Useful

**hamster_man** · 31-03-2009, 09:41

"Of course, when we initially put our money into A400M the situation was different wasn't it?

But then when we entered the A400M project we weren't in Afghanistan for a 30 year campaign were we?"

But as I recall working in the big building many years ago (10 years) all our scenarios included overseas areas not entirely dissimilar to Afghanistan - as in they were not in Europe! I seem to remember that we were preferred the option of a mix of C17 and C130 type aircraft. I spent ages trying to get people to agree that we needed a heavy airlift aircraft to move such stuff as Chinook et al. FRES/A400m was a distraction sadly. The bottom line was - do you buy an aircraft off the shelf - C17 - which is proven and can meet our requirements to move "big stuff" quickly or get to bed with the Europeans to develop and purchase an aircraft that was "sub optimal" (in my eyes)?

For political reasons we went sub optimal - but if that is the case then more money should have been allocated by the Treasury - to make up for the shortfall of funds and to make allowance for the fact that you will have to buy in capability when the programme overruns (what one doesn't?).

European Defence = More Expensive, therefore more money needs to be allocated by the government to meet their political aspirations no matter how "barking".

Given subsequent deployments in the Middle East Region then a review of requirements should have been undertaken and funds reallocated to support what are becoming enduring operations.

The arguments about engines etc are relevant but cloud the issue. And don't even start me on the stupid battle we had to avoid having An 124s as an option over C17. Luckily that option was thrown out after problems with their (AN 124) availability deployment during Kosovo.

Having now recently retired it is sad to see the frustrations we had all those years ago have not yet been resolved. And don't even start to talk about the farce that is FSTA!

To those involved today - Good Luck and hopefully our "Adults" will fight the right fight!

**hamster_man** · 31-03-2009, 09:49

Oh and by the way. FRES was never "do able" because of the large amount of aircraft of any type to deploy and sustain any meduim weight (plus) formation purely by air. Even if we bought all the A400m that we were predicted to - we would have still struggled - given the fact that force protection issues - up armouring - would create a weight burden and what about all the bits and workshops required to keep everything on the road?

I suspect only the US and India could do it - India because of the large amount of An 124s and IL 76s they have. Their deployment of the UN Force into Sierra leone springs to mind.

FRES wasn't fully thought through and those of us who questioned it didn't help our careers much!

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 31-03-2009, 10:18

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

In fact, the only customer who has a problem is the UK. We desperately need airlift and losing the A400 kicks out the central plank of our strategy. I look forward to the usual suspects telling us how we can't put alternatives in place quickly as it's all too difficult, they work very hard and it's not as if there's a war on after all.

Ring up Boeing and order a dozen C-17'sâ€¦ not much more expensive than an A400M, far more capability and will be delivered quickly and 100% to spec.

Current export cost of a C-17 - USD$220

Current (and you can bet it will rise) cost of an A400M - USD$190

IMO, it's a no brainer.

**instinct** · 31-03-2009, 10:22

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

In fact, the only customer who has a problem is the UK. We desperately need airlift and losing the A400 kicks out the central plank of our strategy. I look forward to the usual suspects telling us how we can't put alternatives in place quickly as it's all too difficult, they work very hard and it's not as if there's a war on after all.

Ring up Boeing and order a dozen C-17'sâ€¦ not much more expensive than an A400M, far more capability and will be delivered quickly and 100% to spec.

Current export cost of a C-17 - USD$220

Current (and you can bet it will rise) cost of an A400M - USD$190

IMO, it's a no brainer.

But C-17 does not fill the same role as A400.

**meridian** · 31-03-2009, 10:24

The fundamental problem we have is we need something now and something that has a similar tactical capability to a C130 and better volume than the same C130

C17 is not it
C130 is not it

Hence why the A400 was designed

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 31-03-2009, 10:30

Originally Posted by instinct

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

In fact, the only customer who has a problem is the UK. We desperately need airlift and losing the A400 kicks out the central plank of our strategy. I look forward to the usual suspects telling us how we can't put alternatives in place quickly as it's all too difficult, they work very hard and it's not as if there's a war on after all.

Ring up Boeing and order a dozen C-17'sâ€¦ not much more expensive than an A400M, far more capability and will be delivered quickly and 100% to spec.

Current export cost of a C-17 - USD$220

Current (and you can bet it will rise) cost of an A400M - USD$190

IMO, it's a no brainer.

But C-17 does not fill the same role as A400.

Correct, it does it betterâ€¦

**hamster_man** · 31-03-2009, 10:41

Sorry, am I missing something here? We something between C130 and C17? Why? C17 can do pretty much all we want with a mix of C130. I know I did the maths! And boy that was dull!

A400m could be useful, but all it has done is absorb much staff effort and money and the end result is no aircraft.

Forget FRES - back to basics chaps!! Anyway, I am wasting my time now - remember Patton's great quote:

"Perfection is enemy of the best".

PS. To Mr Brown - stop playing European Politics with our procurement system. Buy the kit we need now to support current operations - Tristar/VC10 replacement, more strategic lift - C17s and more heavy lift helicopters - chinook. Stop messing around. Oh and get rid of Eurofighter (Typhoon). Admit we got that one seriously wrong. We are fighting a war - after all, or has someone forgotten that?

**meridian** · 31-03-2009, 10:50

Sorry but that is simply not the case

Yes the C17 can do rough filed take offs and landings and it has been done before but it is a LAST RESORT option that cannot be repeated very often because the weight and ground pressure combine to chew the surface up after a very small number of cycles.

The C17 requires a very long runway as well, more so in rough areas and it knackers the thing up big style.

Hence why the vast majority of C17's flights use concrete runways

Everyone has recognised the need for something in between the C17 and C130, hence the C130XL proposal from Lockheed Martin and the C17B proposal from Boeing.

The A400 will fit this area quite neatly if it ever gets there, I guess the question is whether LM or Boeing could get there quicker than Airbus

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 31-03-2009, 10:50

Originally Posted by hamster_man

Sorry, am I missing something here? We something between C130 and C17? Why? C17 can do pretty much all we want with a mix of C130. I know I did the maths! And boy that was dull!

A400m could be useful, but all it has done is absorb much staff effort and money and the end result is no aircraft.

Forget FRES - back to basics chaps!! Anyway, I am wasting my time now - remember Patton's great quote:

"Perfection is enemy of the best".

PS. To Mr Brown - stop playing European Politics with our procurement system. Buy the kit we need now to support current operations - Tristar/VC10 replacement, more strategic lift - C17s and more heavy lift helicopters - chinook. Stop messing around. Oh and get rid of Eurofighter (Typhoon). Admit we got that one seriously wrong. We are fighting a war - after all, or has someone forgotten that?

Indeedâ€¦

I always got the feeling that AIRBUS sat down and said to themselves; OK, C-17 had the big lift market sown up, C-130 has the restâ€¦ I know! Lets design something that sits in the middle!

Result? It's neither fish nor fowl, a plane designed for a marketing niche, rather than an actual military need.

You can drive a Challenger II into a C-17 and take off, good luck trying that with the now just as expensive A400M.