A400M will not make 2009
 

From The Thunderer:
Surely its time to kill this turkey and stick with the Herc and more C-17s.

It's not about what is good for the Armed Forces, it's about what is good for European integration and European industry.:ugh:

Does anyone know:

1. How much A400M is now costing per unit compared with C-130J and C-17
2. Whether Airbus customers such as UK have the option of killing their contracted order for non-delivery? Perhaps HM's ministers could move her Airbus deposit into something that might see the light of day, like owned rather than leased A330Ks...

Waiting for Beagle to weigh in.

It's the C-130 which is now the turkey. As I've posted and linked sveral times, the C-130 is too small to carry the next generation of vehicles for either the UK armed forces or US armed forces. The A400M can manage it. Since we can't afford a fleet of just C-17s the A400M is the only way ahead, even if it does arrive late.

MarkD,

C-17 = $220m
C-130J = $90m
A400M = $155m
Those prices are in Aussie dollars

“As I've posted and linked several times, the C-130 is too small to carry the next generation of vehicles for either the UK armed forces or US armed forces”.


ORAC is spot on. This is inextricably linked to FRES. If FRES is delayed (which it is), the pressure on A400 is seen to ease, in certain quarters. Any delay does not necessarily mean problems with the project. It is normal practice to deliberately introduce what people think of as “slippage”, but is in fact sensible realignment. I’m not saying this is the case, but it’s common practice.

Those of you who can, read the FRES URD and see where the airborne dependencies are, and read the assumptions on aircraft availability.

Of course, this does not solve the immediate lift problems and perfectly illustrates the lack of cohesion and stovepiping in the MoD. There will be those who, having “realigned” A400 and FRES, will now simply walk away for a few years thinking “I can relax now” and have absolutely no regard for current operational requirements. And the C130 IPT will certainly view this as “slippage” as presumably they’ll have to find funds to extend life. They’ll probably find out about this by reading pprune!

The current delay to the A400M first flight was caused by modification to certain engine components.

That may well have knocked on to the first delivery date - to the FAF.

The gap between 'first flight' and 'first customer delivery' is, by UK standards, amazingly narrow. I'm intrigued to know how all the carriage clearances will be obtained in such a short time.

Under no circumstances can the C-17 be termed a 'turkey'! The A400M fills the gap between the C-130 and the C-17 and, although it isn't a direct competitor for either, strikes a good compromise of payload/range/speed v. cost.

A400M
 

Is the A400M an ambitious enough design? I have compared the A400M to the Shorts Belfast from 40 plus years ago with surprising results.

According to Wikipedia, the empty weight of the A400M is about 11 tonnes more than that of the Shorts Belfast. They both carry approximately the same maximum payload (36.3 Belfast vs. 37 tonnes A400M). I expected that the weight of the mission equipment etc in the A400M would be more than offset by weight reductions as a result of technology and materials improvements in other areas but this doesn't seem to be the case. Granted, the A400M has 800nm more range at max payload but it needs twice the power and 14 tonnes more fuel to carry out a max payload mission because of the 11 tonnes of extra empty weight and the higher fuel consumption. At Max payload and Max TOW, the Belfast flew 107.9 miles per tonne of fuel whilst the A400M only manages 77.5 miles per tonne of fuel; the Belfast therefore flew 39.3% further per tonne of fuel. The Belfast could carry significantly more troops and had a slightly longer ferry range than the A400M, albeit at a lower cruising speed and altitude.

I don't doubt that the A400M's survivability in a hostile environment would be much better than a Belfast's, but how often would the A400M be deployed in such a way? I don't doubt that the higher cruise speed of the A400M will increase productivity. But do the mission equipment and 800m range increase and higher cruising speed/altitude justify the 11 tonne increase in empty weight and much higher fuel consumption vs. the Belfast?

Given the advances in so many technologies and materials that have taken place over the past 40 years or so (FBW, composite materials, digital electronics, aerodynamics, engines etc), I had expected much better weights and performance figures for the A400M. Or am I being unfair in my comparisons?

"....albeit at a lower cruising speed and altitude."

Not for nothing was it termed the 'Belslow'.

One of the most useless features of the ponderous old thing - the Machmeter.

Figures I have show an economic cruise speed of 315 mph at 24000 - that's 273KTAS which is around 190KIAS and M0.45..... With its 35.3 tonne max payload, the Belslow had a range of 1000 nm; with 10 tonnes, it had a range of 3600 nm - but wars would be over before it could lumber onto the scene.

Whereas the A400M will cruise at M0.72 and 31000 ft after a MTOW take-off - and carry 37 tonnes for 1800 nm or 10 tonnes for 4400 nm.

Which, as far as max payload is concerned, is 4% more, 80% further and 60% quicker........

aero junkie - many thanks.

17 x C17 @ 220 must be a better option than 25 A400s for same total outlay.

It's also a proven frame as opposed to the 400.

OTTB,

Now you just know that the old chap with "the floppy ears" is going to tell you why you are so wrong :p

Actually, that's a very good point. Also it would save the cost of supporting two different types.

Fair point.

Don't forget, though, that the RAF's C-17s were originally leased as the STSA rather than as the FLA....

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 will now be bought and the STSA will become another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be 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, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, presumably 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 would be.... Although there is, 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.

So:

C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA will be an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA will become the 'official' FTA.
A330 MRTT will probably be the FSTA under PFI but not a FTA .


But WTF is currently going on with FSTA I have no idea.

Except that the price seems to keep going up...and the delays keep getting longer.

...and that sounds like another piece of DTMA-rented cheapo civilian garbage which has just gone thundering over my house at 0003 local, incapable of following the RW08 SID....:mad:

BEagle, the Belslow certainly wasn’t fast, and I laughed out loud at your comment concerning the mach meter, but I think you’re comparing max cruise speed on the A400M with long range cruise speed on the Belfast, so the difference isn’t quite as great as you suggest.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, cruise speed on the Belfast was 358mph, but my Putnam’s “Aircraft of the Royal Air Force” says that long range cruise was 315mph (same as your figure) and max cruise was 346mph. You’re quite correct however to point to a significant speed and range advantage in favour of the A400M. Is that enough to justify the huge increases in empty weight and fuel consumption though?

If (hypothetically of course) FBW controls, composite materials, digital electronics, some aerodynamic improvements and improved engines were applied to a Belfast, I’d have thought that the weight savings and improved efficiency would allow it equal the A400M’s payload/range (but not the speed). Why then is the empty weight of the A400M 11 tonnes more than the Belfast and it's fuel consumption 39.3% higher? Is the A400M an ambitious enough / efficient enough design?

Many future airlift needs will require ranges, payloads and speeds beyond the capability of the A400M. Wouldn’t it be better to buy the C5 (if production could be restarted), C17, A380 or B747 for sectors where speed, range and payload are more important than tactical capability, and then shorter range tactical transports to move cargo from there to the forward operating base where countermeasures, short/rough field performance, manoeuvrability, airdrop capability, turnaround time etc are priorities? This would be a logical specialisation in terms of both aircraft and aircrew capabilities.

I don't know where you get your 'huge increase in fuel consumption' from? But wth nearly twice the power of the Tyne, the TP400 certainly doesn't have twice the thirst.

The larger OEW is partly due to the fact that the A400M is a rugged aircraft with a tactical load limit of in excess of 2.5g. Something which cannot be said of the Belfast.

As for using C5, A380, C-17 or B747, then transferring to a 'tactical' aircraft - that's precisely what the A400M is designed to overcome! It has the payload/range/speed of a strategic transport (but not the outsize capability of the An124, for example) - plus the characteristics necessary for a modern, rugged, tactical transport. As well as the ability to be used as a tactical tanker.

Bearing in mind the current and set to deteriorate even more troop/equipment level problems we have and the fact that, despite the very brave efforts of all those directly involved we are making little if no headway in the current 2 theatres of Op's can someone explain to me exatcly what the purchase of so many A400's is all about?

To replace the rapidly deteriorating C130Ks. The AT fleet is in dire straits at the moment...25 A400Ms would be just the tonic.

GM

Whilst the performance of the A400M is the main consideration, also in the equation is the maintenance and support costs. The A400M will require very little maintenance with the first 'heavy' check at the two year point only taking about a week. The running costs will be considerably less than a C130plus it also gives better availability and therefore a smaller fleet is required.