A400m New strategic and tactical airlifter for the RAF
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Are there any Belfasts still knocking about?
No.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Belfast
mph1977 said:
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 ?
1000 miles less range, there or thereabouts, from what I can find. Also slower and quite a bit smaller. I honestly would not be surprised if we don't buy any more of these than this first tranche, which would have been to secure work for Airbus in the UK. Now that production is embedded here I doubt there will be any move from Airbus to offshore it. Unfortunately defence spending is as much about politics as it is about capability and value - the new Apache helicopters are another example of this.
davepoth said:
mph1977 said:
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 ?
1000 miles less range, there or thereabouts, from what I can find. Also slower and quite a bit smaller. I honestly would not be surprised if we don't buy any more of these than this first tranche, which would have been to secure work for Airbus in the UK. Now that production is embedded here I doubt there will be any move from Airbus to offshore it. Unfortunately defence spending is as much about politics as it is about capability and value - the new Apache helicopters are another example of this.
A problem for the C130 is that the Army have just ordered their replacement for the 12 tonne Scimitar recon vehicle. The 34+ tonne Scout SV.
This seems to have been one of the reasons given for the A400m, unfortunately Scout SV has come in even heavier than planned and it's possible that the A400m can't carry it unless it unless the Scout is stripped down.
This seems to have been one of the reasons given for the A400m, unfortunately Scout SV has come in even heavier than planned and it's possible that the A400m can't carry it unless it unless the Scout is stripped down.
maffski said:
A problem for the C130 is that the Army have just ordered their replacement for the 12 tonne Scimitar recon vehicle. The 34+ tonne Scout SV.
This seems to have been one of the reasons given for the A400m, unfortunately Scout SV has come in even heavier than planned and it's possible that the A400m can't carry it unless it unless the Scout is stripped down.
7.8 Tonnes /pedant.This seems to have been one of the reasons given for the A400m, unfortunately Scout SV has come in even heavier than planned and it's possible that the A400m can't carry it unless it unless the Scout is stripped down.
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 f
king eejits we bought into the European dream.
That's what you get when you let Politicians and non AT operaters decide policy.
I'm minded to agree with you but it shouldn't cost more; the aircraft itself costs half that of a C17 but as ever, the way in which it was bought and maintained is costing a fortune in the short-to-medium term. 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 f
king 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
There are something like 15 C17s left to sell and I think NZ will end up with one or two and there are more to go to other foreign customers.
Either way the C17 and C130 are superb at their respective roles and I am a long way from being convinced that A400M can come close to filling the shoes of a C130 in the Tactical role. It doesn't come close to competing with the C17's strategic capability.
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.
ISTR that there was a proposal for us to buy some C5s back in the 1980s or 90s albeit fitted with RB211s IIRC. Should we have done that in hindsight?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 f
king 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
Eric Mc said:
You know what happens when the UK buys a supposedly "off the shelf" design from the US. The aircraft has to be modified and amended so much to meet UK needs that you might as well have initiated a brand new project.
Most of that is political surely. If the USAF can operate US std Phantoms F111s A10s KC135s and F15s in the UK without problems, and the RAF can use F4Js alongside the Spey engined variety, it can't be all that difficult.Fonz said:
So why can't we design and build our own aircraft then? Is it because successive Gvt's got rid of our ability to make things... 
Simply put scale - the development cost of modern aircraft are so great that even the US struggle these days. The biggest issue the post-war British aircraft industry had was too many small companies producing far too many designs, none of which were capable of mass production on an economic scale. Boeing and Airbus have global supply chains and break even points measured in the hundreds of airframes sold.Today the UK aerospace industry is thriving through specialisation at the cutting edge. A quarter of the world's commercial communications satellites are built here as are 40% of the world's small satellites. Take Reaction Engines for example: a lot of attention goes to their Skylon concept but the product they're developing isn't Skylon; it's the SABRE engine itself and the technologies they developed to make it a reality. They won't make airframes themselves - instead they'll let a major airframe manufacturer (a Boeing/Airbus/Ariane etc) do that while supplying the engines required. The reasoning is simple: the potential market for Skylons is relatively small with increasingly squeezed margins as access to space increasingly becomes a commodity. But the engine itself and the spin-off technologies will offer high margins for years to come.
Eric Mc said:
You know what happens when the UK buys a supposedly "off the shelf" design from the US. The aircraft has to be modified and amended so much to meet UK needs that you might as well have initiated a brand new project.
The UK C17s are maintained to the same spec as the US's and other foreign customers; they have to be in order to benefit from Boeing's global support package. Not so much a problem for a strat lifter. Fonz said:
So why can't we design and build our own aircraft then? Is it because successive Gvt's got rid of our ability to make things...
economies of scale we can and do design and build our own aircraft or has the Hawk T2 passed you by completely ... ( ok not completely new but a substantial redesign ) ditto with the Lynx Wildcat ...Red555 said:
The UK C17s are maintained to the same spec as the US's and other foreign customers; they have to be in order to benefit from Boeing's global support package. Not so much a problem for a strat lifter.
I think the only reason they got away with that is that the C-17 came to the RAF on lease as a "stopgap" until the A400m turned up. According to Wikipedia, prior to that there was a tender for strategic airlift, which did include a joint BAe/Boeing C-17 bid, but that came out as too expensive.Strikes me as a very clever bit of manoeuvring by the RAF to get round the inevitable nightmare of having BAe "improve" the C-17.
davepoth said:
Strikes me as a very clever bit of manoeuvring by the RAF to get round the inevitable nightmare of having BAe "improve" the C-17.
Indeed.Many times the RAF has put forward requirements only for them to be overturned by the MOD and BAe as not being whyat the RAF really needs.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff