A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF

[AlexIT]

maffski said:

Right back at ya, I thought it was that obvious a would be insulting...

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

Most brand new aircraft have to go through quite extensive acceptance trials before they are ready for operational use. I'm not sure where the A400M is regarding these trials as far as RAF service is concerned.

I realize that Eric, my point is, that according to people who claim to know, and I realize they may know nothing, the aircraft went tech after 1 flight.
Surely, if the aircraft needs to go for trials, these trials involve it actually getting off the ground once in a while?

[eccles]

onyx39 said:

Eric Mc said:

Most brand new aircraft have to go through quite extensive acceptance trials before they are ready for operational use. I'm not sure where the A400M is regarding these trials as far as RAF service is concerned.

I realize that Eric, my point is, that according to people who claim to know, and I realize they may know nothing, the aircraft went tech after 1 flight.
Surely, if the aircraft needs to go for trials, these trials involve it actually getting off the ground once in a while?

Was this aircraft even scheduled to fly? Or is it just spotters moaning about making a wasted trip?


Delays are nothing new or unusual. The C130J had 2 sets of serviceable engines for the whole fleet as they were being delivered. Most of them spent many months on the ground with ballast in the cargo bay and no engines fitted.Then when they went into service, the couldn't chuck soldiers out the side doors due to the new aerodynamics, not to mention other teething snags that took a while to sort out. Bear in mind this was essentially a tart up of an old design, not a completely new one.
The A400m seems to suffering from B787 syndrome where the smallest fault is a major disaster.

[Eric Mc]

There are those out there who want to wish "bad things" as a matter of course.

There are far too many nay-sayers around these days venting their negativity and general moaniness. The internet has a lot to answer for.

[onyx39]

The size of the RAF fleet will be doubling in the next 15 minutes

[tuffer]

Any idea when one might put in an appearance at Boscombe?

[RWD cossie wil]

Eric Mc said:

There are those out there who want to wish "bad things" as a matter of course.

There are far too many nay-sayers around these days venting their negativity and general moaniness. The internet has a lot to answer for.

You should hear the amount of old farts ( mainly bitter old aircrew who had failed enough flying training to be posted onto multi engine fleet ) moaning about how the new A330 tanker fleet is a waste of money & how the deathstars were so much better

Edited by RWD cossie wil on Saturday 28th February 03:04

[mph1977]

RWD cossie wil said:

Eric Mc said:

There are those out there who want to wish "bad things" as a matter of course.

There are far too many nay-sayers around these days venting their negativity and general moaniness. The internet has a lot to answer for.

You should hear the amount of old farts ( mainly bitter old aircrew who had failed enough flying training to be posted onto multi engine fleet ) moaning about how the new A330 tanker fleet is a waste of money & how the deathstars were so much better

Edited by RWD cossie wil on Saturday 28th February 03:04

god forbid the tanking fleet not operate someone's cast offs ( whether that's Bommber command's cast offs or airline cast offs )

[tuffer]

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, just flew right over my house en-route into Boscombe, awesome view from my desk. Hopefully it will do some circuits.

[tuffer]

Just managed to snap this as it came by on a second pass, I was on a conf call so heard it a bit late (I am also having a new staircase fitted so cannot run upstairs to get a shot from the bedroom).

[Russ35]

Just had one doing a few passes over Blackpool Airport. Only problem is it was almost overhead each time it went over, so didn't get to see a side view, and when I finally got the camera out ready for when it came back after turning over the Irish Sea it just headed South

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Absolutely the wrong a/c for absolutely the wrong price for the wrong job.

It is less capable in the Strat role than C17, less capable in the Tac role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tac role than C130.

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Unfortunately we can't because a. The Spams have wound up C17 production. b. Being fking eejits we bought into the European dream.

That's what you get when you let Politicians and non AT operaters decide policy.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 29th April 22:18

[uncinqsix]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

costs more than C17

I was under the impression that the A400M was a bit cheaper to both buy and run than the C17, but I suppose it depends hugely on who's making the deal with who. There's a bit of a debate here in NZ at the moment about what to replace our C130s (which are getting on for 50 years old now) and 757s with. It's looking like the C17 will be too expensive, so we'd be lucky to be able to afford 2 of them, and they'd be too big for a lot of the tactical stuff they'd be needed for. C130s are too small to lug the NH90 helicopters around, and don't quite have the range to get to Antarctica and fly home again without landing (e.g when the weather packs in). Neither would work by itself.

So it would either need to be a mixed fleet of C17s and C130Js, with too few of either to cover for maintenance etc, or something like the A400M, which would probably do everything well enough to work as a single type fleet, but not as well as the C17/C130 combo.

Would be interesting to hear G15's thoughts on our little conundrum...

[andy97]

uncinqsix said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

costs more than C17

I was under the impression that the A400M was a bit cheaper to both buy and run than the C17, but I suppose it depends hugely on who's making the deal with who. There's a bit of a debate here in NZ at the moment about what to replace our C130s (which are getting on for 50 years old now) and 757s with. It's looking like the C17 will be too expensive, so we'd be lucky to be able to afford 2 of them, and they'd be too big for a lot of the tactical stuff they'd be needed for. C130s are too small to lug the NH90 helicopters around, and don't quite have the range to get to Antarctica and fly home again without landing (e.g when the weather packs in). Neither would work by itself.

So it would either need to be a mixed fleet of C17s and C130Js, with too few of either to cover for maintenance etc, or something like the A400M, which would probably do everything well enough to work as a single type fleet, but not as well as the C17/C130 combo.

Would be interesting to hear G15's thoughts on our little conundrum...

You may not have much of a choice. As G15 said, the c17 production factory closes in a few weeks. Unless the US will sell you some of their existing ones?

[uncinqsix]

andy97 said:

You may not have much of a choice. As G15 said, the c17 production factory closes in a few weeks. Unless the US will sell you some of their existing ones?

There are apparently a few new-builds left, but not many. But then again we can't afford many...

[DMN]

The highly repsected ThinkDefence site sums up why A400m is the answer:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a...

But then they've always been biased:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/02/are-we-the-o...

[b14]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Absolutely the wrong a/c for absolutely the wrong price for the wrong job.

It is less capable in the Strat role than C17, less capable in the Tac role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tac role than C130.

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Unfortunately we can't because a. The Spams have wound up C17 production. b. Being fking eejits we bought into the European dream.

That's what you get when you let Politicians and non AT operaters decide policy.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 29th April 22:18

Slightly outspoken ex C-130 driver in biased non-shocker.

ONLY JOKING!!!

[onyx39]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

It is less capable in the Strat role than C17, less capable in the Tac role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tac role than C130.

But apart from that.. what's wrong with it?

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Unfortunately we can't because a. The Spams have wound up C17 production. b. Being fking eejits we bought into the European dream.

Surely we had no choice then? You cannot buy something which no-one is prepared to sell you?
(also) Why would you wind up production on something people still want to buy?

[Dr Jekyll]

Are there any Belfasts still knocking about?

[mph1977]

b14 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Absolutely the wrong a/c for absolutely the wrong price for the wrong job.

It is less capable in the Strat role than C17, less capable in the Tac role than C17, costs more than C17 and is less capable in the Tac role than C130.

What we should have done is bought more C17s and more C130s.

Unfortunately we can't because a. The Spams have wound up C17 production. b. Being fking eejits we bought into the European dream.

That's what you get when you let Politicians and non AT operaters decide policy.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 29th April 22:18

Slightly outspoken ex C-130 driver in biased non-shocker.

ONLY JOKING!!!

and neglects that the C17 acquisition was initially a lease to cover the capacity needs while wating for the A400M ... but the true strategic capacity of the C17 won the powers that be over - could A400M do a CCAST mission from somewhere like Afghanistan or sub saharan Africa without stopping off for a Kebab ?