cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:33 pm

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?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:59 pm

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.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5646
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:17 pm

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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14003
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:05 pm



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! 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!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:22 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:38 pm



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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14003
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:50 pm



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! 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
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:44 am



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:06 pm



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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:41 pm

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 avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:31 pm



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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14003
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:37 pm



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! 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!
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:21 pm



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 avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:48 am



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9938
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:06 am



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 avatar
spudh
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:23 am



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:26 pm



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9938
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:27 pm



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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14003
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:57 pm



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! 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
zeke
Posts: 9938
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:05 pm



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
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:41 pm



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.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:08 am

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 avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:30 am



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 avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:44 pm



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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:49 pm



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).
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:03 pm



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
Easy, the A400M features a modified DASS or Pretorian Defence System of the Eurofighter which is a world class defence system.

Counter measures are very different for fighters vs heavies, this will only be a minor improvement on existing systems. LAIRCM is very common and cheap nowadays, I'm sure the XC-2 will have it.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
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.

No, but it has superior range and speed. Why would anyone care what the ethernet speed on a plane is anyways? "Yeah I was going to buy the F-22, but its ethernet speed was only 1 Mbit/s, so I went with the F-104 becuase they upgraded it to 1Tbit/s and threw in the Ipod charger."

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
-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.

Most new radars do this, though I don't know what an integrated surveillance system is. Spying? With a weather radar?

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
-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.

C-130J and C-17 have this, except for determining the flight path, we do that in mission planning.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
-Low Level Flight (500 ft) in IMC on autopilot;

Ridiculous waste, will never be used operationally

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
--Automated CG calculation;

A simple computer that determines weight and balance? We do that with a Windows 98 laptop.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
--Automated Defensive Aids Systems;

It should have this. All new military cargo acft do (C-130J, C-17, C-27J)

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
--Simple EMCOM switching;

You mean the button to go from plain to 'green'. No big deal.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
--Automated Tanker and Receiver fuel control;

It will have this (receiver). C-17 has this as a receiver. Tanker would be a simple upgrade.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 10):
-I could go on.

Please, go on. Does is also include suede leather seats? Leather wrapped throttle levers? Ralph Lauren scented urinal cakes? You listed lots of stuff that are minor but very expensive improvements over existing aircraft.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 22):
Which underlines my point that the XC-2 is inferior.

It looks to me like like the XC-2 can carry the same load as an A400M, but can carry it significantly farther and faster. Also, the aircraft appears to cost much less than an A400M. The bells and whistles on an A400M are nice, but irrelevant to 95-99% of actual operations. Some will probably never be used operationally, like the whole low-level autopilot stuff. I've been in the airlift game for awhile, given capabilities and cost, and based on the performance figures that are currently available to me, the XC-2 is a superior airlifter. The design and politics of the A400M is not my expertise, but it looks like the plane was designed to please too many, over promised, and now costs too much. The XC-2 is a 95% solution for probably half the cost, if its ever sold to anyone besides Japan.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:37 pm

Will Japanese regulations allow Boeing to license the XC-2 and sell it worldwide?

We will have another A vs B topic then  
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:13 pm

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 for after the military order was filled.

In this case since the aircraft is a cargo lifter what is required other than a civilian type certificat to sell it overseas.
To de-militarize it?

Couldn't a nation purchase the civil version "paint it green" and use it as a military transport regardless of Japan's rules against exporting weapons?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9938
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:24 pm



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
No, but it has superior range and speed. Why would anyone care what the ethernet speed on a plane is anyways? "Yeah I was going to buy the F-22, but its ethernet speed was only 1 Mbit/s, so I went with the F-104 becuase they upgraded it to 1Tbit/s and threw in the Ipod charger."

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 network, so do the engine controls, and all the other system monitoring/control functions.

On older aircraft like the C-17, you would just about run a pair or wires to/from the cockpit for every function and switch without any redundancy (i.e. if a bullet went through the loom you would no longer have that function). With ADFX those large looms of wires are replaced with a quadruple redundant set of 4 full duplex network backbone cables running along different physical paths, so that even if a bullet takes out one cable, no function/control is lost.

Devices like engines are added to the ADFX network much like a Cat 5 netwrok design, via a device like a switch that is connected to the backbone.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Ridiculous waste, will never be used operationally

It has that coupled with terrain following radar, and I would see it being used for .

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
A simple computer that determines weight and balance? We do that with a Windows 98 laptop.

Yes, and you have to transfer the information into the aircraft leaving open a step where errors can creep in. The A400M will be aware of its weight and CG position at all times on the ground and in flight, it is a feature on civil cargo aircraft.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:42 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
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.

What???? Every military aircraft production contract I can think of included a maximum payload, in either weapons, weapons capabilities, passengers, or cargo. You are thinking of an RFI/RFP where information or proposals are sought. Once selected, as in the case of the A-400M, a maximum payload spec will be in the contract.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
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.

The only reall numbers out in public for the XC-2 are in wiki, which says the 30 tonne payload (120 tonne TO weight) are for the 900m runways, and 141 tonne MTOW (37.6 tonne payload) is for the 2300m runways.

Design
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. These requirements are for a 120 ton take-off weight, since the JASDF needs to land the transport on short runways (i.e. Tachikawa—900 m). With a runway of 2300m and at maximum take off weight of about 141 tons, the aircraft will be able to carry a maximum of 37.6 tons. It will also have a maximum range of 10,000 km (without payload).

The aircraft will be also notable to have flight performances that will make it fly on commercial airliner routes. Past aircraft like the C-130 were not capable of this, and the JASDF had troubles sending its own on foreign evacuation missions.

It will be powered by two CF6-80C2 engines like the Boeing KC-767 and E-767, which the JASDF also operate.

The C-X also will have a new tactical flight management system which assists the pilot at low level flight. The aircraft will also be equipped with an automatic load on/off system in the cargo bay. Air refueling systems and night vision will also be incorporated.

[edit] Specifications
General characteristics

Crew: 3
Capacity: Length 16 m, Width 4 m, Height 4 m
Payload: Max: 30+ metric tons (120 ton TOW) (Max: 37.6 metric tons (MOTW))
Length: 43.9 m (144 ft)
Wingspan: 44.4 m (145 ft 8 in)
Height: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 60,800 kg (133,920 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 141,400 kg (311,453 lb)
Powerplant: 2× GE CF6-80C2K1F[12], 59,740 lbf (266 kN) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 610? mph (980? km/h)
Cruise speed: 550 mph (890 km/h)
Range: 0t/10,000 km 12t/8,900 km 37t/5,600 km (0t/6200 miles 12t/5,530 miles 37t/3,480 miles)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,200 m)

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

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
Yes, he thinks / "believes" differently.

The key is the term "service-standard aircraft", not what he believes.

That brings up the question, can EADS build a "service standard A-400M" for the price they signed a contract for?

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
You know all of this, how?

I have the same question for you:



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.

"The C-X also will have a new tactical flight management system which assists the pilot at low level flight. The aircraft will also be equipped with an automatic load on/off system in the cargo bay. Air refueling systems and night vision will also be incorporated."

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

Quoting A342 (Reply 20):
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.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):

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.

"The C-X was redesignated as XC-2 prior to her first flight test.[9] The XC-2's maiden flight was successfully completed at Gifu Air Field on 26 January 2010. The Defense Ministry announced that the flight took about one hour and all the equipments worked without problems.[10] Kawasaki scheduled that the first plane will be delivered to the Ministry by the end of March 2010.[11]"

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

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 22):
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.

The XC-2 apparently will have a defensive system, according to wiki.

Quoting GDB (Reply 24):
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.



Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 26):

Will Japanese regulations allow Boeing to license the XC-2 and sell it worldwide?

We will have another A vs B topic then

Who knows, the XC-2 will be offered commericially, and at about $80M per airplane, maybe FedEx and/or UPS will pick some up for US Military cargo charters?
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:54 pm



Quoting CMB56 (Reply 27):
Couldn't a nation purchase the civil version "paint it green" and use it as a military transport regardless of Japan's rules against exporting weapons?

Perhaps, but you could then forget any technical support from the manufacturers.
They'd likely embargo anyone doing this.
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:11 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
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 network, so do the engine controls, and all the other system monitoring/control functions.

On older aircraft like the C-17, you would just about run a pair or wires to/from the cockpit for every function and switch without any redundancy (i.e. if a bullet went through the loom you would no longer have that function). With ADFX those large looms of wires are replaced with a quadruple redundant set of 4 full duplex network backbone cables running along different physical paths, so that even if a bullet takes out one cable, no function/control is lost.

Devices like engines are added to the ADFX network much like a Cat 5 netwrok design, via a device like a switch that is connected to the backbone.

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.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Yes, and you have to transfer the information into the aircraft leaving open a step where errors can creep in. The A400M will be aware of its weight and CG position at all times on the ground and in flight, it is a feature on civil cargo aircraft.

It knows the weight of stuff as you put it on? You drive a humvee on it and the plane knows that 5,000 lbs is at location X and determines the acft's wt/cg off of that? I assume a weight on wheels function. Is that what you mean?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Ridiculous waste, will never be used operationally

It has that coupled with terrain following radar, and I would see it being used for .

I actually don't know how much cost the TFR adds to the total price tag, but it seems like an expensive feature. I'm aware that it is for TFR, but I just don't see it being used operationally; meaning: I cannot envision a future scenario where these European nations will want to send their cargo aircraft into hostile airspace with active enemy SAMS and/or fighters and do that by flying at 500 ft.

Given these features, I still see the XC-2 as superior because of the range and cost; features that matter every day.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:36 pm



Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 31):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Ridiculous waste, will never be used operationally

It has that coupled with terrain following radar, and I would see it being used for .

I actually don't know how much cost the TFR adds to the total price tag, but it seems like an expensive feature. I'm aware that it is for TFR, but I just don't see it being used operationally; meaning: I cannot envision a future scenario where these European nations will want to send their cargo aircraft into hostile airspace with active enemy SAMS and/or fighters and do that by flying at 500 ft.

Given these features, I still see the XC-2 as superior because of the range and cost; features that matter every day.

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 that system. BTW, the FB-111 TFR system could fly down to 100' agl and as fast as M 1.25. The "early system was in the F-111A/B/C/D/E while the upgraded systems were in the FB-111A and F-111F/G. I believe some MC-130E/Hs have a similar system, and it would be similar to a system in the A-400M and XC-2.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 am

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Counter measures are very different for fighters vs heavies, this will only be a minor improvement on existing systems. LAIRCM is very common and cheap nowadays, I'm sure the XC-2 will have it.

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 fully integrated system with several diffrent countermeasures against a wide range of threats.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
No, but it has superior range and speed

Yes, but it will need more runway, will need more maintenance/higher maintenance costs/ higher costs of ownership, less efficient engines, more fuelburn, will not be able to refuel helicopters inflight...

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Why would anyone care what the ethernet speed on a plane is anyways? "Yeah I was going to buy the F-22, but its ethernet speed was only 1 Mbit/s, so I went with the F-104 becuase they upgraded it to 1Tbit/s and threw in the Ipod charger."

How ignorant.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Most new radars do this, though I don't know what an integrated surveillance system is. Spying?

Yeah sure.
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Ridiculous waste, will never be used operationally

Say you? The airforces who buyed the plane don't share your opinon.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
It will have this (receiver). C-17 has this as a receiver. Tanker would be a simple upgrade.

But not automated.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
Please, go on. Does is also include suede leather seats? Leather wrapped throttle levers? Ralph Lauren scented urinal cakes? You listed lots of stuff that are minor but very expensive improvements over existing aircraft.

Another ignorant comment, which shows your bias. Yeah, full CFRP Wing is a minor improvement besides i only listed just some details. The TP400 engines are the most modern and efficient turboprop engines in the world. Low level flight software is written in stringent DO-178B Level A. Is the ADFX network a minor improvement???

Quote:

The terrain masking low-level flight (TMLLF) system, requiring a dedicated processor, has been selected by the German government. According to Airbus, the TMLLF requires no inputs from ground-based navaids or forward emitting sensors. The TMLLF and the basic LLF system allow the same minimum flight altitudes, but the TMLLF, among other features, includes automatic route planning. This automation takes into account threat and terrain information, using navigation sensors and terrain databases.

Another element that can enhance LLF and TMLLF operation is the terrain referenced navigation system (TRNS). According to Airbus, the optional TRNS can generate autonomous 3D position data independently of GPS, whose signals can be jammed or blocked by terrain in low-level operations.

The TMLLF system leverages improved processing and tactical situation presentation, compared with the basic configuration of the aircraft, according to literature published by Airbus majority owner, EADS. In addition, TMLLF relies on "a consistent process chain that builds on [these enhancements] and extends from route planning through to steering the aircraft along its [optimal] flight path." TMLLF presents hazardous zones and safe routes on a digital terrain awareness display.

The TMLLF also features a more powerful flight path capability. It "allows the use of a kind-of curvilinear flight plan," with legs as short as 50 meters (164 feet), Llamazares says. This enables aircraft to take benefit from the terrain, he says, masking them from potential or known threats. The system does not radiate, he stresses. "You use a terrain database. You use position coming from the IRS [inertial reference systems], GPS and air data sensors. It's passive." The TMLLF system takes the position of the aircraft from the navigation sensors and compares this with a specific terrain database in order to modify the flight plan to exploit the terrain.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
It looks to me like like the XC-2 can carry the same load as an A400M, but can carry it significantly farther and faster.

Wrong, even it can go over 30tons(MOD requirement is 26 tons) its nowhere granted it will be able to carry same payload.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
given capabilities and cost, and based on the performance figures that are currently available to me, the XC-2 is a superior airlifter


Yeah, with the shown "deep" knowledge about the A400M systems and your shortsighted opinion you are sure able to judge balanced and fair.

Sure range and speed(which both is better at the A400M then C -130) is important, but there are other factors(fuel burn, maintenance costs, takeoff and landing performance etc..) you seem very easily to have forgotten

[Edited 2010-02-05 00:48:52]
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:57 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Kawasaki scheduled that the first plane will be delivered to the Ministry by the end of March 2010.

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 the aircraft in about two months.
Nothing is mentioned about the service entry date.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:05 pm

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 25):
It looks to me like like the XC-2 can carry the same load as an A400M, but can carry it significantly farther and faster.

Wrong, even it can go over 30tons(MOD requirement is 26 tons) its nowhere granted it will be able to carry same payload.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Payload: Max: 30+ metric tons (120 ton TOW) (Max: 37.6 metric tons (MOTW))
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
AutoThrust

The A-400M brings nothing new to the tactical table except automated features that will take control and override pilot inputs. In a military airplane, that can be fatal in a tactical situation. BTW, tarrain masking has been used (manually) by Air Forces around the world since the 1950s.

Quoting A342 (Reply 34):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Kawasaki scheduled that the first plane will be delivered to the Ministry by the end of March 2010.

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 the aircraft in about two months.
Nothing is mentioned about the service entry date.

The French Air Force is scheduled to get their first A-400M for their flight testing program to begin when? (Hint: it currently scheduled for 2014, and with the record of the A-400M, it may be even later than that.) When will the A-400M enter operational service, with any Air Force? (Hint: no one knows.)
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:31 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The A-400M brings nothing new to the tactical table except automated features

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 system, which manages cargo handling, fuel management and tactical ground collision avoidance functions. It manages the military radios, including autotuning, emissions control and frequency tables .The M-MMS also calculates the weight and center of gravity of the cargo load, which it passes to the FMS as a basis for calculating total aircraft weight. It optimizes cargo loading and unloading plans, drawing from a cargo loads database.

Tactical situation management is another M-MMS function. The system receives data from the aircraft self-protection systems and passes this data to the displays. It can provide tactical information received over Link 16 to the tactical situation display. The M-MMS also manages the threat database and makes that data available on the displays. And it records mission data for later use by the mission planning/data retrieval system.

M-MMS also manages the tactical ground collision avoidance system .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
In a military airplane, that can be fatal in a tactical situation.

All the people at Airbus and the Goverments must be such morons to make automatic systems that override the pilot that and could be fatal in a tactical-situation. They should have consulted you first.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
BTW, tarrain masking has been used (manually) by Air Forces around the world since the 1950s.

You say it .... manually thats great. That means the new system is useless and the engineers at airbus are stupid to further develop such a system. Why make it automated if you can have it manually.
Whats your point?
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:39 pm

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The A-400M brings nothing new to the tactical table except automated features

Wrong, 500feet or less on autopilot is nothing new without having to worry about safety?

the MC-130 flys at 100' AGL, day and night in all kinds of weather and using NVGs.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
In a military airplane, that can be fatal in a tactical situation.

All the people at Airbus and the Goverments must be such morons to make automatic systems that override the pilot that and could be fatal in a tactical-situation. They should have consulted you first.

Perhaps they should have talked to the pilots and crews who will fly it, or to Boeing, or to LM, or how about the USAF who actually flys those type missions?. Or perhaps they should talk to the families of those killed in A-300, A-310, A-32X, and A-330 accidents, or those injured in all those models plus the A-340, where the pilot could not override the airplane to prevent a crash? No need to consult me, it is very unlikely I will ever fly aboard one.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
BTW, tarrain masking has been used (manually) by Air Forces around the world since the 1950s.

You say it .... manually thats great. That means the new system is useless and the engineers at airbus are stupid to further develop such a system. Why make it automated if you can have it manually.
Whats your point?

The point is that is a lot of wasted money to build a system that will be used less than on 2% of all missions flown by the A-400M.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:10 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The French Air Force is scheduled to get their first A-400M for their flight testing program to begin when? (Hint: it currently scheduled for 2014, and with the record of the A-400M, it may be even later than that.) When will the A-400M enter operational service, with any Air Force? (Hint: no one knows.)

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.
And it is available to Japan only, at likely astronomic costs (just look at the F-2).
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 pm

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 Japanese military programmes!
Whatever it's qualities, it's most likely to cost considerably more to operate too.

So, we have objections about the A400M, in large part since it's seen as a job protection programme, with the casual contempt by some in the US about anything European, despite the fact that most members of the A400M have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
But not about another real jobs protection/ technical capability retention programme, but this time from Japan, who do not, never will (due to their constitution the US effectively drew up for them after WW2), have troops fighting on the ground with the US, who have also withdrawn some naval logistic support for US ships and it seems want to see US troops leave military bases on some of their soil.

WTF?
Current problems or not, the fact is, if as is likely the A400M does carry on, it will have the potential to be a serious rival for US products.
Yet without the C-X, Japan would be probably buying the C-130J, possibly a small number of C-17's too.
But given those constitutional issues again, never a rival outside Japan for US products.

Not much logic in all this, is there?
Some (ungrateful) resentment though.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:07 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 24):
The US has long, with some good reason, complained about the lack of airlift capability that many European NATO nations have.

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 used mostly for humanitarian work rather than military deployments.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:46 am

Quoting Par13del (Reply 40):
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 used mostly for humanitarian work rather than military deployments.

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' work it would be a rather simpler and cheaper exercise.
Certainly, the limits of the C-130's cargo capability would not be a factor here.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:46 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):
You might want to take a look at the composition of ALL NATO forces in Afghanistan right now.

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 military involvement, other than Gulf War I the only other conflict coming to mind was the break up of the former Yugoslavia, indeed the last conflict in Europe itself saw no rush to deploy assets to prevent a Russian invasion.

There are a lot of folks in the EU who are against this notion of Nato expanding its mandate beyond its initial European sphere of operations, I do not believe that anyone is looking at Afghanistan and using it as a "model" to say that the EU / Nato is ready to become a world policeman, something the US was accused of and blasted for in some corners, including in Europe.

