This is a good idea:


Air Force Copies Marines’ “Bolt-On” Gunship Plan
Sunday July 05th 2009, 10:58 pm
Filed under: Up in the Air, David Axe

061013-f-9999w-001.jpg

by DAVID AXE

The Marines have always envied the Air Force’s two dozen AC-130 gunships — which, with their accurate guns and long loiter times, count as some of the deadliest weapons in U.S. wars. This spring, the Marines decided to buy nine kits for their KC-130J tanker-transports, each kit comprising Hellfire and Viper Strike missiles and bolt-on sensors — with a door gun, optional. The result, code-named Harvest Hawk, turns a tanker into a gunship, in just four hours, on the cheap.

Now the twist: the Air Force has struggled for years to build a new gunship to replace the AC-130s, which average more than 20 years old. The AC-X gunship concept went nowhere. The AC-XX “gunship lite” program, meant to turn the twin-engine C-27J transport into a small gunship, apparently died this year, when the Pentagon cut the C-27J program in half. So now the Air Force is borrowing the Harvest Hawk idea, adding “sensors, communication systems, precision guided munitions and a single medium-caliber gun” to eight MC-130W infiltration transports, pictured, according to budget documents. ...

War Is Boring

Airbus Needs U.S. Help to Dispose of Elephant
 

Commentary by Celestine Bohlen

Airbus Needs U.S. Help to Dispose of Elephant: Celestine Bohlen - Bloomberg.com

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Can elephants fly?

That’s one way of looking at the Airbus A400M military- transport plane, which a group of mostly European nations has been trying to get off the ground since 2003.
It’s time to get real. Time and money are running out, and the four-engine turboprop plane designed to ferry troops and equipment still hasn’t even had a test flight.
After a delay of almost four years, and cost overruns that are digging into profits, the European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. should pull the plug on this 20 billion-euro ($28 billion) project, and let its customers buy American.
With 6,000 jobs at stake, this would cause economic pain and howls of political protests. European pride would be wounded, and the reputation of the region’s defense industry would be badly damaged.
There may be a solution: If the Europeans swallow their pride, and buy American military-transport planes, then maybe the U.S. Air Force could stifle its own protectionist urges and award a much-disputed $40 billion contract for aerial-refueling tankers to EADS and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.
The Europeans have a refueling tanker -- the A330-200 -- which is already up and flying. The Americans have well-tested military-transport planes. Why reinvent the wheel when there is one already on the shelf?
Surely, burden sharing is what the trans-Atlantic alliance is all about. Why should the U.S. and Europe be duking it out for orders when in another 20 years, they will both be desperate to save their defense industries from being cannibalized by China and India?
Camel-Like
The point isn’t to chip away at one aerospace industry at the expense of the other, but rather to save them both. Letting politics dictate business decisions -- or tying down political projects with commercial contracts -- isn’t the way to go. The A400M is one example.
Politics have plagued the project from the start. Early on, EADS was forced to pick a group of European companies, including Rolls-Royce Group Plc to make the plane’s engine, instead of Pratt & Whitney, whose price was better.
The project has become a kind of Christmas tree, with the different governments trying to add on special features, such as low-flying or all-weather capability. The result is a product that looks more like a camel than a racehorse, according to Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament who sits on the House of Commons defense committee.
“We should dump it,” he said. “It was always a political airplane.”
Capability Gap
EADS has already had to book 2.3 billion euros in charges for the A400M, denting its profits. Its customers -- France, Germany, the U.K., Luxembourg, Spain, Belgium and Turkey -- have twice pushed back a deadline for contract renegotiations, with the latest set for this month.
As they wait for the plane, now due in 2013, France and Germany, with contracts for 50 and 60 planes respectively, have had to check out alternatives to fill their capability gap. These include Boeing Co.’s C-17, the Lockheed Martin C-130J or even the Antonov 124, built in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the U.K., which seems to be trying to wriggle out of its order for 25 planes, is leasing six C-17s for the Royal Air Force. All three countries badly need military- transport planes for their operations in Afghanistan.
No wonder people talk about the A400M as a nightmare.
Looming Catastrophe
Nick Witney, a former director of the European Defense Agency, calls it a disaster. “If it doesn’t proceed to producing an aircraft, it will be a catastrophe,” he said. “The stakes are huge.”
From its inception, the A400M -- which began life as the Future Large Aircraft -- has been plagued by bad decisions, hubris and the problems that come from design-by-committee, particularly when the committee is made up of Air Force generals, each with their own demands.
For EADS and its Airbus unit, the main concern is the original 2003 contract, which it is now trying to renegotiate so that the customers shoulder some of the burden of the cost overruns. Naturally, no government wants to be presented with that kind of bill -- especially for a plane that has yet to fly -- in the middle of a recession.
‘Plane That Works’
With hindsight, everybody agrees the project’s original timeframe was unrealistic. As a report issued this spring by a French Senate Committee concluded, EADS “underestimated the size of the challenge,” which itself is an understatement.
Europe and the U.S. have a healthy competition going between Airbus and Boeing. That has spurred both airline companies to keep costs down and improve their products.
But in the military sphere, this competition is getting in the way of delivery. If Europe is to have a credible defense capability, it needs to be able to move its troops, tanks and equipment around.
Before they start throwing more good money after bad, the governments involved should think about their priorities. As a top adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy said this week: “All we want is a plane that works.”
(Celestine Bohlen is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

