• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:40 pm

This thread is also getting very long, time for part 4.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:09 pm

From FlightGlobal Sept 3 :

First A400M moved outside for ground tests. It will now undergo fuel and pressurisation tests and navigation and communication system checks, says Airbus Military. It will then have its four Europrop International TP400-D6 turboprop engines and auxiliary power unit installed, following the delivery of the final full authority digital engine control software, it adds.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oved-outside-for-ground-tests.html

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:54 pm

Keesje,

I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed? Also, how do they pressurize the fuel system before the engines and APU are reinstalled? I read the Flight Global story you cut and pasted, so I know where you got that info from. It just doesn't make any sense to me to do the fuel systems checks, pressurizations of the fuel system checks, and comm checks without engines and APU.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:03 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Also, how do they pressurize the fuel system before the engines and APU are reinstalled?

They will plug off the fuel and vent lines and pump air in to them. They will do the same thing with wing tanks. Install plugs in the fuel and vent tubes and pump air into the tank.

Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:25 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
They will plug off the fuel and vent lines and pump air in to them. They will do the same thing with wing tanks. Install plugs in the fuel and vent tubes and pump air into the tank.

Thanks

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5261
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:34 am

So much so that Turkey is contemplating an interim buy of C-27J Spartans or EADS' very own C-295s.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...terim-buy-of-c-27js-or-c-295s.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:46 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

According to the article it has to do with the FADEC software, which caused the biggest hick-up. Further more I guess they rescheduled additional enhancements / mods resulting from testing after it became clear the aircraft's first flight was delayed. Items that would have been modernized / replaced / after certification will now be before. Just like e.g. and the RR Trents for the 787.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

It will have serious implications for the test flights, program scheduling, political support and damage EADS credibility! (if they forget the plugs) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/transport-m/c141/c141_wing_05.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:58 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

According to the article it has to do with the FADEC software, which caused the biggest hick-up. Further more I guess they rescheduled additional enhancements / mods resulting from testing after it became clear the aircraft's first flight was delayed. Items that would have been modernized / replaced / after certification will now be before. Just like e.g. and the RR Trents for the 787.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

It will have serious implications for the test flights, program scheduling, political support and damage EADS credibility! (if they forget the plugs) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...5.jpg

Yes it would.

I remember that C-141B, it was scrapped, but in the 1980s the same happened to a B-52G at Mather AFB, CA and a KC-135A at Pease AFB, NH. Both were eventually repaired by Boeing and flew again. IIRC, it was over a year before either was ready for the FCF flights.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:33 pm

In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:51 pm

Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:49 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:43 pm



Quoting Columba (Reply 8):
In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"

 bigmouth  No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait  banghead , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!

 Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:32 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets changed to 4 years late at this rate.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
Quoting Columba (Reply 8):
In the latest issue of Flu Revue the commander of the German Air Lift is interviewed. According to him there will be no interim solution. "The Transall is old but still safe and reliable we can easily fly it until 2020"

No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!

Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

What will the Germans, French, British, or Spainish do if the A-400M has another lenghty delay, or worse, increases in price by the current estimated 30%? How attractive will the C-17A/C-130J combo look then?
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:27 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Didn't the USAF Pop a KC-135 during a cabin pressure test back in the late 80s because the dump valves were closed?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:52 am



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 13):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Didn't the USAF Pop a KC-135 during a cabin pressure test back in the late 80s because the dump valves were closed?

Yes, but that was earlier in this decade, it was a KC-135R. It happened at the TIK Depot, they over pressurized the fuselage during a ground pressur test, but had all the outflow valves plugged. No one completed the checklist to assure the outflow valves were not plugged. There are three outflow valves, one in each wheel well.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:43 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I thought that MSN001 had its engines installed. Do you know why they were removed?

Some info on why the engines may be off the A400Million from Aviation Week:

Quote:
Sources close to the Europrop International engine consortium say that FADEC issues with the TP400 are expected to be resolved by June. The EADS chief executive said earlier this month that once an acceptable standard FADEC was provided, the A400M could fly around one month later. But in addition to software, there are also hardware issues surrounding the engines. Because of unexpectedly high loads, cracks were found in some of the original design engine gearbox casings. Those needed to be partially strengthened. The sources say that upgraded casings already have been delivered to the Sevilla, Spain, final-assembly line and will be installed to replace the original parts.

Some special operational performance goals also are in doubt, according to people familiar with the details. The A400M may not be able to fly “Sarajevo profile” steep approaches because of possible flutter issues with the propellers.

Finally, some systems may be rejected by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), people familiar with the program say. The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.

So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:47 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.

So much for "just paperwork and software issues."
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:01 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 16):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.

So much for "just paperwork and software issues."

Any new aircraft has hundreds of findings during testing. Some are more serious then others and business cases are made on solutions and implementation. Thought you knew..

..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
The agency appears not to agree with how oxygen bottles and fire protection systems are installed in the fuselage and main gear bay. If no agreement is reached, the A400M will not be given EASA approval needed for the planned civil certification.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
Where they get in trouble is forgetting to remove the plugs.

Oops, that will set the program back some more.

Maybe we can some some to suggest big possible problems. Maybe ask Doug McVitie, he worked for airbus you know.. Just bringing up possible disaster can have some value for some I guess  Smile http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Dou...le=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
Any new aircraft has hundreds of findings during testing. Some are more serious then others and business cases are made on solutions and implementation. Thought you knew..

Feel free to enlighten us with your in-depth knowledge. The CEO said the A400M could fly one month after getting the FADEC software and many sites report that the FADEC software was delivered in July. Since we're in mid September and it seems it will be a struggle to get first flight this year (with suggestions already of it creeping into next year), what is going on?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:08 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
  No no! Replacements are urgently needed, the Luftwaffe can't wait   , everybody said so, interim C130J / C17s must be ordered and EADS must pay for them !! Please !!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:35 pm



Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Well, if the Luftwaffe thinks their C-160s will last for another 10 years, then a further delay of the A-400M will not hurt them. At current projections, they won't get the first one until 2016 or 2017, fully a two-three cushion?

We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.

Thanks, depending on who wins the election, it could be a game changer for the A-400M, C-17A, and C-130J.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:54 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
game changer for the A-400M

yeah, instead of 4 years late, it'll be 5. lol.

Seriously though; its quite common to have issues with new aircraft. When companies make their schedules, they make them on best case scenarios. They really shouldn't do that though. Boeing is getting slammed on the 787 as well because of delay after delay. Even certain major modifications will take longer than originally expected, and have issues that they don't anticipate when they make a bid (ie the C-5M) I wouldn't be surprised if a mix of all three aircraft you listed are involved at some point. Might be 15 years from now, but you never know.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:03 pm



Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
We have a federal election in 2 weeks, let's see how it will look afterwards.
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.

I'm not close enough to UK politics to know how much longer the Liberals will be in power, but it seems this article says A400M faces a program review if the Conservatives get in and an outright cancellation if the LibDems get in (yeah, right). This article hints EF, carriers and A400M will be scrutinized should the Tories come to power.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:19 pm

I can understand the political aprties wanting to drop the A-400M, as it is doubtful it will do what the RAF wants it to do. But dropping the Typhoon for the RAN and the two CVFs for the RN just doesn't make sense to me. If the CVFs get canceled why would the RN/FAA need the F-35Bs? Then there is also the issue of possibly loosing shipbuilding experience, which has a long and proud tradition in Britian and Scotland.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:56 pm

IMO Labour will not call an election until April/May 2010.

Basicly they must go for it by May and have no obvious reason to go sooner.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:18 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 24):
IMO Labour will not call an election until April/May 2010.

Basicly they must go for it by May and have no obvious reason to go sooner.

Labour is the party in power right now, correct?

But if the Conservitives were to win an election next year, what will that mean to the A-400M program? The RAF only has 25 on order. What does a Conservitive win mean for the defense of the UK?

What about the Liberals?

If the Labour party stays in power, will things remain the same as now for the A-400M, CVF, Typhoon, etc.?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13477
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:53 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):

The party in power really makes zero difference. They'll all say one thing to get elected and then do whatever they want when in power. Just like a US politician once said "Read my lips, no more taxes!"  wink 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:07 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 24):
IMO Labour will not call an election until April/May 2010.

Basicly they must go for it by May and have no obvious reason to go sooner.

I hope the A400M will be flying by then.

If there's one more big surprise by then, and the government changes hands, the A400M may be swept away by the Defense Review.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:58 pm

Really big cuts in Government spending are now inevitable in the UK, regardless of who gets into power.

The Lib Dems are a third party, and the prospects of them forming a government are remote. They could hold the balance in a 'hung' Parliament, however.

They are weak on defence, and in particular are EXTREMELY hostile to Typhoon, and uniquely hostile to the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. They might influence Labour (their most likely bedfellows in any coalition) to be even more swingeing in any defence cuts.

The Conservatives have an image of being 'pro defence', and though even the most cursory examination of their actual record in Government (as opposed to their rhetoric and reputation) would show that they've actually imposed far more far-reaching and more damaging cuts in the past than the current Labour party.

Look at Sandys 1957 Defence White Paper, the continuation of Healey's withdrawal from East of Suez under Heath from 70-74, and the many cuts under Thatcher - one of which persuaded the Argentinians that it would be safe to attack the Falklands.

Then you have the post Cold War 'Options for Change' and 'Frontline First' reviews - both far more swingeing than Labour's SDR.

But because they have a pro-defence image, they tend to be able to get away with attacks on our military capability and force structure.

The Tories have put question marks beside the A400M, carriers, and Typhoon, and there is a strong and influential sub-set within the party who would support almost any cancellation of almost any European or indigenous procurement programme, and would loudly support their substitution by US equipment.

As a moderate 'Wet' Tory voter I would have to say that Defence is in for a shafting whoever wins, but that shafting will be gentlest, I suggest, if Labour get back in.

It goes against the grain for me to say so, but I genuinely believe that the UK Forces and most of their procurement programmes are safest in Labour's hands, though heavy cuts are likely under any further Brown administration.

With regard to specific programmes.

I believe that Typhoon is too far advanced for any meaningful saving to be made, and that the potential penalties will prevent any further cuts. We also need every one of the 160 now on order. Cutting Typhoon is, however, such an article of faith for the Liberals that they would cut numbers even if such a cut cost us more money.

If the A400M flies before February, I can't see the programme being cut. Your contention that "it won't do what the RAF want it to" is simply wrong, KC. It is there as a C-130K replacement, we need such a replacement very urgently, and the A400M will replace C-130K admirably, and indeed it will do so better than more -130Js would. The A400M is most vulnerable under an incoming Tory government, because of its European pedigree.

I believe that the carriers are very vulnerable, since cutting them allows us to cut F-35B as well, saving really serious amounts of money. If UK shipbuilding depends on two ships, then building them will only postpone the inevitable. Some would say that it's better to bite the bullet now. Moreover, carriers provide a niche capability, and one we haven't actually needed since 1982.

Labour are the carrier's best hope, since Labour ordered them under the SDR, and since the industrial implications of canning them would be felt hardest in Labour constituencies, including Mr Brown's!
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:31 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
The Tories have put question marks beside the A400M, carriers, and Typhoon, and there is a strong and influential sub-set within the party who would support almost any cancellation of almost any European or indigenous procurement programme, and would loudly support their substitution by US equipment

'
Well I can understand their position on the Typhoons, the A400M seems neccesary whatever happens / strategy is chosen, the carriers.. we'll I can't comment, it's about geo political strategy.. I think Europe should be able to operate ~4 battle groups and the Brits are the ones with most experience so a logical prime operator. Them absorbing the total costs is another question.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:28 am

Well I can understand their position on the Typhoon

I can't. When we launched the Typhoon programme it promised to provide a 700-aircraft boost to the European industry, and to provide a weapons system that was better than any off-the-shelf US fighter. It promised to better able to deal with a 'developed Flanker' threat than the teen-series, whose superiority had already been dented by the arrival of the MiG-29 and Su-27, and whose margin of superiority looked certain to be eroded further.

And Typhoon fulfilled that requirement, and does enjoy a useful margin of superiority over the threat, and over the US teen series. You could argue that we should have all bought F-22s, but that was never affordable, and the aircraft lacks Typhoon's multi-role versatility, and doesn't have Typhoon's exportability, which is already helping European taxpayers recoup some of their investment.

Moreover, opposing Typhoon now, with R&D complete, and production investments made, and with a marginal production cost that makes it cheaper to continue with than to replace with anything else, is an asinine position to adopt.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:08 am



Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
A decision on an interim solution depends on the question who is winning the election.

I even doubt that. Whoever wins the election will have to drastically reduce all expenses for years - and will want to delay the A400 at least as much as Kingfisher wants to delay its A380s. It is very low on the priority list. For Afganistan, other things are on the priority list.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:12 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 30):
Well I can understand their position on the Typhoon

I can't. When we launched the Typhoon programme it promised to provide a 700-aircraft boost to the European industry, and to provide a weapons system that was better than any off-the-shelf US fighter. It promised to better able to deal with a 'developed Flanker' threat than the teen-series, whose superiority had already been dented by the arrival of the MiG-29 and Su-27, and whose margin of superiority looked certain to be eroded further.

And Typhoon fulfilled that requirement, and does enjoy a useful margin of superiority over the threat, and over the US teen series. You could argue that we should have all bought F-22s, but that was never affordable, and the aircraft lacks Typhoon's multi-role versatility, and doesn't have Typhoon's exportability, which is already helping European taxpayers recoup some of their investment.

Moreover, opposing Typhoon now, with R&D complete, and production investments made, and with a marginal production cost that makes it cheaper to continue with than to replace with anything else, is an asinine position to adopt.

I think what you say is all correct. But 1990 is not 2010. Typhoon's multi-role versatility is a paper one and its main weakness. Its a good interceptor, thats how it was developped. But will it ever beat the F15E and Tornado IDS air to ground? Does it have the low level capabilities, range and 2 man operability that those missions require? Rebuilding it will create an expensive interceptor with air to ground capabilities.

Stopping MIg29's / SU27 moved down the priority list. Taking out precision target far away moved up. Perhaps enough Typhoons are enough & upgrading the Tornado's is a seriously good alternative, meanwhile start developping a stealthy replacement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM04hAVHPzQ
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:44 pm

Low level: Check (just look at the pics of them storming through the Mac Loop)
Air to ground: Check (six EPW and a Litening III is better than GR4 can do)
Two man: Unnecessary if your MMI is good enough

The supposed lack of A-G on Typhoon will be further rectified with P1E - the real proble m is not having enough aircraft to spare any of them for A-G missions.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:28 pm

Jackonicko

You forget that the F22 is not for sale.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:02 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 26):
They'll all say one thing to get elected and then do whatever they want when in power. Just like a US politician once said "Read my lips, no more taxes!"

Correct. Politicians are politicians, no matter what country they are in.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 24):
IMO Labour will not call an election until April/May 2010.

Basicly they must go for it by May and have no obvious reason to go sooner.

I hope the A400M will be flying by then.

If the A-400M cannot fly for the next 9-10 months, the British won't have to make a sacrifice on it, as Germany and France will cancel their orders first.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
As a moderate 'Wet' Tory voter I would have to say that Defence is in for a shafting whoever wins, but that shafting will be gentlest, I suggest, if Labour get back in.

So, the issue vasiline first?  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
If the A400M flies before February, I can't see the programme being cut. Your contention that "it won't do what the RAF want it to" is simply wrong, KC.

I don't know about that. Even though I agree the A-400M is the C-130K replacement, and if it ever lives up to its full capabilities, it will exceed those of the C-130K/J, it will still be 5 years before the RAF gets it first one and close to 7-8 years before it reaches squadron level capability. The question now becomes will the C-130Ks last for another 8 years? A good option is for now, and about the next 18 months, or so is the C-17, which the RAF already has 6 of. Cancelling the 25 A-400Ms and buying 10-12 more C-17s will still replace the tired C-130Ks faster.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
I believe that the carriers are very vulnerable, since cutting them allows us to cut F-35B as well, saving really serious amounts of money. If UK shipbuilding depends on two ships, then building them will only postpone the inevitable. Some would say that it's better to bite the bullet now. Moreover, carriers provide a niche capability, and one we haven't actually needed since 1982.

Well, HMS Ark Royal saw a lot of use in ODS and OIF. Isn't she the RN's flagship? She is now approaching 30 years old.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 30):
When we launched the Typhoon programme it promised to provide a 700-aircraft boost to the European industry, and to provide a weapons system that was better than any off-the-shelf US fighter. It promised to better able to deal with a 'developed Flanker' threat than the teen-series, whose superiority had already been dented by the arrival of the MiG-29 and Su-27, and whose margin of superiority looked certain to be eroded further.

But, now we know the Mig-29 and Su-27 are not as good as originally thought. The problem is the future Russian designed fighters, and their emerging bomber threat.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 33):
The supposed lack of A-G on Typhoon will be further rectified with P1E - the real proble m is not having enough aircraft to spare any of them for A-G missions.

All you need is more money to put into an A-G aircraft budget. There are very good designs available now, and improved/updated Tornado design, the F-15SE, etc.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:17 pm

C-17 is great, and we could use more.

It is not a -130K replacement.

We've used carriers, sure, but we haven't NEEDED to use them, there have always been other options. It's a niche capability we don't need.

Typhoon was a better option for us than any US option.

It still is, even for A-G. We can buy additional Typhoons more cheaply than we could buy inferior F-15SEs, and with MUCH lower costs of ownership.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:40 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 36):
Typhoon was a better option for us than any US option.

It still is, even for A-G. We can buy additional Typhoons more cheaply than we could buy inferior F-15SEs, and with MUCH lower costs of ownership.

I don't know that the F-15SE is inferior to an A-G Typhoon, the F-15SE is an A-G airplane first with a very good A-A capability, much better than the current F-15E is at A-A.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 36):
C-17 is great, and we could use more.

It is not a -130K replacement.

Yes, I wish the RAF would order more C-17s, perhaps 10-12 more and drop the 25 ordered A-400Ms althoghter. Your C-130Ks will be worn out and retired long before you can now get the A-400M.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:56 pm

The Lockheed Martin C-130 which serves as the Europrop International TP400's flying testbed is due to make two more flights "next week", after which it will "definitely be grounded", says Tentor.

Regarding the full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) software, the development of which has directly contributed to extensive delays to the A400M's first flight, he says: "We have just a handful of issues needing correction before first flight."

Aside from the FADEC software, all systems have been tested and are ready for flight, says Tentor. "We are now increasingly confident that we will perform the first flight by the end of the year," he says.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...400m-fadec-software-this-week.html

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:57 pm

KC

We need more airlift, and I'd love to see some more C-17s.

But we need an A400M sized aircraft, too, as soon as we can get it.

In the long term, a two-type transport fleet of C-17/A400M (no C-130K, no C-130J) is clearly the way to go. 15 C-17 and 35-40 A400M would do the trick!

As to the F-15SE, it's a warmed over Strike Eagle with F-15K sensors and systems, with an RCS makeover that does not even make it as stealthy as a Super Hornet.

It's not what we need.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:02 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 39):
KC

We need more airlift, and I'd love to see some more C-17s.

But we need an A400M sized aircraft, too, as soon as we can get it.

In the long term, a two-type transport fleet of C-17/A400M (no C-130K, no C-130J) is clearly the way to go. 15 C-17 and 35-40 A400M would do the trick!

You can have the extra nine C-17s when ever you want them, I am not so sure about when you can have your A-400Ms. But, doesn't the RAF already fly some 20 C-130Js?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:12 pm

It does (24, in fact). They'll soon be out of hours, the walloping they're getting now.

And the A400M will be a much better aircraft.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:28 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 41):
And the A400M will be a much better aircraft.

Maybe it is when you read the original datasheet, but the real question is what will the data sheet read at the time of initial deployment? And what will the roadmap be to get to an airplane that can reach the specifications in the original datasheet? And how many of those aircraft will the customers be able to afford? And when can they get them?

Airbus has a huge credibility problem to deal with. We're reading above that the FADEC software that was supposedly delivered in June/July still has a "handful of issues needing correction". That statement speaks to the quantity of the problems, but not their scope. Feel free to stay in the rank of the optimists, but I'll stay in the rank of the pessimists.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:33 pm

The C-130J did not enjoy a trouble free start, as the RAF (as launch customer) know only too well. And for modern requirements, it's simply got too small a cross section.

We NEED A400M.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:17 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
The C-130J did not enjoy a trouble free start, as the RAF (as launch customer) know only too well.

So what is your point? Contractors should feel free to deliver substandard equipment to the RAF?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
And for modern requirements, it's simply got too small a cross section.

We NEED A400M.

The real question is will you ever get an A400M that meets requirements, is reliable and is affordable? Time will tell.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:26 pm

The C-130J made good eventually. (And we got two free as a result of all the dire problems Lockmart inflicted on us).

I dare say the A400M will come right, and probably with rather less heartache.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:56 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
So maybe the engines are off to replace the cracked gearbox casings.



Quoting NorCal (Reply 16):
So much for "just paperwork and software issues."



Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
this article says A400M faces a program review if the Conservatives get in and an outright cancellation if the LibDems get in (yeah, right).



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
But if the Conservitives were to win an election next year, what will that mean to the A-400M program?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
If there's one more big surprise by then, and the government changes hands, the A400M may be swept away by the Defense Review.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
If the A-400M cannot fly for the next 9-10 months, the British won't have to make a sacrifice on it, as Germany and France will cancel their orders first.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Cancelling the 25 A-400Ms and buying 10-12 more C-17s will still replace the tired C-130Ks faster.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Yes, I wish the RAF would order more C-17s, perhaps 10-12 more and drop the 25 ordered A-400Ms althoghter.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
but the real question is what will the data sheet read at the time of initial deployment?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
And how many of those aircraft will the customers be able to afford? And when can they get them?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
Airbus has a huge credibility problem to deal with.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
Contractors should feel free to deliver substandard equipment to the RAF?



Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
The real question is will you ever get an A400M that meets requirements, is reliable and is affordable? Time will tell.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Now what if the A400M just meets / beats its performance target just like the e.g A380, A340NG, A330/340, A320, A310 and A300 ?

 scratchchin   Wow!

For some dark, eurocratic, evil, liberal and secretive reason nobody cancelled their orders while excellent cheap modern and reliable alternatives were readily available.

 sarcastic 
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:08 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl

Is that all you can add, mockery?

Guess you have no real answers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 46):
Now what if the A400M just meets / beats its performance target just like the e.g A380, A340NG, A330/340, A320, A310 and A300 ?

Even you must admit the trend line for A400M clearly is not following the trend line for those other programs. A400M is substantially late, substantially over budget, and as Airbus will tell you, is working to a contract that cannot and will not be honored.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:38 am

Some updates:

 arrow  Structural static tests including maximum loads/ wing flex completed in June
 arrow  TP400 cleared for 1st flight, has clocked up 3100 ground hrs, 46 flight hours
 arrow  TP400 full flight tests without restriction, max power at take-off as well as in flight
 arrow  FADEC development maturity on target for the year-end flight.
 arrow  The final version of the FADEC software began testing this week.

MSN 002 & -3 :
 arrow  MSN002; structural upgrade / full systems testing ready by end '09. 1st flight Q1 '10.
 arrow  MSN 003 in final asembly, wings attached this weekend. 1st flight : mid '10.

On A400M’s weight.
 arrow  "well under control” / “in line with the payload and range capability we commitments
 arrow  Payload: 37 metric ton
 arrow  Of those 37 mt, 5mt are for optional customer configuration items and equipment.
 arrow  With those options available payload: 32mt

Steps towards first flight:
 arrow  Completing engine and propeller installation
 arrow  Completing the installation and testing of flyable software
 arrow  Performing electromagnetic interference checks on the complete aircraft system
 arrow  Transferring MSN 001 from the production organisation to Flight Test Department
 arrow  Performing the necessary system testing prior to static engine ground run
 arrow  Taxing the aircraft at low speed and then high speeds
 arrow  In parallel, obtaining all necessary EASA approvals for powerplant and airframe flight permits.
 arrow  First flight

Testflight roles prototypes :
 arrow  MSN 001: flight performance
 arrow  MSN 002: engine integration
 arrow  MSN 003: systems integration aircraft
 arrow  MSN 004: cargo systems development.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...ntent&task=view&id=4201&Itemid=350
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: A400M Three Years Late? Part 4

Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:38 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
On A400M’s weight.
arrow "well under control” / “in line with the payload and range capability we commitments
arrow Payload: 37 metric ton
arrow Of those 37 mt, 5mt are for optional customer configuration items and equipment.
arrow With those options available payload: 32mt

Maybe you could clear things up a bit pls?
What are these "optional customer configuration items and equipment" supposed to be?
And are these options actually things that where at first included in the original calculation to determine OEW or where they already excluded from the wheight calculation from the initial design?
[edit post]
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests