Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400  
User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Since this is only loosely related to the current thread about the A400 potential to be canceled I will start a new one to see what opinions are on this topic.

At the same time that the European community has been developing the A400 to fill the needs that they have identified the Japanese have been developing the C-X to fill their need to replace C-130s and C-1s. This aircraft may also be put into the commercial market after the military contract is filled. Since Japan sees value in spending the public's money at home to develope an completely new aircraft for only 50+ military sales why hasn't this project received the same scrutiny and controversy.

From the few specs available the C-X looks about the same size as an A310 or 767-200. Why not just buy 50 new 767-200Fs from Boeing or new C-130Js from Lockheed?

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The JSDAF only has a few C-130Hs, and a total of 8 B-767-200ERs (four E-767Js and four KC-767Js). They do not use their B-767s for the airlift mission as they really do need a strategic airlifter much beyond what the new CX-2 (formerly the C-X) will provide.

The XC-2 can be a competitor to the A-400M, if the Japanese lift their restrictions on selling military weapons overseas. It also seems like it would be available sooner than the A-400M will, and has similar capabilities.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Japan has been very clear, and supported by their voters. They feel that they must maintain an in-house capability to design and build aircraft.

Their requirements to be allowed to license and build locally the P-3 and F-16 are examples. The original C-1 and now the C-X. They are also developing the XP-1 in the same manner.

Basically that does not create controversy because their reasoning is plain, understandable and not dressed up as something else.

I don't think the A400M would be controversial if the people involved did not pretend it was a private effort divorced from government support/ subsidies. The C-160 Transal wasn't controversial, the G.222 wasn't controversial - largely because they were clear programs to support military requirements.

I don't think the A400M is a big deal, except that the multiple government involvement in the company producing the aircraft makes it more difficult to deal with the unavoidable cost overruns.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2):
Their requirements to be allowed to license and build locally the P-3 and F-16 are examples.

I don't know how long the tradition goes back, but I was reading they also built their own F-4 Phantoms.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I don't see C-X as compatible to A400M, since the EADS product is mainly to fill a gap between the C-130J and the C-17.
C-130J just cannot carry many mission critical items of ground forces hardware, indeed some programmes for new vehicles have hit problems trying to squeeze in C-130J compatibility.

C-17 is hugely capable but has a price tag to match, for European NATO air arms sufficient numbers just could not be afforded within a balanced force structure.

The early gestation of C-17 had a lot of political problems, including the cost, that is it seems, conveniently forgotten.

As stated, the Japanese wish to maintain their aerospace capability, this does not seem to be a problem in the US since the very severe Japanese restrictions on exports mean their products will not compete with American ones, so while it is also true the the Europeans also wish to do the same with the A400M, they are competitors, hence the almost non stop critiscism of the programme from some in the US.
All the Europeans are doing, by a more roundabout way, with all the issues of doing it across a range of governments and industries, is just what the US has done for decades.

The C-160 was very much a product to in effect rebuild industrial capability in France and Germany, but it was never a real competitor to the C-130, as the Lockheed product sales success in most NATO nations showed, so I doubt if there was much fuss back then either.

Sometimes this Japanese policy had led to some curious examples, the F-2 combat aircraft being an obvious example, really a modified F-16, despite the JASDF wish for a twin engined type.
While sufficient numbers of their own jet trainers have been produced to make the effort worthwhile, that cannot be said for the F-2 which had major technical issues and associated cost overruns in development.

The C-1 was another curio, not entirely satisfactory as the later JASDF buy of C-130 showed.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2):
Their requirements to be allowed to license and build locally the P-3 and F-16 are examples.

I don't know how long the tradition goes back, but I was reading they also built their own F-4 Phantoms.

Correct, Japan built most of the F-4EJs, as well as F-15Js and way back to the F-104J.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
I don't see C-X as compatible to A400M, since the EADS product is mainly to fill a gap between the C-130J and the C-17.

Actually it does compete dirctly with the A-400M, it has a max payload of 37 tonnes , same as the A-400M, it has roughly the same sized cargo compartment, but is faster and has longer unrefueled rang at max payload at 5600 km (3480 nm). The A-400M has a max unrefueled range of 3298 km (1781 nm) at max payload weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-X


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
C-17 is hugely capable but has a price tag to match, for European NATO air arms sufficient numbers just could not be afforded within a balanced force structure.

And it seems A400M is ending up with a less than planned capability but a similarly huge price tag, granted, with the benefit of keeping the work at home.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
The early gestation of C-17 had a lot of political problems, including the cost, that is it seems, conveniently forgotten.

Not at all forgotten. That's why so many of us have warned about the gauntlet the A400M still has yet to run, whereas others seem to be in denial about this.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
All the Europeans are doing, by a more roundabout way, with all the issues of doing it across a range of governments and industries, is just what the US has done for decades.

Agreed, and via Nunn-Mccurdy provisions, we've learned to keep as tight a leash as possible on defense contractors. It seems A400M has grown from EUR 20B to EUR 31B. WIth Nunn-McCurdy, Congress would have been notified as soon as costs passed EUR 23B and could terminate with cause at EUR 25B. I don't know what the punishment for failure to report is, but I doubt any dare to, given that the scoundrels in the first KC767 tanker deal found themselves in jail This is what in the end stopped the madness on VH-71 and A-12. Note that if these programs could convince Congress that the cost increases were justified then Congress could have allowed them to proceed. It seems in the case of A400M, the PWC audit is saying EADS clearly knew they were blowing the budget but it seems they had no requirement to report this to anyone so they didn't, and the result is the A400M is flying and there's almost certainly no turning back now. I suppose some think that's a good thing, but to me it's highly debatable.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
And it seems A400M is ending up with a less than planned capability

Says who?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Actually it does compete dirctly with the A-400M, it has a max payload of 37 tonnes , same as the A-400M, it has roughly the same sized cargo compartment, but is faster and has longer unrefueled rang at max payload at 5600 km (3480 nm). The A-400M has a max unrefueled range of 3298 km (1781 nm) at max payload weight.

Wrong, the 37tons are not verified, from your self credible "source":

Quote:

The aircraft is being developed to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, notably, the payload requirement of 26 metric tons. Recent information from the Defense Clearance, however, suggests a payload of more than 30 metric tons, but the exact numbers are not revealed at this point.

Besides this, the C-X is much inferior in design,structures, systems(like selfdefence systems, terrain masking low-level flight (TMLLF) system,aircraft environment surveillance system (AESS ) etc....), and cannot fuel helicopters inflight and worse fuel efficiency.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Actually it does compete dirctly with the A-400M, it has a max payload of 37 tonnes , same as the A-400M, it has roughly the same sized cargo compartment, but is faster and has longer unrefueled rang at max payload at 5600 km (3480 nm). The A-400M has a max unrefueled range of 3298 km (1781 nm) at max payload weight.

Wrong, the 37tons are not verified, from your self credible "source":

That is what the JSDAF and Kawasaki says it will be.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Quote:

The aircraft is being developed to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, notably, the payload requirement of 26 metric tons. Recent information from the Defense Clearance, however, suggests a payload of more than 30 metric tons, but the exact numbers are not revealed at this point.

Besides this, the C-X is much inferior in design,structures, systems(like selfdefence systems, terrain masking low-level flight (TMLLF) system,aircraft environment surveillance system (AESS ) etc....), and cannot fuel helicopters inflight and worse fuel efficiency.

You know all of this, how? Self defense, TFR, and air refueling are all missions the XC-2 are capable of. You have no idea of the fuel efficency of the XC-2, as none of that information has been released. BTW, the A-400M has demostrated none of its promised capabilities, and the EU customers and EADS seem to disagree if it will ever be able to do them.

Please explain why the XC-2 design is inferior and has inferior structures when compared to the A-400M? The XC-2 is being developed as a 37 tonne airlifter, and with that payload, or any lesser payload, it is superior to the A-400M.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I think it's way too early to make claims about this new Japanese air-lifter, while noting the problems with A400M it seems that early testing is going well, but it's early days there too.

Anyway, Japan would not sell to NATO nations if they stick to their policy of not exporting military equipment to nations that will use them in combat, that rather rules them out too!

So I doubt if, regardless of it's performance, any C-X will be exported.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 32754 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
You know all of this, how? Self defense, TFR, and air refueling are all missions the XC-2 are capable of. You have no idea of the fuel efficency of the XC-2, as none of that information has been released.

Easy, the A400M features a modified DASS or Pretorian Defence System of the Eurofighter which is a world class defence system.

Quote:

The basic defensive aids subsystem, DASS, includes three systems: radar warning receiver, missile warning system (passive element) and expendables dispensing system. The suite can be upgraded with four additional systems: the laser warning receiver, directed energy countermeasures, towed radar decoy and missile warning system (active).

The DASS requires a defensive aids computer (DAC) for programming individual missions, including adapting and tuning the system to new threats. According to Airbus, this computer manages data communication, harmonizes threat warning data, coordinates countermeasures responses and manages radio frequency interoperability.

EADS Defense Electronics and Thales will provide the IR-based missile warning system-passive element, which detects the rocket plume of an approaching missile. It can automatically trigger the launch of decoys and, when required, provide alignment information to the IR countermeasures system to attack the missile seeker. An IR countermeasures system that can not just blind the seeker, but destroy it with a precisely aimed, high-energy laser shot.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
BTW, the A-400M has demonstrated none of its promised capabilities,

Neither has the C-2. But comparing the technological level you can get a picture.

Besides A400M program manger Tom Williams declared the main performance criteria aren't at any particular risk.

Quote:
The executive vice president of programs, Tom Williams, says the more he has been reviewing the program, the more certain he has become that "this is still going to be a bloody good airplane." The aircraft is beating its short-field performance and load targets.

However i agree that some capabilities(like Sarajevo Profile) will might not be possible to achieve.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Please explain why the XC-2 design is inferior and has inferior structures when compared to the A-400M?

Does the XC-2 feature a full CFRP Wing(including main spars), cargo door and tail-plane? Does it have a FBW Flight Envelope System, A380-derived avionics connected over the avionics full-duplex switched (AFDX) Ethernet network? (AFDX on the A400M runs at two speeds: 100-Mbits/s and 10-Mbits/s.

-The A400M features also three jamming resistant GADIRUS.
-The AESS radar provides standard turbulence and windshear detection, as well as ground mapping +integrated surveillance system.

-Tactical ground collision avoidance system (T-GCAS), which alerts the flight crew if a ground collision is imminent. T-GCAS uses the high-resolution digital terrain elevation database, navigation sources and aircraft configuration and performance data to determine the flight path required to avoid obstacles and terrain.

-Low Level Flight (500 ft) in IMC on autopilot;

-Automated CG calculation;

-Automated Defensive Aids Systems;

-Simple EMCOM switching;

-Automated Tanker and Receiver fuel control;


I could go on.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The XC-2 is being developed as a 37 tonne airlifter,

No, the MOD requirement is 26 metric tons. That it can go over it, is neither proven or verified.

And about fuel efficiency, do you really want compare the 1860 kg TP400 with the "old" 8,966 - 9,047 lb (4067 kg - 4104 kg) General Electric CF6-80C2?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 32742 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 7):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
And it seems A400M is ending up with a less than planned capability

Says who?

New York Times reporters in Berlin and Paris, quoting sources in the German defense ministry:

Quote:
The German defense ministry official said that range and payload, as well as cost, were still on the table. The A400M is currently several tons over its specified weight.

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/global/23airbus.html



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 32602 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
XC-2 design is inferior

So we are comparing Mercedes and Toyota. Truth is most people can live very well with Toyota (and Lexus) if you want a bit more  


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 32248 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
New York Times reporters in Berlin and Paris, quoting sources in the German defense ministry:

Well the Airbus Military boss thinks diffrent:

Quote:

Ureña denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," (see 787/A380)he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.

We can confirm that some of the key performance of the aircraft will be according to the specification, and some will be over the specification," says Ureña. "




“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9236 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 31828 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The XC-2 can be a competitor to the A-400M, if the Japanese lift their restrictions on selling military weapons overseas. It also seems like it would be available sooner than the A-400M will, and has similar capabilities.

I do not think they have similar capabilities at all.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Actually it does compete dirctly with the A-400M, it has a max payload of 37 tonnes , same as the A-400M, it has roughly the same sized cargo compartment, but is faster and has longer unrefueled rang at max payload at 5600 km (3480 nm). The A-400M has a max unrefueled range of 3298 km (1781 nm) at max payload weight.

I do not think that is accurate.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):

That is what the JSDAF and Kawasaki says it will be.

What the JSDAF has said is the payload will be about 3 times the Kawasaki C-1, people have just extrapolated from that, the Kawasaki C-1 is regarded as a 7900 kg payload machine.

Quote:
全幅:44.4m、全長:43.9m、全高:14.2m、
巡航速度:C-1の約1.1倍、巡航高度:C-1の約1.2倍、ペイロード:C-1の約3倍

Width: 44.4m, Overall length: 43.9m, height: 14.2m,
Cruising speed: C-1 about 1.1 times the cruising altitude: C-1 about 1.2 times, Payload: C-1 about 3 times

from http://www.epco.mod.go.jp/about/pdf/21lifecyclecost_houkokusyo.pdf



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSpudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 31733 times:



Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 12):

I know which one of those I would chose if things got sticky!!!! If the japs can build a military airlifter with the dependability of a Toyota or Honda then they've got another world beater on their hands. And I'm sure they will succeed.

Looking at all those nice to have tech advances listed above for the A400M above you begin to wonder, how many of those will be required for 98% of the the actual missions an airlifter will fly in the real world. I thought it was a Strategic Airlifter not an interdictor. The C-130's, IL-76's and C-17's seem to be hauling freight just fine without terrain following auto-pilot etc. It would probably be a hell of a lot cheaper to just send a SEADs figher escort with it if it needs self defence that badly. Hell you could send an A10, not too many guys going to take a pot shot at your beloved A400 with an A 10 flying shotgun.

There's a solution to your cost over runs, drop all the bullsh!t, build a cheap reliable workhorse (which will now exceed its lifting targets) and with the spare change saved on interest alone buy 10 A10's which can spend 99% of their time in storage as they weren't really required in the first place.

This smacks of a group getting together and picking every single nice to have option on the list and putting it into every single airframe. Reminds me of the urban legend about the US spending millions to develop an ink pen that would write in space when the Russian solution was "Hey Yuri, don't forget to pop into the shop to buy a few pencils before you take off, and remember the Commisar prefer 2B instead of 2H".

There's a reason Mercedes et al have an option list, if you built every single S-class, or E-Class with every single option then so few could afford it that the price would go up even higher so even fewer could afford it. Sound familiar?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 31525 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
You know all of this, how? Self defense, TFR, and air refueling are all missions the XC-2 are capable of. You have no idea of the fuel efficency of the XC-2, as none of that information has been released.

Easy, the A400M features a modified DASS or Pretorian Defence System of the Eurofighter which is a world class defence system.

DASS is a very good system, that does not mean, though it, or a system similar to that on the C-17 cannot be fitted, assuming the XC-2 does not have one (and we don't know that yet). My point here is we don't know what the JSDAF speced out for all the capabilities of the XC-2.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
Well the Airbus Military boss thinks diffrent:

Quote:

Ureña denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," (see 787/A380)he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.

We can confirm that some of the key performance of the aircraft will be according to the specification, and some will be over the specification," says Ureña. "

I find it difficult to believe the contracts do not specify any maximum payload number. Then he went on to say "I believe we can maintan our commitment on payload/range performance as in the original contract". So which statement is true? Both cannot be true.

Urena also said "We can confirm that some key performance of the aircraft will be according to the specification, and some will be over the specification". No doubt that could be true. I noticed he did not say that about all of the specs., though. That could mean some specs. will not be met.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The XC-2 can be a competitor to the A-400M, if the Japanese lift their restrictions on selling military weapons overseas. It also seems like it would be available sooner than the A-400M will, and has similar capabilities.

I do not think they have similar capabilities at all.

We have a lot of public information on the A-400M, and limited information, at best on the XC-2. The only public comparison I have found on comparing both is looking at the CX and A-400M pages on Wikipedia. Wiki may or may n ot be accurate on the XC-2, neither you, nor I know if it is.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9236 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 31442 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):

I find it difficult to believe the contracts do not specify any maximum payload number.

They normally do not, they normally only quote a minimum level that must be achieved, not a maximum.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Wiki may or may n ot be accurate on the XC-2, neither you, nor I know if it is.

The numbers I have seen for the military variant is around 26t (which is close to the 3 times the C-1 payload number the MoD stated on that link I posted above). The numbers that I see on that Wiki page correlate closer to the civil freighter that they were once talking about spinning off from this project.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12970 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 31391 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
Well the Airbus Military boss thinks diffrent:

Quote:

Ureña denies reports that the A400M is unable to meet its payload requirements, noting there is actually no contracted maximum figure. "We have, like any aircraft, weight issues," (see 787/A380)he confirms, but says a weight optimisation programme has already been identified for service-standard aircraft. "I believe we can maintain our commitment on payload/range [performance] as in the original contract," Ureña insists.

We can confirm that some of the key performance of the aircraft will be according to the specification, and some will be over the specification," says Ureña. "

Yes, he thinks / "believes" differently. Hopefully he gets the time and the money so he can make his belief become a reality, but right now, all these things are subject to negotiation, because his team has already burned through all the time and the money they were given to complete the project.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9236 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 31239 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
Yes, he thinks / "believes" differently.

The key is the term "service-standard aircraft", not what he believes. The 6 test airframes I understand are not "service-standard aircraft" and may have a similar fate as the early 787 test airframes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 31162 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
You know all of this, how?

I have the same question for you:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
It also seems like it would be available sooner than the A-400M will,

Granted, you're only making an assumption here. But it is totally unsubstantiated.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 31006 times:

What a great exchange.
My primary interest was less in the capabilities of the aircraft or the technology ( composite vs. conventional) but more about how the desicion was made to design and build these two aircraft at great expense for a limited market. I think that keeping the money at home is growing more important even as globalization grows.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 30989 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
DASS is a very good system, that does not mean, though it, or a system similar to that on the C-17 cannot be fitted, assuming the XC-2 does not have one (and we don't know that yet)

To be fitted is not the problem, but a DASS(Eurofighter DASS costs about 30 millions) like systems are very expensive . Its very very very doubtful the XC-2 with so less orders will even get something which is close to the capabilities of the DASS.

Which underlines my point that the XC-2 is inferior.

Quoting Spudh (Reply 15):
Looking at all those nice to have tech advances listed above for the A400M above you begin to wonder, how many of those will be required for 98% of the the actual missions an airlifter will fly in the real world. I thought it was a Strategic Airlifter not an interdictor.

I think that's Airbus Gamble/Risk.

They always throw ed all technology available into the programs to be ahead of others.(see A300, A320,A380) Anyone can build a cheap simple reliable workhorse if you want that buy a An-70.

But only some can build extreme sophisticated and state of the art planes which set new standards.

Guess that's the problem/risk, sometimes (Airbus /Boeing/Engine Makers) get too ambitious and put to much new technology into the program which then ends in a desaster. (see 787, A380, Superfan)

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
Yes, he thinks / "believes" differently.

Sounds similar to Boeing Announcements: Yes that's the last delay we believe/think...  duck 

We will see with the service standard planes if Airbus can hold the promises. Until no real facts appear, its just speculation.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 30482 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 22):
Guess that's the problem/risk, sometimes (Airbus /Boeing/Engine Makers) get too ambitious and put to much new technology into the program which then ends in a desaster. (see 787, A380, Superfan)

The 787 has had a major issue, but it is not a disaster on the order of the A380, Superfan, or potentially the A400M. There's no reason why the 787 will not be considered a financial success, eventually, where as those other projects may never go into the black.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 30388 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
The 787 has had a major issue, but it is not a disaster on the order of the A380

My own employer was expecting to get, when they ordered in 2007, the first 787's this year.
Now? Probably early 2013.
We think it's pretty disastrous and are less than impressed with Boeing, not just about 787 either, in recent years their customer service has sucked generally.
We have, so far, not found the same with Airbus.

One advantage the A400M will have is a good sized initial customer base, in the European NATO members that have ordered it, however good the C-X is, it's for one customer, with the Japanese export restrictions likely to keep it that way.

The US has long, with some good reason, complained about the lack of airlift capability that many European NATO nations have.
For most of them, a fleet of A400M's will deliver more than C-130J's, with maybe a few C-17's on top.

The RAF here was in a unique position, having to replace some of the very hard worked legacy C-130's well before anything like A400M was going to arrive.
But the C-130J, though the obvious and correct choice back in the mid 1990's, took an inordinate amount of time once delivered, to have to full spectrum of capabilities as advertised, stretching into years. This from an upgrade.
The nature and amount of UK armed forces deployments meant that getting some C-17's was required too, it's been a great workhorse and I hope eventually they get to the 10 serial numbers allocated to this type, (they are at 7 now).


25 Cargotanker : Counter measures are very different for fighters vs heavies, this will only be a minor improvement on existing systems. LAIRCM is very common and che
26 Post contains images Cosmofly : Will Japanese regulations allow Boeing to license the XC-2 and sell it worldwide? We will have another A vs B topic then
27 CMB56 : The original article that I was reading and initiated my starting this thread stated that a commercial / civilian version of the XC-2 was considered f
28 Zeke : ADFX is not ethernet for PC use, it is full duplex network used on the A380/787/A400M for all the controls and sensors. the FBW runs over the ADFX ne
29 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : What???? Every military aircraft production contract I can think of included a maximum payload, in either weapons, weapons capabilities, passengers,
30 GDB : Perhaps, but you could then forget any technical support from the manufacturers. They'd likely embargo anyone doing this.
31 Cargotanker : I was aware that it was a bit more involved than a PC, but I was trying to be a little bit funny. You've given me some knowledge, thanks. It knows th
32 KC135TopBoom : The TFR type systems date back to the early 1960s and the TFX program (F/FB-111s). It works very well, and today's versions would be an upgrade to th
33 Post contains images AutoThrust : Of course its diffrent then for fighter, but still the A400M DASS is superior to LAIRCM. LAIRCM just provides protection to IR-Missiles. DASS is a fu
34 A342 : And what is the value of that statement? Exactly zero. It only says that after initial airworthiness testing, the Japanese MoD will take delivery of
35 KC135TopBoom : The A-400M brings nothing new to the tactical table except automated features that will take control and override pilot inputs. In a military airplan
36 Post contains images AutoThrust : Wrong, 500feet or less on autopilot is nothing new without having to worry about safety? The M-MMS a highly automatic and integrated military FMS sys
37 KC135TopBoom : the MC-130 flys at 100' AGL, day and night in all kinds of weather and using NVGs. Perhaps they should have talked to the pilots and crews who will f
38 A342 : You can claim everything you want, but your assumption that the XC-2 will likely be available sooner than the A400M remains a heap of Bravo Sierra. A
39 GDB : I find it fanciful to say the least that the C-X will be delivered when some have claimed, clearly there has been no knowledge or observation of Japan
40 Par13del : No reason to have any when you can get the US Air Force to provide the lift. The EU is and has always been military adverse, I see this a/c being use
41 GDB : You might want to take a look at the composition of ALL NATO forces in Afghanistan right now. If you wanted to build something just for 'humanitarian
42 Par13del : I was going to mention Afghanistan then I thought of the number of world conflicts prior that the EU and Nato willingly looked at the option of milit
43 Cargotanker : I posted this back in October on the 'A400M 3 years late' thread. I cannot find the source I used for the runway data but I assure you I'm not making
44 Par13del : Is that a good thing or a bad thing, which way do you mean it? The victors after WW I - War to end all wars - put such onerous conditions on the loos
45 KC135TopBoom : The XC-2 currently has a unit costs around $80M US (about 57.14M Euros), or close to 1/3 the costs of an A-400M. So, currently you cannot get a 2:1 f
46 Post contains links A342 : a) Provide a source. b) Do you seriously believe that the XC-2, an all-new aircraft with much higher capability is more or less the same price as the
47 GDB : I am not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but that it's a FACT. One which illustrates a strange double-standard/blindness from some in the US. C/X
48 GDB : Japan has indeed contributed to the anti piracy mission, they've also withdrawn naval tanker support for US forces in the Indian Ocean. If you think
49 Post contains images Par13del : At present there are two airlifters in development, what's wrong with comparing the programs and the technical merits of the a/c? At present the C/X
50 KC135TopBoom : I did, you don't accept that, I cannot help you any more, my young friend. Testing for the JSDAF C-1 took just under 1 year in the 1970s, I expect th
51 Post contains images A342 : Sorry if I missed it, but I haven't seen your source yet. Unless you mean wikipedia. And if you believe that a two year delay doesn't increase unit c
52 GDB : Then explain the presence of the C-17 in UK and a general NATO service, the latter funded by a host of European NATO nations. Then the presence of th
53 Post contains images Par13del : True, but that neutrality my be because the Japanese are not in some circle touting their product as a replacement for any US or EU a/c. Now this quo
54 GDB : Huh? It's clear that A400M is capability wise to be between C-130J and C-17, 'a poor man's C-17' can also mean a machine which can carry a damn sight
