Rolls Royce engines...

28% RR engines, to be precise.

Europrop shareholders.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/...9fURZEmPfPxIh8

Where do they get these figures from? Anyone who sees these every week knows this isn't true. The C130J is still covering tasks allocated to the C130J task line as they surge A400 Cap Dev.
How did Leeeson leave DES and walk into his job? Surely he had insider knowledge.
The interviews were so awkward.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...98?in=11:32:30

Engines based on a French design and built in Germany, if I am not mistaken. I wonder if any Rolls-Royce jobs were created. However, I'm sure RR were required to contribute 28% of the development costs in those places.

It's not just about jobs. It's about skills retention, development, engineering design etc. There is already a huge shortage of qualified and experienced people (check the job market, engineer salaries are rocketing). The new batch have to be trained somewhere. However I do agree, binning the C130 without further A400 orders is nuts.

The wings are designed and made in Filton-Bristol with a UK wide supply chain involving dozens of companies, GKN being a very significant one.
The engines have 30% Rolls-Royce content and more than 50% design.
RR also have a substantial UK supply chain and in addition there are numerous UK equipment suppliers to the rest of the airframe including avionics, airframe sub assemblies, transparencies and role equipment.

Stop this nonsensical dissing of anything British eh?

Sorry Hovis, not meant for you, meant to reply to
WHBM…

Thanks for that link. If you keep watching, they discuss MFTS and Crowsnest.

Takeaways:

1. MoD keeps changing the spec/requirements on all 3. So, easy to divert from the original question.

2. Dave Doogan, as you would expect (trained MoD engineer), asks a great question about Crowsnest. Equally good answer, probably having already spotted that most members don't know the history, or are wary of going there. (It's a mod, of a mod, of a mod, of a...., and the basic assumption in 1993 was that ASaC7 would be the last time, not least because the procurement strategy then was a political overrule).

3. Mark Francois. Oh dear. Digs holes and jumps in.

4. I thought Leeson spoke well, but then he would know MoD's weaknesses better than most.

HS2 is only there because it was part of the EU's high speed rail network strategy, so you could go from Nice to Manchester etc.. We had to do our bit. Everything else is bluff and propaganda.
Once fully rolled out they can cancel all short-haul flights for Net Zero.

Smoke, mirrors and downright lies. By late summer 2023 the extent of the lies will be clearer but it will be too late.

Reading this with interest, but I wonder whether this is a huge capacity reduction, compared to say 40 years ago when the RAF's transport fleet was round 55 Hercules, 20 VC10s of various types (some with maindeck tanks so very little transport capability vs AAR). Admittedly 6 TriStars came along soon after, but even so... Sure, more aircraft back then, but in terms of total payload/range for the transport fleet?

Regardless of where the aircraft are sourced, it doesn't stop them from being aircraft that aren't fit for purpose. :bored:

It doesn't matter how good an aircraft is, it can't be in two places at once & is it cost effective to use an A400 for a load that the Hercules would previously have carried?

Probably not but then is it cost effective to have two types of tactical transport ?

Is the A400M really a tactical transport in the C130 mould, or is it more a Belfast for the 21st Century?

Not a chance that A400 is TacAT!

Oh, and in terms of UK manufacture, you are aware that C-130J has RR engines and Dowty props, and that the servicing plant outside of the USA is Marshalls of Cambridge?

I would warrant that's more UK employment than the dross that is A400.

Wasn't the primary driver for A400M FRES/Scout SV/Ajax?

How is that program going?

Why do you say that?

I thought Leeson says it can do static and freefall.
It can likely do more CDS than a C130? And a much bigger range whilst doing so?
Any reason why other tac drops can't be done? Looks like air sea rescue is already covered.
I think Leeson implied it can take much more payload into given strip than a C130 - or it could have better shorter take-off landing than a C130 for the same payload.
This also probably means it can take C130J type payloads + way more fuel for longer trips / multiple hops into various austere places without refuelling.
I think he said it could operate onto softer strips full stop - ones the C130 presumably can't get into?
I think it was quoted above that availability was higher on A400M than C17 and C130 recently.

Because it's true.

Extremely limited compared to Albert.

It's StatAT and rubbish compared to C-17

He can claim what he likes but it's utter oblate spheroids.

TNope.

Not a chance.

Really? A400 is demonstrably less serviceable.

I think you are wrong around at least the CBR point on A400M vs C130, which makes me doubt the rest of your assertions.
It may be bigger/heavier but has a lot more wheels...