A400M - 'Euro-w*nking makework project'?
Discussion
paddyhasneeds said:
What pickle...?Assuming you ignore the diatrible of inaccuracies in that article of course..?
Not a fantastic article really.
I don't believe the C-17 will be as flexible as the A400M in getting into unprepared strips. We are getting a 7th C-17 and a rumour of an 8th. Some of the early ones are going for upgrades. I have read that some are starting to get problems you wouldn't normally expect at their age due to contast use.
The A400M is running over budget and has encountered problems and delays. We are getting them to replace our
C-130's that are also racking up the hours.
The A400M will be quite a useful piece of kit and will have a better load capacity than the C-130 it replaces.
I'm not sure what all this interoperatablilty stuff is about, surely a transport plane is a transport plane. Germany, France and Spain are all going for the A400M.
The thing that will stop the A400M is if countries back out of their purchases and/or there are not enough orders for them.
I don't believe the C-17 will be as flexible as the A400M in getting into unprepared strips. We are getting a 7th C-17 and a rumour of an 8th. Some of the early ones are going for upgrades. I have read that some are starting to get problems you wouldn't normally expect at their age due to contast use.
The A400M is running over budget and has encountered problems and delays. We are getting them to replace our
C-130's that are also racking up the hours.
The A400M will be quite a useful piece of kit and will have a better load capacity than the C-130 it replaces.
I'm not sure what all this interoperatablilty stuff is about, surely a transport plane is a transport plane. Germany, France and Spain are all going for the A400M.
The thing that will stop the A400M is if countries back out of their purchases and/or there are not enough orders for them.
paddyhasneeds said:
Excellent - yet another piece of quality journalism by ex Lt Page..... anonymous said:
[redacted]
C 130J - Payload 42,000 lb ; for C-130J-30: 44,000 lb - unit cost US$62 millionA400M - Payload 64,000 lb tons ( down from the original specified 71,000 lb due to weight problems ) unit cost approx. US$186 million
ouch.
If you weren't a partner country surely you'd be buying C-130Js and C-17s ?
Edited by el stovey on Sunday 21st November 21:59
But for $180 mill you could buy a C17 which would lift much more again - like
170,900Â lb
And be proven, and is available today, and is supported by the US - is the people we usually fight with.
170,900Â lb
And be proven, and is available today, and is supported by the US - is the people we usually fight with.
Edited by fadeaway on Sunday 21st November 22:53
Edited by fadeaway on Sunday 21st November 23:01
fadeaway said:
But for $180 mill you could buy a C17 which would lift much more again - like
170,900Â lb
And be proven, and is available today, and is supported by the US - is the people we usually fight with.
C-17 is stat lift and C-130J is tac lift.170,900Â lb
And be proven, and is available today, and is supported by the US - is the people we usually fight with.
We are buying A400M to replace our wearing out C-130 tac fleet. More C-17 instead of A400 isn't an option as what are you going to use for tac lift when the 130's have fallen apart...?
Also, us buying into the A400M project was because of the FRES lift requirement which C-130 wasn't dimensionally able to accomodate.
As it happens it now appears FRES may have been abondonned.....well there's certainley no mention of it in the new SDR? so yes, we could order more cheaper new C-130J's instead of A400M's, but it's a bit late in the day for that now.
Ian Lancs said:
paddyhasneeds said:
Excellent - yet another piece of quality journalism by ex Lt Page..... He should write for Jackonory given the amount of inventive fictional storytelling the man writes ......
The real Apache said:
What about the C130Js? are these not on an extended life?
The C130 suffers from fatigue to the wing shoulder joints (around the position of the Aux tanks). This was addressed on the C130H model with an upgrade to the joint but it doesn't fully cure the problem - merely delays it.The upgrade was fitted to the C130K (the RAF's C1 and C3 models) in the late 1980's after some 20 years in service, the problem having been managed effectively through use of the Ext tanks to provide wing bending relief on the longer range (high fuel load) sorties or high Zero Fuel Weight sorties.
When the C130J came into service, it too had the upgrade, however it was decided that a fleet of 30 a/c could do the job of the 60 odd C130Ks. Leaving aside the J Model's problems with Air-Drop, it has now been in service for 10 years and is already suffering problems with the wing shoulder joints owing to the excessive (unplanned) amount of flying hours accrued with Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not having flown the J model I can't say say how the fuel system compares with the earlier models, but they certainly don't have the Ext tanks so it may also be that wing bending relief has also been a player.
So it seems our Lords and Masters got it wrong again (No surprise there then) and 30 Js could not do the job of 60 Ks.