Times change and I'm happy to be proven wrong, I do like the fact that in some quarters the Afghanistan deployment is viewed with a sense of pride, especially coming so close on the US occupation of Iraq for "oil".
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:11 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
Yes, but it will need more runway

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 this up:

"(data for the C-X is sketchy, I can't find much on the internet)
C-X comes first:

Price: $80M (sure to rise) vs $200M (who knows the A400M's real price based on what I've read in this forum)
Max cargo 37.6 tons vs 37 tons (if they fix the overweight problem)
Speed: 610 mph vs 485 mph
Range (empty) 5387 NM vs 4700 NM
Range (max load) 3024 NM vs 1780 NM
Cargo area 4M x 4M vs 4M x 3.85 M (or 4M aft of the wingbox)
Assault landing 2970 ft vs 2526 ft (here the A400M is better but they both have the capability."

So, according to what I read back then, which I can no longer find, the XC-2 has excellent short field capability, not significantly different from A400M. I'm sure that we can both agree that sources for both aircraft are sketchy since they are both in a testing phase and because there's also very little information 'out there' for the XC-2. But wikipedia is better than guessing, and I have no reason or knowledge to doubt the limited information available. Besides, I have seen NO news stories about the XC-2 being significantly overweight, over budget, or about Japan considering the cancellation of it altogether.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
Wrong, even it can go over 30tons(MOD requirement is 26 tons) its nowhere granted it will be able to carry same payload.

Wikipedia states 37.6 metric tons, I can find no other sources. That amount also seems consistent with the XC-2's size and empty and full weights.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
which shows your bias

I've stated before that I have a bias towards THE C-17, but I think I provide pretty fair and consistent comments despite this. I don't have any real preferences in this comparison. As an example of my impeccable fairness and consistency, I think the European nations did a much better job of developing their next-generation fighters (Rafale, Typhoon) when compared to the US's F-22. The F-22 is way too expensive and narrowly focused on an area of warfare that is increasingly irrelevant, while the Rafale and Typhoon are cheaper and better able to confront a wide variety of threats/missions in the future. The incredible cost and unnecessary bells/whistles are my big gripes with the A400M. Seems like a pretty consistent argument, don't you think?

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
but there are other factors(fuel burn, maintenance costs, takeoff and landing performance etc..) you seem very easily to have forgotten

I assure I don't easily forget these things. I already mentioned takeoff/landing performance. Maintenance costs won't be determined until years from now but I have no reason to believe that Kawasaki can't design a very reliable aircraft that is cheap to operate. Fuel burn will probably favor the A400M, but it will also probably be excellent for the XC-2. You seem to argue that Airbus is the ONLY aircraft manufacturer out there that is attempting to design aircraft with the latest technologies.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
Low level flight software is written in stringent DO-178B Level A

Oh my gosh, I had no clue the software had so many letters and numbers in its name. DO-178B Level A? Level A? I change my mind, the A400M is the best aircraft. EVER. DO-178B Level A, absolutely amazing. I can't wait for Level B!

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 33):
Yeah, with the shown "deep" knowledge about the A400M systems and your shortsighted opinion you are sure able to judge balanced and fair.

I don't know the A400M systems, the level of detail you possess about the systems of the A400M is somewhat impressive but it really doesn't interest me. I don't even know what software language is used on the C-17 and I'm classified as an instructor pilot in it. You label my comments as short-sighted and ignorant? You and I come from different backgrounds and are looking at the argument differently. My background is 4000 hours as a pilot/nav in mobility aircraft, over 1,000 of which are classified as combat. I've flown cargo aircraft into Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a few other 'hot spots' I can't name. I've also led an airlift planning cell in the CENTCOM Air Operations Center and commanded a deployed airlift unit. I've been extensively educated in warfighting and airlift operations. So be careful with your comments about ignorance, bias, and short-sighted. You may judge an aircraft as superior because it has superior technologies, I judge based on capabilities and cost. When it comes to operational use (which is what these aircraft are for) I could care less what software code, wing design, or fuel automation. I care about numbers: number of aircraft, their range, what they carry, where they can go, how fast they can move X quantity of supplies. When I look at the A400M and XC-2, I see two aircraft with very similar capabilities, but one appears to cost HALF the price of the other, while it also has significantly better range. That's the aircraft that I would rather have in my air force. Think about it: the militaries of Europe are strapped for cash but need strategic airlift capability, they can buy double the number of XC-2s than A400Ms. I'm sure they can get by fine without DO-178B level A.

What do you think is on the mind of Haitians right now? "Please send more aircraft carrying more stuff" or "please send fewer aircraft but with awesome software code"

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
So, we have objections about the A400M, in large part since it's seen as a job protection programme, with the casual contempt by some in the US about anything European, despite the fact that most members of the A400M have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
But not about another real jobs protection/ technical capability retention programme, but this time from Japan, who do not, never will (due to their constitution the US effectively drew up for them after WW2), have troops fighting on the ground with the US, who have also withdrawn some naval logistic support for US ships and it seems want to see US troops leave military bases on some of their soil.

While those opinions may exist, I do not personally share them. I am grateful for European participation in Afghanistan and also glad that Europeans are making arms purchases to reflect a committment to global engagments of the future (A400M, C-17, CH-47, to name a few). Keeping jobs and production capability at 'home' is a perfectly acceptable reason to build many A400Ms.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:42 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
But not about another real jobs protection/ technical capability retention programme, but this time from Japan, who do not, never will (due to their constitution the US effectively drew up for them after WW2

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 loosers that even at the time some complained but they were put in place anyway, we all know the outcome. Fast forward to 1945 and beyond and look at the conditions on both sides of the European divide, was the US involved in any post war nation re-building how did they fare on that side compared to your assesment of their Asian effectiveness?

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Yet without the C-X, Japan would be probably buying the C-130J, possibly a small number of C-17's too.
But given those constitutional issues again, never a rival outside Japan for US products.

I do not think that you are saying that the US effectively put a constitution in place in Japan to prevent them from being a competitor to the US in international trade - especially when one considers who is among the larger trading partners with Japan running massive trade and economic deficits - but it sure does sound as if that is what you are saying.

If the A400M has its troubles, how does Japan not being able to export military programs suddenly become an onerous burden placed on her people, they can change their constitution if they want to, why is it necessary to deflect by bringing others into the discussion? On its technical merits, it does appear as if the C-X is comparable to the A400M, so what, are we going to war over that fact, how do we get to nation building, constitutions etc. based on the cost overruns of a single a/c.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:22 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 38):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The French Air Force is scheduled to get their first A-400M for their flight testing program to begin when? (Hint: it currently scheduled for 2014, and with the record of the A-400M, it may be even later than that.) When will the A-400M enter operational service, with any Air Force? (Hint: no one knows.)

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.
And it is available to Japan only, at likely astronomic costs (just look at the F-2).

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 for the XC-2 to A-400M, it is 3:1. You can ignor the facts coming from your own news media if you want, that does not make your made up information true. France will get the first A-400M, based on the current EADS schedule in very late 2013 or early 2014. At that time they will begin the military test/acceptance phase, not before. The XC-2 will complete initial flight worthyness testing as a civilian airplane, then in March 2010 will go to the military test phase, which will take 1-2 years, it will not need further testing/certification as the Japanese do things faster than most others. That still puts the XC-2 EIS in 2012, two years before the A-400M enters its final acceptance phase, and its EIS is still another 1-2 years after that.

BTW, the XC-2 is also offered as a civilian airlifter, as is the C-17 (no sales for either one yet). The A-400M currently is not.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
So, we have objections about the A400M, in large part since it's seen as a job protection programme, with the casual contempt by some in the US about anything European, despite the fact that most members of the A400M have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan.
But not about another real jobs protection/ technical capability retention programme, but this time from Japan, who do not, never will (due to their constitution the US effectively drew up for them after WW2), have troops fighting on the ground with the US, who have also withdrawn some naval logistic support for US ships and it seems want to see US troops leave military bases on some of their soil.

Many Europeans also have objections to granting Boeing the KC-X project, saying it is protectionism and not a jobs bill. Isn't it the same thing?

Yes, many of our EU friends have NATO troops in harms way, I honor those troops. Japan provides some medical troops too, as well as 4 Navy ships in the Anti-Pirate patrols off Somalia.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Current problems or not, the fact is, if as is likely the A400M does carry on, it will have the potential to be a serious rival for US products.

Maybe, but it has far from demonstrated it can do that, yet. Don't forget, it will also compete against the XC-2 and the proposed LM C-130X.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:13 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
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.

