|
In other words, your great great grandchildren could be flying C-17s in the next century. So USAF is in no hurry to develop a replacement. Who knows, maybe they'll have transporter beams by then and there'll be no need for air transports. ;-) |
maybe they will be the new SARO Princess - built and mothballed while we wait for the engines to be developed and then scrapped 10 years later.............
Arc Perhaps we could sell them on to a corrupt country or two.............:) |
The RAF A400s...
....are the engines different from the German ones? Do "our" ones have the same problems and limitations that the German ones do?
How do these big projects always seem to be a crock of sh1t at the beginning? I'm trying to think of any project, in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time. And I'm struggling... The Ancient Mariner |
The Hawker-Siddeley Hawk programme remained on-time and on-budget throughout.
Was there a clue in this - it was in pre-BWoS times and 't Bungling Baron had nowt to do wi' it....:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Rossian
(Post 9373965)
I'm trying to think of any project, in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time. And I'm struggling...
|
Originally Posted by 2805662
(Post 9374013)
. . . C-17?
Pentagon Warning Raises Threat of C-17 Cancellation - latimes And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles. And don't believe all you read in Der Spiegel... there are serious factual inaccuracies in that article - would you believe the Daily Mail? |
How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them?
|
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them?
|
Ring Lufthansa and borrow their Ju 52/3 s....
|
Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD.... |
And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles. |
Originally Posted by Winchweight
(Post 9374101)
Seriously?
Pentagon Warning Raises Threat of C-17 Cancellation - latimes And although its been around a while (in USAF service since 1993) and is often quoted as the best thing since sliced bread, the C17 hasn't be all smiles. So, yes, seriously, in RAF service (MoD leasing, crew training, introduction into service, MoD purchase etc) the C-17 fulfils these criteria. USAF experience - all prior to when the RAF got involved - is irrelevant. |
So your argument boils down to we should always buy off the shelf?
Nothing wrong with that, except you will always be at least one generation behind. |
It could be argued that Typhoon's extended development has resulted in a fine aircraft, built (largely) to our requirements, that is also a generation behind...
|
Ah but,yeah but,no but.........
The question was - are the engines different?
Sure, some a/c get better with time but usually after some serious input from the operators (which the manufacturers then charge for). How can you tell? F'rinstance the AEW Nimrod was a grade A crock and was NEVER going to improve (mainly because it was SO fugly). Oh the thread drift...... it's endemic in Pprune. The Ancient Mariner |
How is Herr Merkel planning to deploy the Fallschirmjager to Kent on June 24th without them? |
The question was "in all my years in the RAF that a) worked as it should from the start b) that cost what the agreed price was and c) was delivered on time." So, yes, seriously, in RAF service (MoD leasing, crew training, introduction into service, MoD purchase etc) the C-17 fulfils these criteria. USAF experience - all prior to when the RAF got involved - is irrelevant. Royal Air Force Boeing has marketed the C-17 to many European nations including Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The Royal Air Force (RAF) has established an aim of having interoperability and some weapons and capabilities commonality with the USAF. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review identified a requirement for a strategic airlifter. The Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) competition commenced in September of that year, however tendering was canceled in August 1999 with some bids identified by ministers as too expensive, including the Boeing/BAe C-17 bid, and others unsuitable.[71] The project continued, with the C-17 seen as the favorite.[71] In the light of Airbus A400M delays, the UK Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, announced in May 2000 that the RAF would lease four C-17s at an annual cost of £100 million from Boeing[68] for an initial seven years with an optional two-year extension. The RAF had the option to buy or return the aircraft to Boeing. The UK committed to upgrading its C-17s in line with the USAF so that if they were returned, the USAF could adopt them. The lease agreement restricted the operational use of the C-17s, meaning that the RAF could not use them for para-drop, airdrop, rough field, low-level operations and air to air refuelling.[72] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III |
But are we still leasing or have we bought them/any of them? In which case I guess the restriction on airframe we own, if any, would cease to be effective
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 9374970)
Really?????? You seem to skirt over the ludicrous situation we signed up for under PFI
It's unreasonable to blame Boeing for the stupidity of the MoD. I reiterate, C-17, within the RAF context, was on time, on budget, & delivered the contracted capability from the outset. |
Originally Posted by Coochycool
C of G considerations aside, whats the problem with simply strapping on some nice neat 'n tidy, tried 'n tested turbofans a la Dornier 328 instead?
Originally Posted by Davef68
Yes, one of the group (I'm sure either France or Germany) insisted it had to be a prop, either for tactical reasons (Being able to reverse on rough ground springs to mind) FOD or economics.
The TP400 was a political solution to a technical requirement: two engine offerings were originally developed (the British-German BR700-TP and the French-German-Italian-Spanish M138, along with an eight (!) engine Canadian PW150 stalking horse proposal), but the competitive selection was abandoned in favor of a collaborative approach, to avoid tripping up the overall program. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.