And they're utter bolleaux!

Now run along and worry about knitting and kittens, there's a good dear.....

Those opinions would be more credible if the basic facts were correct.

The original "lease" was for 4 aircraft, which have subsequently been bought outright, as have the 2 additional frames.

It's not difficult to get things correct, but if the basic stuff is wrong, then all credibility goes out the window.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the A400 will fill a capability gap that neither Albert nor the 17 can fill.

One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't.

That is one awesome load of undiluted codswallop.

If the Europeans swallow their pride, and buy American military-transport planes, then maybe the U.S. Air Force could stifle its own protectionist urges and award a much-disputed $40 billion contract for aerial-refueling tankers to EADS and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.

Errrm... the USAF already did that.

No wonder people talk about the A400M as a nightmare. Nick Witney, a former director of the European Defense Agency, calls it a disaster.

Strong words. The trouble is that it's the opposite of what he said.

“If it doesn’t proceed to producing an aircraft, it will be a catastrophe,” he said.

One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't

Oooh, one chair is too big, and that other chair is too small! said Goldilocks. And that porridge is much too hot, and this porridge is much too cool, but this bowl of porridge is just right for me! ... and so Goldilocks' story goes on ...

Yes, but once one goes down the road of trying to procure the best piece of kit for the job, the cost per unit goes through the roof as there tends to be no broader market for the asset than the original customer. You do caveat your remark with "viable" - I must add to that "viable and affordable".

That is not an excuse for procuring the wrong kit if it is all that is available, but it is the main reason why money should not be pumped into a development that fails to achieve what it set out to do for a reasonable cost.

Yes, the A400M would do a huge range of tasks that are unfulfilled by either the C17 or C130 alone at present, but together they manage, and both are available to purchase at a lower cost to the Exchequer (under the assumption that an A400M bailout is required). Do you want one piece of kit to do everything (much capability of which is unused day-to-day), or two pieces of kit that specialise in the tasks required, each having different strengths and weaknesses. It is of course nice to be able to do anything, anytime with the one piece of kit, but if unused in the vast majority of ocassions, it is wasted.

If there was further demand for it (among NATO/Western-allied countries that is), the market would produce it. If the A400M cannot attract further orders, and costs per unit continue to inflate, it should be cancelled.

That surely is the lesson of the Nimrod 2000, or did we not take that one onboard?

its not actually the USAF that is protectionist its the Democratic Government.

Its a shame that the A400m may bite the dust as compition would force Beoing and Lockheed to produce an improved product range instead of being able to sit back and rake in the cash.

Davies hints at A400M cancellation
Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Divisions are growing within the MoD and government over what to do with the troubled A400M programme, after a defence minister made comments yesterday which were in sharp contrast to the ones made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown just a day earlier in regards to the A400M.

Minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies told reporters yesterday that Britain "may not" be part of a renegotiated contract for the A400M. Just a day earlier, Brown had told a press conference that he wanted to see the A400M produced.

Davies has become an outspoken critic of the programme in recent months in a sign that he is likely resisting proposals by other partnering nations to carry ahead with a programme four years late and already a billion euros over budget.

"I have to say that we have very little time left and it would be quite irresponsible to express undue optimism about the prospects of a successful renegotiation involving the U.K.," Davies said in an interview in Glasgow. "Other countries may take a different view, of course."

While avoiding direct criticism of the manufacturer EADS, Davies reiterated that Britain has made its requirements clear for a new contract and if they are not met, Britain will walk away.

So far according to Davies, the Britain's terms are not being met. Aerospace officials speculate that the main "terms" put forth by Britain are for EADS to shoulder most of the additional costs. Engine troubles and design flaws have caused the delays and cost overruns. EADS has claimed it could go bankrupt if it has to pay all of the cost increases.

If Britain walks away from the programme it will most likely have to buy additional C-130Js and C-17s.

And now, the differences between the JSF and the A400M :E:E

This Bloomberg article on the seemingly intractable problems with the Airbus A400M military transporter is a reminder of the risks of reality suspension in defence projects world wide.

The A400M has the potential to destroy government funds on a European scale, in terms of cancellation and total loss of investment.

But the JSF, which is looking tragically short of capabilities to destroy enemy aircraft and targets, has the capability of destroying western defence budgets world wide.

Europe needs to try harder.

Good point, ORAC.

In fact, our lad Quentin should consider that while an overrun on 25 A400Ms may be painful, his operation is (so far) unhesitatingly committed to 75-140 JSFs which are two years behind the 2004 schedule, have no fixed price and are overweight to the point where they may need to perform risky SRVLs.

And he has no vote at all on a decision which will saddle him with a monopoly supplier for an engine which has already delayed the program and already costs too much, and which faces a large and undisclosed bill for a thrust increase to restore performance.

Re ORAC post jsf ........???? http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...er-hornet.html

Still supported....
 

I always thought the 'M' in A400M stood for military. Now we now better!

The Half-Full, Half-Empty A400M Glass

Comment by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MILTECH) 09:16 GMT, July 27, 2009

With so many exceedingly important factors, interests and considerations being involved in the A400M saga, and with quite a few of them being in contradiction with each other, it was arguably unavoidable that even the most prudent and logical decision being taken in trying to identify a way forward for the programme would leave a bittersweet taste in one’s mouth.

The member countries have now decided on a further “grace period” until the end of the year, which comes on top of the previous three-month extension granted in April. This implies that at least for the time being, the member countries do not intend to cancel the programme, nor do they want to punish EADS by imposing the financial penalties they are entitled to. Rather, the months ahead will be used to try and define a new overall structure for the programme that would necessarily require a complete renegotiation of technical goals, time schedules and costs.

In itself, the decision to carry on with the A400M makes eminent sense. The European Air Forces do need a new transport aircraft for both tactical and strategic roles, and there is plenty of political and industrial reasons to argue for this to be a European-designed and –manufactured plane. No matter the very strong reservations one might have about the appalling mixture of incompetence and arrogance EADS displayed in handling the project, it remains that at this point in time for the member countries to completely cancel the programme would come dangerously close to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. The money that could be extracted from EADS as penalties and compensations, and the malignant satisfaction of “teaching ‘em a lesson”, would be a very meagre counterbalance to the unmitigated disaster of a cancellation.

Yet, one cannot avoid being disturbed by certain aspects and implications of the decision as announced in Le Castelet.

First of all, there is nothing in the wording of the communiqué to sternly indicate the end of the year as the absolute final deadline for the programme to be brought back on track. Unfortunately, past experience is only too clear a pointer to the dangers of leaving industry in the comfortable perception that as a monopolistic supplier, they are virtually guaranteed against any conceivable harsh move. What is supposed to happen, should 31 December 2009 fail to bring about real and tangible results? Another farcical six-month extension, perhaps? And so on and so on?

