PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   A400 Doomed? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/370601-a400-doomed.html)

Bunker Mentality 19th Apr 2009 10:43

A400 Doomed?
 
Christopher Booker, an occasionally tinfoil-wearing Sunday Torygraph contributor, suggests that the A400 programme is 'on the brink of collapse' here: 'Save the planet' rhetoric soars to crazy new heights - Telegraph (scroll down past the global warming stuff) and that therefore our armed forces 'will soon be incapable of fighting overseas' because C-130 goes out of service in 2012.

airborne_artist 19th Apr 2009 11:06


because C-130 goes out of service in 2012
Have the RAF been told this? :\

fallmonk 19th Apr 2009 11:07

Looks like more C-17's will be ordered , and more C-130 J's IF it does get cancelled ,:ugh:

glad rag 19th Apr 2009 11:12

I do not think that it will be cancelled due to the catastrophic effect that it would have on EADS finances.

mick2088 19th Apr 2009 11:46

True. Still wonder if anyone will jump ship, however. Binning its A400M order would not have a particularly high financial or job risk to UK Plc as it would to the French or Germans. Most of the UK companies involved would still be working on it irrespective of it being ordered just as it hasn't after Italy decided not to buy it. The UK's need to be involved in the europlane moreorless ended the day BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus. Other than the euroland politics involved, is it what the RAF really wants? Would they be content with more C-130Js and C-17s instead or is the A400M that important to the RAF?

isaneng 19th Apr 2009 12:08

Surely it's the army that would be most affected by the cancellation, in terms of yet another capability gap? Was not one of the major incentives behind the A400 the larger freight bay to take the latest generation of vehicles with their greater mass and size? Whilst more C130Js would give greater tonnage capacity, would that answer the perceived requirement?

Sorry for calling you Shirley............

StopStart 19th Apr 2009 12:13

Chaps, this has been done to death on the myriad of other A400 threads on here...

isaneng 19th Apr 2009 12:20

Sorry Stopstart, but we are all chatting about it now, so come on, let us crack on.... You don't have to read it if you don't want to!

mightynimbus 19th Apr 2009 12:33

My son is on contract with Airbus in Seville working on the A400, they are all on notice of termination and working from month to month, entirely possible project going belly up!

What effect that will have on EADS, MOD or anyone else is anybodies guess.

StopStart 19th Apr 2009 13:45

In that case :)....

In answer to the earlier question about capability gaps then - no there won't be one. Ideally this thing goes down the tubes asap, we can stop mincing about and go get more Js and C17s. C17s can move the big stuff and we can carry on with the other stuff.

The army's FRES project for big, wide etc vehicles is more of a terminal basket case than the A400 anyway so is frankly irrelevant.

airborne_artist 19th Apr 2009 14:01


Was not one of the major incentives behind the A400 the larger freight bay to take the latest generation of vehicles with their greater mass and size?
Though the FRES programme has ballooned both in cost, and weight, so perhaps there won't be many of them, and those we do procure will be too large/heavy to fit in a standard A400? Have to hope that the Antonovs soldier on for a while, and that we stay on the same side as Ivan...

isaneng 19th Apr 2009 17:08

I heard through T bar gossip that Lockheed had proposed a widebodied C130 (a fat fat albert, or obese albert?). Other than the 1980's proposal, any update on newer evolutions?

Pontius Navigator 19th Apr 2009 17:34

In April 08 EADS said 'this summer'

Then in September EADS said: first flight is postponed beyond the end of this year, but the impact on the delivery schedule remains unclear.

The “unavailability” of the 10,000shp Europrop TP400-D6, the most powerful turboprop engine developed by the West, is blamed for the new delay.

The program is still waiting for the flying test bed – a C-130 modified by Marshall Airspace with one TP400-D6 under-wing – to get off the ground. That test campaign “should start in the coming weeks”,

OK, it flew on 17 Dec 08, then what?

Booker probably cribbed his article from the Economist - 8 Apr 09:

Airbus's troubled military transport | Heavy going | The Economist

BEagle 19th Apr 2009 18:08

The TP400 software is being used as the fall guy. IT NOW WORKS!!

Whilst there might be other issues with the A400M, from what I was told at ARSAG last week, things are nothing like as bad as have been portrayed.

I hasten to emphasise, that's what I was told...

Now, which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?

And don't forget the French. Can you imagine them settling for a non-European future airlifter?

Personally I blame the A380 and A350 programmes for diverting engineering design resources away from the A400M.....

indie cent 19th Apr 2009 18:36

Just to keep you on your toes Beags...;)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...eing-c-17.html

StopStart 19th Apr 2009 18:49


which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?
That'll be the C130J there BEags :ok:

XV277 19th Apr 2009 19:33


Originally Posted by BEagle (Post 4872056)
T

Now, which of the American aircraft (C-17A or C-130J) will the RAF require to include Chinook / Merlin AAR?

None without infringing the terms of the AirTanker contract if informed voices are to be beleived.

BEagle 19th Apr 2009 19:45

Which would be a bit of a shame - the FSTA is not proposed for helicopter AAR.

Whereas, from the brief I had - and judging by the way the USMC are currently using the KC-130J in theatre, there isn't much it can't do. Particularly in respect of FARP operations; also Harvest Hawk will soon be turning the bad guys into unwholesome hamburger......:ok:

Now remind me, how many external hardpoints do the UK's 130Js have which are wired and plumbed for AAR........:confused:

West Coast 19th Apr 2009 19:49

Wow Beag's you're using logic at a point when you usually shoot from the visceral soft underbelly. C'mon, you know you want to.

Template: The A400 would have been a world beater if not for the Yank________

BEagle 19th Apr 2009 20:15

Hi Westie,

No, credit where credit is due - your USMC chums know what they're doing with the KC-130J. Whereas the version that the RAF has is....well, 'less capable'. Not by design, but by stupid procurement.

The A400M will eventually be a good aeroplane - but the political wrangling and bitch-fighting will be a thing of interest to behold!

By the way, I didn't even get threatened with a single 'latex glove' during my recent trip Stateside; contrary to alarmist reports, the natives were most friendly!

But you can keep Las Vegas.......:yuk:


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:35.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.