could reduce its A400M commitment to 60 without endangering the program.
The initial production run, based on the participating air forces' orders, would remain a combined 196 aircraft.....
--------------------------------------------------------
So, if I read this right:
1. Germany is going to lead the effort to establish a European airlift capability based around the C-17 or AN-124; even though they can't afford the A-400Ms they've signed up for.
2. Germany wants to reduce it's A-400M buy - but needs the unit price not to increase, otherwise there are no savings. The only way that is going to happen is if they can persuade the Portuguese to reinstate their order and the Italians to increase theirs.
Meanwhile, the Italians have budget problems which look like they might not even be able to meet the Eurofighter funding commitments and have signed an order for C-27s as well as C-130Js.
And as for Portugal, the same issue of AW & ST states:
"In Europe, C-27J managers expect the program to benefit from the turmoil in the European A400M airlifter program. Portugal and Ireland are becoming strong candidates for the aircraft, according to Romagnoli. Portugal is in the market for 12-16 aircraft, and also has expressed interest in C-130Js".
So, being squeezed out by the C-17/AN-124 at the top end and by the C-27/C-130J at the bottom end. Anyone want to put odds on the A-400M ever getting the go ahead?
Last edited by ORAC; 20th Nov 2002 at 17:50.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always asking the really *important* questions, eh WEBF.
On a more trivial note, is the An124 order a runner given that Ukraine are not flavour of the month for alleged mil exports to a certain ME regime?
On a more trivial note, is the An124 order a runner given that Ukraine are not flavour of the month for alleged mil exports to a certain ME regime?
Could be a point about the falling-out between the US and the Ukraine. BTW, do the RAF personnel in any other Nato formation celebrate the Battle of Britain? After all, the army have served under German command in NATO Central Front (and one of those generals, von Kielmansegg, was Rommel's ADC in 1940!).
Personally, I'd say that this proposal is intended to get the capability, with somebody else paying, to replace the A400s that they won't pay for...or am I just too cynical?
Personally, I'd say that this proposal is intended to get the capability, with somebody else paying, to replace the A400s that they won't pay for...or am I just too cynical?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Flight International:
The Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the UK and USA said they had raised or plan to raise defence budgets, while Germany, Norway and Spain committed to arranging procurement of airlift, in-flight refuelling and sealift capabilities.
Germany will organise the lease of 16 aircraft, at least two of which will be Antonov-designed. The rest will probably be Boeing C-17s. These will be replaced when the Airbus Military A400M becomes operational. Spain will organise a 17-tanker aircraft pool, probably a mix of Airbus and Boeing platforms, while Norway will organise sealift
The Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the UK and USA said they had raised or plan to raise defence budgets, while Germany, Norway and Spain committed to arranging procurement of airlift, in-flight refuelling and sealift capabilities.
Germany will organise the lease of 16 aircraft, at least two of which will be Antonov-designed. The rest will probably be Boeing C-17s. These will be replaced when the Airbus Military A400M becomes operational. Spain will organise a 17-tanker aircraft pool, probably a mix of Airbus and Boeing platforms, while Norway will organise sealift
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times December 04, 2002
MoD cost-cutting is selling Forces short
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
THE Armed Forces are having to put up with ageing equipment because the new systems that they have been promised are years behind schedule, the National Audit Office said yesterday. In some areas, the Ministry of Defence had also decided to cut back on battlefield capabilities to save money, the audit office’s report on the MoD’s main projects said.
Although the audit office said that the MoD’s “smart acquisition” policy had introduced better controls, reducing the overall cost of its 20 biggest projects for the third successive year, 14 of them still suffered from either delays or price increases.
In one case, in order to save £319 million, the MoD had ordered only nine defensive systems to be fitted to the European A400M transport aircraft, although 25 have been ordered at a cost of £2.3 billion. The systems help to protect the aircraft from attack.
The in-service date for the new aircraft, which is to replace the Hercules, had also been deferred for a year “on affordability grounds” and would now not be available until 2010. The MoD has been forced to lease four American C17 Globemasters to fill the gap. Now, with the extra year’s delay in the A400M, being developed by Britain and seven other European partners, the audit office said that the MoD was to extend the lease for the C17s by another year.
The Hercules C130K, one of the oldest aircraft in the RAF, was also having its life extended by an extra year.
The MoD said that although only nine defensive systems had been ordered for the 25 A400Ms, not all the aircraft would be expected to operate in a hostile environment. More systems could be ordered if necessary.
The audit office said, however, that it was a case of the ministry deciding to “trade off capability for cost”.
Another aircraft project, the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, costing more than £2.8billion, was 31 months behind schedule, the report said. The in-service date was now forecast to be November 2005.