Personally I think A400M is a bit of a white elephant - it's unproven, too little too late, and hugely over run in cost to the point where Airbus are effectively holding the various buyers to ransom having threatened to cancel the project if Governments didn't pay more for it.
Given that we have 45 years worth of experience with the best Tac Airlifter in the world (and we'd throw all that away and have to re-learn it all with A400M), I think we'd be better off purchasing another 30 Hercs and leasing another handful of C17s.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Monday 22 November 12:46
aeropilot said:
Ian Lancs said:
paddyhasneeds said:
Excellent - yet another piece of quality journalism by ex Lt Page..... He should write for Jackonory given the amount of inventive fictional storytelling the man writes ......
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The real Apache said:
What about the C130Js? are these not on an extended life?
The C130 suffers from fatigue to the wing shoulder joints (around the position of the Aux tanks). This was addressed on the C130H model with an upgrade to the joint but it doesn't fully cure the problem - merely delays it.The upgrade was fitted to the C130K (the RAF's C1 and C3 models) in the late 1980's after some 20 years in service, the problem having been managed effectively through use of the Ext tanks to provide wing bending relief on the longer range (high fuel load) sorties or high Zero Fuel Weight sorties.
When the C130J came into service, it too had the upgrade, however it was decided that a fleet of 30 a/c could do the job of the 60 odd C130Ks. Leaving aside the J Model's problems with Air-Drop, it has now been in service for 10 years and is already suffering problems with the wing shoulder joints owing to the excessive (unplanned) amount of flying hours accrued with Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not having flown the J model I can't say say how the fuel system compares with the earlier models, but they certainly don't have the Ext tanks so it may also be that wing bending relief has also been a player.
So it seems our Lords and Masters got it wrong again (No surprise there then) and 30 Js could not do the job of 60 Ks.
Personally I think A400M is a bit of a white elephant - it's unproven, too little too late, and hugely over run in cost to the point where Airbus are effectively holding the various buyers to ransom having threatened to cancel the project if Governments didn't pay more for it.
Given that we have 45 years worth of experience with the best Tac Airlifter in the world (and we'd throw all that away and have to re-learn it all with A400M), I think we'd be better off purchasing another 30 Hercs and leasing another handful of C17s.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Monday 22 November 12:46
will not only be a quantum leap forwards in capacity in terms of performance it is streets ahead.However despite the DAC fit issues I can't find if it has wing/fuel tank inerting. Bloody should have, from day 1.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photo...
Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 22 November 14:50
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The real Apache said:
What about the C130Js? are these not on an extended life?
The C130 suffers from fatigue to the wing shoulder joints (around the position of the Aux tanks). This was addressed on the C130H model with an upgrade to the joint but it doesn't fully cure the problem - merely delays it.The upgrade was fitted to the C130K (the RAF's C1 and C3 models) in the late 1980's after some 20 years in service, the problem having been managed effectively through use of the Ext tanks to provide wing bending relief on the longer range (high fuel load) sorties or high Zero Fuel Weight sorties.
When the C130J came into service, it too had the upgrade, however it was decided that a fleet of 30 a/c could do the job of the 60 odd C130Ks. Leaving aside the J Model's problems with Air-Drop, it has now been in service for 10 years and is already suffering problems with the wing shoulder joints owing to the excessive (unplanned) amount of flying hours accrued with Ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not having flown the J model I can't say say how the fuel system compares with the earlier models, but they certainly don't have the Ext tanks so it may also be that wing bending relief has also been a player.
So it seems our Lords and Masters got it wrong again (No surprise there then) and 30 Js could not do the job of 60 Ks.
Personally I think A400M is a bit of a white elephant - it's unproven, too little too late, and hugely over run in cost to the point where Airbus are effectively holding the various buyers to ransom having threatened to cancel the project if Governments didn't pay more for it.
Given that we have 45 years worth of experience with the best Tac Airlifter in the world (and we'd throw all that away and have to re-learn it all with A400M), I think we'd be better off purchasing another 30 Hercs and leasing another handful of C17s.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Given that we have 45 years worth of experience with the best Tac Airlifter in the world (and we'd throw all that away and have to re-learn it all with A400M), I think we'd be better off purchasing another 30 Hercs and leasing another handful of C17s.
Except that as great as an Albert is........ it was designed to lift what the US Army had in it's inventory in 1953....and a lot of this new generation armoured mobility kit that's been brought into US/UK service as a means of troop protection simply won't fit in an Albert.Yes, the political/contractural shenanigans over A400M isn't desirable, but there's no other tac alternative to it on offer.
The big issue is whether it can be in service in the numbers to be bought BEFORE the J fleet is fatique-ex'd....??
And I believe as of a few days ago, there a possiblity that we might aquire a 8th C-17...?
Edited by aeropilot on Monday 22 November 13:10
I just don't see the point of A400M, especially in terms of long term costs vs performance vs efficiency.
While I accept it has an increase in capability over C130, is that really needed and, more to the point, will that capability actually be used efficiently? I would say, given what we've historically done with AT, no.
My point being is that there are far better Strat Airlifters about (C17). So if we reduce/limit C17 to buy A400M we would be effectively reducing capability and using A400M in the Strat role (in much the way we did with C130 for so many years), as well as the Tac role.
Turning to the Tac AT side of things, do we actually need an a/c of the size of A400M for 'Hub and Spoke' Ops when C130 has been proven perfectly capable? Evidence from things like GW1, Somalia, Bosnia, says not.
Finally, we've already seen that a reduction in the AT fleet size has neither brought an increase in efficiency/capability nor any overall savings in costs vs performance. As I touched upon earlier, 30 C130Js have not been able to take on the work of 60 C130Ks (despite the fact that the J is more fuel efficient, faster, and longer ranged) - we've merely worn them out quicker because we've put more flying hours on fewer airframes. C130K entered service in 1966, so a 35 year life before the J went operational, yes I am aware that the K was kept in service after the introduction of the J for various reasons (not least the Air Drop role). So in fact an Operational service of nearer 45 years, while the J model is getting tired after a mere 10 years.
Given the intensity of AT Ops and the fact that we are committed to them for at least another 4 years (and I'll believe that when I see it despite CMD's assertions that we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014), given that we seem to want to be a world player (which predicates a high useage of AT), it doesn't seem sensible to me to reduce the AT fleet further (to 25 airframes) despite the increase in payload per airframe, because it reduces our long term flexibility since we will merely wear the a/c out faster.
In other words, we will go down the well trodden path of the MOD saving today to spend more tomorrow - every SDSR that I can remember, right back to John Nott binning the RN's fleet, has been a case of short term savings for long term spend. I fear A400M will be yet another example of this.
While I accept it has an increase in capability over C130, is that really needed and, more to the point, will that capability actually be used efficiently? I would say, given what we've historically done with AT, no.
My point being is that there are far better Strat Airlifters about (C17). So if we reduce/limit C17 to buy A400M we would be effectively reducing capability and using A400M in the Strat role (in much the way we did with C130 for so many years), as well as the Tac role.
Turning to the Tac AT side of things, do we actually need an a/c of the size of A400M for 'Hub and Spoke' Ops when C130 has been proven perfectly capable? Evidence from things like GW1, Somalia, Bosnia, says not.
Finally, we've already seen that a reduction in the AT fleet size has neither brought an increase in efficiency/capability nor any overall savings in costs vs performance. As I touched upon earlier, 30 C130Js have not been able to take on the work of 60 C130Ks (despite the fact that the J is more fuel efficient, faster, and longer ranged) - we've merely worn them out quicker because we've put more flying hours on fewer airframes. C130K entered service in 1966, so a 35 year life before the J went operational, yes I am aware that the K was kept in service after the introduction of the J for various reasons (not least the Air Drop role). So in fact an Operational service of nearer 45 years, while the J model is getting tired after a mere 10 years.
Given the intensity of AT Ops and the fact that we are committed to them for at least another 4 years (and I'll believe that when I see it despite CMD's assertions that we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014), given that we seem to want to be a world player (which predicates a high useage of AT), it doesn't seem sensible to me to reduce the AT fleet further (to 25 airframes) despite the increase in payload per airframe, because it reduces our long term flexibility since we will merely wear the a/c out faster.
In other words, we will go down the well trodden path of the MOD saving today to spend more tomorrow - every SDSR that I can remember, right back to John Nott binning the RN's fleet, has been a case of short term savings for long term spend. I fear A400M will be yet another example of this.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
While I accept it has an increase in capability over C130, is that really needed
Well it is if you can't physically fit the stuff into a J that you need to lift..... given the 17 has limited Tac ability.....?I agree that the SDSR proposed AT fleet numbers of 25 x A400M and 7 (maybe 8) x C-17 is still woefully short of what's required.
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Ian Lancs said:
paddyhasneeds said:
Excellent - yet another piece of quality journalism by ex Lt Page..... He should write for Jackonory given the amount of inventive fictional storytelling the man writes ......
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Not having flown the J model I can't say say how the fuel system compares with the earlier models, but they certainly don't have the Ext tanks so it may also be that wing bending relief has also been a player.
The fuel system is the same as the 'H' models and the outer wings come plumbed for inboard and outboard external tanks. I assume 'K' external tanks will fit at the inboard point, but as far as I'm aware the RAF has never fitted anything to the outboard hard points (Apart from on snoopy).Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff