Doesn't that say a lot about military safety standards compared to civilian standards?

Proone

Just trying to restate the obvious about military hospitals and how the Gov's Selly Oak decision has, in my opinion, let us down badly. A year or so ago I sat next to an 19yr old lad who was being rushed back on a Tristar to save both his feet - he was more scared about going to Selly Oak than losing his feet (which he sadly lost anyway). The 7hrs I spent with this lad has had the deepest effect on me during my 2x Op HERRICK tours - so I guess I am entitled to my opinion, don't you think?

If you think that everything is right with the Country and you are entirely happy with the Military Hospital vs NHS debate then you I suggest you are in a minority.

LJ

JL

I recently spoke to an ex WO2 who,m as a run down before his retirement, had been the Amry liason to Selly oak. The problem is the doctors. In times of peace, doctors need to constantly practise to stay at the forefront of medicine, so it is impossible for the military to keep the top line doctors and nurses at any given military hospital - they kep leaving basically, and if they dont, when it comes to it, and they are needed, they aren't at the top of their game.

Don't get me wrong, its lamentable, but unavoidable. And, although it hurts me to say it, the new military wing being built onto Selly Oak is the best solution - because from who I have spoken to, the worst part o the Selly Oak is that the wards are mixed.

And in all fairness you're first post wasn't anything about that? Not having a go, just pointing it out.

No.

It does say a HELL of a lot about the management of the project though.

glad rag:
Quite right glad rag. Nowt wrong with Military Safety standards, as long as they are adhered to and enforced. The words FADEC and Chinook Mk2 should send a shiver down the backs of those contemplating the A400 RTS if it should ever happen. The difference between UK civilian and military airworthiness standards are that the former are enforced but the latter are not, by their respective authorities. The former is of course independent of its operators, the latter is one and the same. For military airworthiness standards to be adhered to requires an independent and separate MAA. Self Regulation does not work, in aviation it kills!

Well, there you are the. France and Germany have agreed, and it's only another itsy-bitsy 6 months slip, at least until the next one - and the price increase - so we all have to obey, right? :hmm:

Sure, there'll be a meeting with everyone there, but the masters of spoken, haven't they? :hmm:

That'll be just after the pass vote to take over economic control of the City and make sure that plays second fiddle to Paris and Frankfurt in the future.... :suspect:

Sarkozy, Merkel Agree To Delay Decision on A400M

PARIS - France and Germany have decided to delay for six months a decision on the future of the problem-plagued Airbus A400M military transport plane, President Nicolas Sarkozy said June 11.

Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the fate of the plane being built by Airbus, a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS, during a meeting at the Elysee presidential palace.

"We talked about the A400M and decided that it would be good to give ourselves a small delay of six months to continue discussions and to find the best possible solution," said Sarkozy at a joint news conference.

The A400M was initially scheduled to start being delivered at the end of 2009 but the program has suffered from a delay of at least three years and clients have threatened to cancel their orders.

The military transport plane was unveiled last year but it has been hit by delays in building its massive turbo-prop engines, putting the 20-billion-euro ($28 billion) project at risk.

Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Turkey are participating in the A400M program.

"We are in full agreement. ... We will give ourselves a few more months and then we will see," said Merkel, who added that France and Germany "need a transport plane in any case."

French Defense Minister Herve Morin said this month that there would likely be a meeting of ministers from the seven participating countries and EADS to renegotiate the delivery contracts.

I wonder what military safety critical software standard this guy thought they were developing it to??????

"a schoolboy error" or an excuse? :ugh:

sw

MoD still mum on JSF's future
Friday, June 19, 2009

Doubts over the future of the Joint Strike Fighter continue to persist after the MoD refused to give a definitive answer on when the decision to buy the planes will be made.

The £2.2bn project is scheduled to see 150 planes purchased for the two new aircraft carriers by 2018. But heavy cost overruns and delays to the US programme have led to doubts here in the UK over whether the MoD can afford to go through with the programme, or purchase all 150 aircraft if it does go ahead with it.

In February minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies told an audience that a major announcement on the JSFs was forthcoming. Other than the purchase of three test aircraft, the MoD has yet to make any other moves related to the JSF programme.

Yesterday Davies refused to set a date for the purchase or confirm whether the full order of 150 JSFs would be bought.

In a written Parliamentary answer, he told MPs that "The procurement process for the Joint Strike Fighter remains at a very early stage. We have not taken the final investment decision and at this stage cannot, therefore, confirm overall numbers or the in-service date."

The statement is just the latest in a series of comments and incidents that have raised concerns over the future of the JSF. In April Davies refused to tell Defencemanagement.com whether all 150 JSFs would be purchased. He also refused to rule out a Harrier life extension beyond 2018, leading to speculation that the MoD may take this route over purchasing the JSF.

Furthermore, Lord Drayson is back at the MoD. The minister for defence research and development has long been rumoured to be a staunch opponent of the JSF and is believed to have favoured walking away from the deal during his time as defence procurement minister. His return to the MoD could signal a shift towards cuts or an all out cancellation of the deal.

Could do with a refresher AAR course, holding in contact far too low.

Were you able to see the video, Art? It's showing as 'AWOL' on the link.

Certainly looks a bit low, but might have been doing 'envelope exploration', perhaps?

Left hose looks a little stuck?

F-135 Engine for the F-35 under the hammer.....

Team Must Complete F135 Engine Review by Nov. 20

U.S. defense acquisition chief Ashton Carter has ordered a high-level panel to review all aspects of development and production of the F-35's primary engine by Nov. 20, according to a Pentagon memorandum.

The joint acquisition team (JAT) Carter has established to review the F135 engine program should look at "all aspects of development and production of the F135 engine, with primary focus on understanding the production cost, cost drivers, cost projections and long-term affordability of the F135," Carter wrote in a recent memo.......

Wouldn't it be ironic if the review recommends canceling the P&W F135 and moving to the GE/RR F136 for the primary engine?

Sounds like FOD or a simple blade failure.

However, this is indeed why Congress has kept funding the F136 every time Bush & Rummy, or Bush & Gates, and now Obama & Gates have tried to kill it... just in case.

The F-35 is too important to risk serious delays if its engine had developmental problems.

AIUI, the cost to finish the F136 is USD 2bn or so - not a huge amount in the scope of the overall programme.

On the basis of the evidence from the "Great Engine War" of F100-PW vs. F110-GE, the American GAO favour the F-136. These people are auditors, and are inherently small c conservative; if there isn't any evidence, they're loath to predict. In short, if the GAO recommended two engines, the Administration needs to find a way to save face.

And one way that they could do this and save a bunch of money is to kill Dave-B and offer to keep F-136 to keep the UK / RR happy. Dave-B vs Dave-C is all a bit immaterial if the CVF programme hits the rocks.

S41

Except that the RAF specifically wants Dave-Bs to replace their GR7/9s... irregardless of CVF or not.

And then there is the USMC... which is scheduled to get about 4 times the UK's total Dave buy... and they want Dave-Bs only!

And the Italians & Spanish who want Dave-Bs for the nice new light carrier/amphib combos they specifically designed to fly to fly that aircraft?


No, CVF is a minor driver for Dave-B... it would have been developed if CVF had never been authorized and the RN was to go all-helo, and it won't be cancelled even if CVF is.

GK121

I agree that CVF is small beer in the Dave-B debate, and that frankly the only people who matter are the USMC. However, Dave-B is more expensive, more complex and less capable than either the -A or the -C, and even the DoD budget is hurting.

I was merely suggesting that if you kill -B, you'd save far more than killing F-136; and though the USMC will cry and stomp their feet, it's not obvious where a MEB or MEU (or whatever they're called this week) would need stealthy fast air that didn't merit the special attentions of a CVN.

Dave-B is a technical marvel; it isn't, IMHO, cost-effective. I don't think that the RAF high command are so Harrier centric that they'd spite themselves to buy -B if CVF goes (and possibly if it doesn't). I suspect that the RAF in 2025 will have an FJ fleet of 5 / 6 Sqns (the sixth being a composite of OCU and OEU peeps) and 4-6 Dave-C Sqns.

S41

There have been a number of times since the USMC took its AV-8Bs to sea aboard the LHAs & LHDs that they have needed some sort of FJ air cover and a CVN was nowhere near... Liberia 1990 for example*. All the CVNs were scrambling to the opposite side of Africa, leaving the MEU all by itself... and a call came in for their help.

The rebels had control of and were flying some fighter aircraft, and the USMC really didn't want to provide cover for the helos evacuating embassy personnel & civilians with just their Sea Cobras... it was a good thing they had some Harriers along.

In a few years the Harriers will be all gone, and if Dave-B is canceled there will be NO "fast air", stealthy or not, for the Marines to deploy without a CVN... and with the reduction in numbers of the CVN force over the previous CVN/CV force, the liklihood of being tasked with a low-level (but still with air threats) mission and being told "sorry, no CVN available, do it by yourself" is increasing steadily.

* Site - Main - Reference Library
All 3 times, no CVN was provided... the USMC made do with cover from AV-8Bs on flat-topped amphibs.

....Anxious to demonstrate progress toward a first flight, Airbus Military will hold another technical press briefing on the troubled A400M airlifter in Spain next week. Ahead of the meeting, the company told AIN that Europrop had delivered Fadec software for the TP400 engines, so that system integration tests could proceed on the so-called “iron bird” test rig in Toulouse, France.

AIN has also learned that only two more flights of the C-130 engine testbed are required at Marshalls’ airfield in Cambridge, UK. A further edition of the Fadec software should then follow to Toulouse and Seville, France, where Airbus now says that the A400M should get airborne “at the turn of the year.