55 KC135TopBoom : Like the 4 year late A-400M program, there are no 'official' updates to developement costs for the XC-2/XP-1 programs. The costs in 2007 were about $
56 Beta : Er, whatever merits the A400 has (I'm sure there are plenty), it surely no longer merits "poor man's" anything. As it stands it should be aptly and c
57 A342 : Well, the C-1 and F-2 also have US engines. They might be licence-built, but that doesn't change much. Apart from the engines, a whole host of other
58 Post contains links and images mandala499 : The F-2 is based on the F-16, but it's no ordinary F-16 with a Japanese brand on it. Mitsubishi co-developed the F-2 with Lockheed Martin, based on t
59 KC135TopBoom : I believe those systems are indigenous to Japan, as is the cargo handling system. The defensive suit could be Japanese, European, or US. JHI isn't ta
60 Post contains images A342 : Well, and if the XC-2 also has a similar level of indigenous equipment, there's a lot to certify.   I still find the figure for development costs to
61 Gipsy : So if that' s a valuable point in this discussion I'll add another worthfull one: AIRBUS Fatalities: 3149 BOEING Fatalities: 19147 [I just want to sh
62 KC135TopBoom : Okay, how many of those lost in Boeing built airliners were lost because the pilot could not override the airplane computers? That was my staement, n
63 Flyingwaeldar : I've followed these A400M threads, but not commented on them until now, because I'm still amazed that such a small number of posters can repeat the s
64 SpeedyGonzales : So how many Airbuses is it? My guess is zero.
65 Gipsy : Don't know...how many AIRBUSes crashed because of that? Because they are equally needed, but the number of 200 C17 shows that a high priority is set
66 KC135TopBoom : I posted it, but it was deleted as not relevent to this topic. Any A-400M will land at the same bases the C-17s and C-130s labd at now. I believe tha
67 Gipsy : Only disputable case could be AF296...but it's true offtopic...one point to FBW: nowadays even boeing uses it...just without the flight envelope prot
68 KC135TopBoom : Do you mean like the C-17 and C-130 does today? Time will tell, won't it? No I did not. See this conversation. BTW, the A-400M will not have the full
69 Gipsy : "John Carr - Boeing Co. Mark Kuntavanish - Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Abstract: The C-17 airplane operates in some of the most challenging envir
70 SpeedyGonzales : You just posted a list of Airbus chrashes, with no reference to cause. You also included A300 and A310, which have neither FBW nor envelope protectio
71 KC135TopBoom : Well, additional maintenance to lights, tires, antennas, landing gear wiring and tubing, paint, etc. will also apply to the A-400M, just like the C-1
72 Post contains images mandala499 : I just realised that... I was merely responding to what was written as per what was quoted from A342's post... only after I re-read the topic again d
73 Post contains links araiguma : http://www.epco.mod.go.jp/about/pdf/21lifecyclecost_houkokusyo.pdf (24/8/2009) This is Japanese MOD's report about life cycle cost of XC-2, XP-1, F-2,
74 KC135TopBoom : That is still relitively cheap for each aircraft with a total 40 year LCC, of $480M USD, which also includes the cost to buy each one.[Edited 2010-02
75 SeJoWa : That's great to have, thank you indeed!
76 mandala499 : Just had a discussion within the last 24hrs with someone from one of the companies involved in the airplanes that are being discussed in the topics. T
77 Post contains links araiguma : Ha ha, I had nothing to do with XC-2 program, just a Japanese citizen. Anyway, this report leaves the long term economical influence (like inflation
78 KC135TopBoom : From what little I have seen, LAIRCM is very effective.
79 Post contains links Devilfish : Update on the two Japanese projects' progress..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-and-transport-aircraft-under.html[Edited 2010-04-02 17:55:3
80 norcal : So an A400's wheels will magically not kick up rocks and dirt when they roll across the ground? What did they do, coat them with teflon?
81 KC135TopBoom : KHI says it is still at the beginning of a feasibility study for a commercial variant of the XC-2, but declines to comment further. So, the Japanese
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Orion Vs. Poseidon posted Mon Nov 23 2009 23:13:02 by Flyboy2001
EF2000 Vs Rafale Vs F22Raptor In Dubai posted Mon Nov 16 2009 00:57:37 by ArniePie
F-20 Vs F-16 posted Tue Jul 7 2009 09:09:58 by Blackbird
T-Brids F-16CJ Vs Blue Angels? posted Sat Apr 4 2009 14:28:48 by EBJ1248650
Cool F-15 Vs Su-27 Video posted Fri Feb 20 2009 06:24:05 by Zkpilot
Another Look: AN-70 Vs A400M posted Mon Jan 26 2009 11:36:20 by SCAT15F
"Secretive" Flight Test For A400 Engine Next Week posted Fri Dec 12 2008 15:29:49 by Lumberton
Ssme Vs RS-68 Exhaust Color posted Fri Nov 14 2008 13:02:59 by SCAT15F
A400 Production Slowed posted Thu Nov 6 2008 13:30:48 by 474218
Usaf Vs IAF At Red Flag/War-Games posted Tue Oct 14 2008 20:42:52 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format