Even more significantly and indeed alarmingly, there is nothing in either the official communiqué or the accompanying commentaries to suggest that the lessons of the past mistakes have been duly understood, and steps will be implemented to avoid repeating them.

The programme will be renegotiated, which in clear terms will unavoidably mean giving EADS more time and more money to design and produce an aircraft, substantially below the original performance and specifications. And so be it. But there is not the slightest hint at the programme being also revised as regards its management and overall structure. EADS has finally been able to correct some long-standing weaknesses in the organisation of Airbus Military (to be honest to them, these weaknesses were not EADS’ own fault and rather stemmed from political interference), but it is still too early to assess whether this move will really have a positive impact on the A400M programme. And on the other side of the fence, the governments quite clearly have not the slightest intention to give OCCAR, which is formally in charge of managing the programme on their behalf, the level of authority and responsibility it would need.

This is not a good omen.

Russia, Ukraine Revive Plan to Build An-70
 

Russia, Ukraine Revive Plan to Build An-70
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE - 19 Aug 2009

MOSCOW - Russia and Ukraine have agreed to revive long-standing plans to produce the An-70 military transport plane, the head of the design bureau at Ukrainian aerospace company Antonov said Aug. 19.

"I am sure that we will manage this with Russia until its completion and this aircraft will be part of the Russian and Ukrainian air forces," Dmytro Kiva said at the Maks-2009 air show outside Moscow, news agencies reported. Kiva said the project could be completed as early as 2010.

In a statement, the Russian defence ministry confirmed the report and said the agreement was signed by Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Ukrainian Defence Minister Valery Ivashchenko during the air show.

Russia and Ukraine signed agreements on the An-70 in 1993 and 1999 but Moscow warned in 2003 that the aircraft was not safe and in 2006 it formally pulled out of the project as relations with Ukraine deteriorated.

Ukraine has taken an increasingly pro-Western stance since the coming to power of President Viktor Yushchenko following the Orange Revolution protests of 2004. Its bid for NATO membership has particularly angered Russia.

Its amazing how quickly and cheaply things can be done, when your boss is x KGB and people go missing if they get it wrong and not rewarded with bonuses!

Kiva said the project could be completed as early as 2010.

If that was what he really said, the F-35 team will snap him up in no time flat.

No news = bad news ?
 

In all this hoo-ha about the A400M programme, I'm surprised and worried that no news is even seeping out about "progress" with the engine control software. Nobody talks about how the engine programme is/was managed, and EADS is blamed for every delay, while airframes sit in Spain waiting for the engine side to come up with what they are contracted to provide.
I assume that EADS "accepts" this situation, as programme overall manager, but the silence about remedial action (if needed ?) in the engine programme is like waiting for the second shoe to drop. EADS may be trying to get that side sorted behind the scenes, without public spats about the clear failure to provide an airworthy power plant which would "upset" sensitive (but apparently not very competent) partners.
The story of the engine's development might provide good material for real investigative journalists or even conspiracy-seekers in the film industry, but surely it's well past time for some "authority" on the engine side to come out from EADS' shadow and provide something more than Soviet-style platitudes about "the programme is proceeding well according to schedule".
Once the engines are working properly will be the time to blog about the airframe's performance - and if they don't get the software sorted, the programme's failure would be clearly seen to have been caused by incompetence outside the direct control of EADS/Airbus Military ...

FYI JP they are taking on at Seville :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

A400 hiring ...
 

@ glad rag ...
Nice to know they're "taking on" at Seville, which is a ("small" ?) sign of progress - nicer still would be "taking off", with an engine whose hard- and soft-ware work as required by the certification authority ... (Why on earth "they" decided that an aircraft destined for military use should be certificated under civil rules is a question to which, again, no satisfactory (ie, non-Sir Humphrey) answer has been given and which has been also accused of being responsible for weight above original spec).
Europrop seems to be an unusually uncommunicative outfit, and EADS seems to accept that, possibly because of military restrictions within partner governments.
Although the "respite" recently granted to the programme is far from expiring, it would seem appropriate for news of progress in the engine department to be announced (if any).

PS. For the suspicious minds, I am N O T a journalist, but I shall still be disappointed if there's a reply on the lines of "if you need to know, you know already". In any case, the state of play will be known in the end, whatever rushing for shelter from the draught from the proverbial fan may be under way ... :E

Great rumours doing the rounds that the MOD have finally accepted the A400M delay and the associated airlift gap:

Option 1: Extend the C130K until 2017 for £325M

Option 2: Purchase 6 x ex-RSAF C130Es

Option 3: Purchase more C130J and C17

No doubt we will go for the cheapest option and that is not the preferred buy of C130J and C17

Ex-RSAF C130Es:mad:

'S' for Saudi?

Believe so!:ok:

Well, that means that they've probably mean maintained on a cost-no-object basis by Lock-Mart contractors, and aren't likely to have been flogged to death (things do get flogged in Saudi, but I can't see the Herc fleet being one of them).

But another mini-fleet? Option C for common sense...... please..... (6 to 12 more C-17s and another dozen Js would be a good start!)

S41

C-130's
 

I also heard a rummer last week that 5 c-130 J's had been purchased straight from the production line to replace the K's. However the Herk bloke i heard it from said it might take upto 2 years for the Gucci, easy to use floor, to be cleared for use!!!!:ok:

Why dont they just sign it off using the US clearances a la C-17? Surely most of the kit we throw out the back is American spec anyway?

Why not just us US clearances?
 

If only that were the case for Tac AT. The Type V was a good case in point.

Will these 5 C130Js with the US spec freight bay be able to drop all the boats that the C130K/C130J can at present?

Does the C-130K life extension involve the Delaware wings, seems mighty expensive if so?

You mean before or after they bastardised the floor with the dash 4, ripped out the underfloor winch an flip floor and then decided to use quinetiq to complete the trials clearance as opposed to taking on face value the trials the US had, fully signed up?

Want to hazard a guess as to how many American spec chutes the UK could have bought with the savings found by not pushing the J through Qinetiq trials and took the aircraft with US clearances?

Not sure, but believed to include new avionics upgrade as well as wing replacement for all 9 remaining C130K Mk1/3Aa.:ok:

Probably still cheaper than replacing all 16 Bde's vehicles with American vehicles that are designed to take the landing shock that an American platorm will deliver.

But agree that we ruined a good cargo compartment for no sensible reason.

Actually vin if you did indeed know your stuff you would be aware that the 4a was a retro fit as the air force ordered the j with just a flat floor and wanted to adapt the old skydel which turned out to be far too difficult and time consuming. You can knock qinetiq all you like but they werent even around when the floor got cleared for most things and if you want to take lockgreeds word for anything you are a fool :ugh:

Which just demonstrates the utter ludditery that plagues the AT fleet.

And if that were true, it too would also demonstrate how far the RAF AT world had managed to get it's head up it's own arse :rolleyes:

If they really were worried about a gap in AT capability (this is INTRA-theatre AT we're talking about here, not big, Brize stuff) then they couldn't go far wrong binning the bulk of the K fleet that's left and tipping the resources and manpower freed up in generating more Js onto the flightline every day. The amount of time, effort and resources that are poured into keeping the K fleet going is wholly disproportionate to the airlift effect that is returned.

That said, this is Lyneham we're talking about and nothing makes much sense here anyway :ok:

Haven't some K's recieved some sort of recent cockpit upgrade anyway, fully glassified?

Well, most of the crew have Iphones if that counts....

Unless you define "glassify" as the clinking of Kio brandy bottles on the way back from AKI.... :E


Sorry, not knocking anyone . I just think it ludicrous that we think we can do better time and time again, instead of just going fully COTS trials clearances and all. Why was a full flight test regime necessary to re-clear an aircraft that already had US clearances? Not knocking of ANY of those involved in the tests, I just think in a world that is focussed on delivering a product that functions in a cost-efficient manner. I don't see how a full flight test regime is compatible with cost-effectiveness.

Must be the i-HUD app then...:}