The audit office report said the delay meant that the current Nimrod, which first came into service 33 years ago, would have to carry on flying until mid-2008.......
NAO Full Report (pdf) NAO Executive Summary
I note with interst that the cost of the additional year's C-17 lease (+£86 million) is achieved by the "savings" accrued by the A-400M slip (-£87 million) (page 39).
If you look at page 38 this is all smoke and mirror stuff, £81 million is saved by not only the slip but also as they "delete and defer Configuration Items", The remaining £6 million is found by adjusting inflation figures. However down under "contracting process" you'll see they slip in +£160 million due to "improved costing data for Configuration Items available".
All in all, however, by deleting the DAS and other machinations they've stripped £472 million out of the planned budget for the programme.
Note, on page 50, that they've deleted the AAR capability for the ASTOR to save £12 million.
Note, on page 87, the Typhoon is still shown as having the gun deleted and also loses the 1500L underwing tank and the CRV7 rocket. On the good side it gains LLLGB and TIALD. Current unit production cost is £56.9 million.
JSF, page 100, has lost the external carriage of Brimstone and ASRAAM.
Very interesting is that, on page 141, not only has the SHAR been deleted from the list of platforms to receive Successor IFF, but also the GR7.
MoD cost-cutting is selling Forces short
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
THE Armed Forces are having to put up with ageing equipment because the new systems that they have been promised are years behind schedule, the National Audit Office said yesterday. In some areas, the Ministry of Defence had also decided to cut back on battlefield capabilities to save money, the audit office’s report on the MoD’s main projects said.
Although the audit office said that the MoD’s “smart acquisition” policy had introduced better controls, reducing the overall cost of its 20 biggest projects for the third successive year, 14 of them still suffered from either delays or price increases.
In one case, in order to save £319 million, the MoD had ordered only nine defensive systems to be fitted to the European A400M transport aircraft, although 25 have been ordered at a cost of £2.3 billion. The systems help to protect the aircraft from attack.
The in-service date for the new aircraft, which is to replace the Hercules, had also been deferred for a year “on affordability grounds” and would now not be available until 2010. The MoD has been forced to lease four American C17 Globemasters to fill the gap. Now, with the extra year’s delay in the A400M, being developed by Britain and seven other European partners, the audit office said that the MoD was to extend the lease for the C17s by another year.
The Hercules C130K, one of the oldest aircraft in the RAF, was also having its life extended by an extra year.
The MoD said that although only nine defensive systems had been ordered for the 25 A400Ms, not all the aircraft would be expected to operate in a hostile environment. More systems could be ordered if necessary.
The audit office said, however, that it was a case of the ministry deciding to “trade off capability for cost”.
Another aircraft project, the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, costing more than £2.8billion, was 31 months behind schedule, the report said. The in-service date was now forecast to be November 2005.
The audit office report said the delay meant that the current Nimrod, which first came into service 33 years ago, would have to carry on flying until mid-2008.......
NAO Full Report (pdf) NAO Executive Summary
I note with interst that the cost of the additional year's C-17 lease (+£86 million) is achieved by the "savings" accrued by the A-400M slip (-£87 million) (page 39).
If you look at page 38 this is all smoke and mirror stuff, £81 million is saved by not only the slip but also as they "delete and defer Configuration Items", The remaining £6 million is found by adjusting inflation figures. However down under "contracting process" you'll see they slip in +£160 million due to "improved costing data for Configuration Items available".
All in all, however, by deleting the DAS and other machinations they've stripped £472 million out of the planned budget for the programme.
Note, on page 50, that they've deleted the AAR capability for the ASTOR to save £12 million.
Note, on page 87, the Typhoon is still shown as having the gun deleted and also loses the 1500L underwing tank and the CRV7 rocket. On the good side it gains LLLGB and TIALD. Current unit production cost is £56.9 million.
JSF, page 100, has lost the external carriage of Brimstone and ASRAAM.
Very interesting is that, on page 141, not only has the SHAR been deleted from the list of platforms to receive Successor IFF, but also the GR7.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Dec 2002 at 17:18.
Please point out if any of this has come up before but I must jump to a fellow New Zealander's defence,
The European Governments have given airbus the benifit of huge tax breaks (as have the American government with Boeing) but they have also allowed them to use money that has been given to them by the EU to make their airplanes more affordable than Boeing.
Whats up with that?
The European Governments have given airbus the benifit of huge tax breaks (as have the American government with Boeing) but they have also allowed them to use money that has been given to them by the EU to make their airplanes more affordable than Boeing.
Whats up with that?