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 C-130?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
So, currently you cannot get a 2:1 for the XC-2 to A-400M, it is 3:1.

You cannot get it at all, only Japan can.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
The XC-2 will complete initial flight worthyness testing as a civilian airplane, then in March 2010 will go to the military test phase, which will take 1-2 years, it will not need further testing/certification as the Japanese do things faster than most others.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
BTW, the XC-2 is also offered as a civilian airlifter, as is the C-17 (no sales for either one yet). The A-400M currently is not.

a) How do you know how long military testing will take? And what makes you think that the entire initial testing (before delivery to the MoD) will take only three to four months? If they could pull that off, it would be a record.
I also don't know how you come to the conclusion that "the Japanese do things faster than most others". Just look at the F-2, which is not all-new, but a derivative. First flight in 1995, EIS in 2000.

b) Kawasaki may plan to offer the XC-2 as a civilian aircraft. But at this point, the C-17 does NOT have a civilian certification, and it remains just a plan for the XC-2.
The A400M however WILL get a civilian certification, as will its engines. This was a requirement of the programme, and IIRC is to be completed before military testing.
Neither the C-17 nor the XC-2 can get around this issue.

BTW:

"Dubbed the YC-X, this project would increase the aircraft's payload from the 26t planned for the military version to 37t"

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...3/316324/kawasaki-talks-civil.html

So the military XC-2 has a payload requirement of 26 tonnes.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:18 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 44):
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 losers that even at the time some complained but they were put in place anyway, we all know the outcome. Fast forward to 1945 and beyond and look at the conditions on both sides of the European divide, was the US involved in any post war nation re-building how did they fare on that side compared to your assesment of their Asian effectiveness?

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 good.
A400M bad.
There is no logic to this given that if you see the Airbus product as a purely economic programme, surely that is even more true of the Japanese aircraft, which remember, cannot as a military product be exported.

On the one hand you have whining about one aircraft, that should greatly increase the airlift capability of nations who the very same people often complain do not have sufficient ability in this mission,which inevitably leads to, in some situations, a bigger burden on the US.
On the other, no problem with another programme to enhance the airlift capability of another, this time, single nation, who won't ever need it to support their forces fighting alongside the US, so they've never had to call on US logistical help anyway.

Does not make any logical sense does it?
Unless it's really about maintaining an economic advantage/dominance for the US, from the very same people who are in effect complaining when others are doing, in retaining this sort of aerospace capability, just what the US does all the time.
Or maybe it's just who makes the A400M, Airbus, that stirs this.

To the C-X itself, are we saying that an aircraft powered by twin large CF-6 turbofans is the most suitable for ALL aspects of the military air lifter mission, including at the most tactical end, what can be called the 'Khe-San' part of the envelope?
C-X is designed for Japan, a major part of it's mission will be to support the military on the smaller, further flung, Japanese islands, which it should do admirably.
A400M has to be for a wider range of missions though. For all those end user AF's that are buying it.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:41 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
Many Europeans also have objections to granting Boeing the KC-X project, saying it is protectionism and not a jobs bill. Isn't it the same thing?

Yes, many of our EU friends have NATO troops in harms way, I honor those troops. Japan provides some medical troops too, as well as 4 Navy ships in the Anti-Pirate patrols off Somalia.

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 there is anti US sentiment in the EU, check out Japan.
Nations like Germany and Italy, in the teeth of opposition from their electorates, have/are increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan, as well as, by circumstances on the ground as much as anything else, allowing them a more active role.
The US President asked, they have complied, even if it is politically toxic for them.

Germany, Italy and Japan do have one thing in common, (apart from being on the losing side in WW2!), the effect that conflict had and still has on their national culture ever since. The same is substantially true of France as well.
We British think our forebears had a rough time of it with the bombing and privations, but we did not have intensive ground warfare on our soil.
Issues of war are different to them, it's inevitable, and we on the winning side of WW2 are quick enough to get jumpy when you see a few German skinheads, or Japanese politicians visiting shrines which include the dead of WW2 combatants, some with terrible crimes agaisnt thier names.

I think we British and the Americans would be somewhat more pacifistic minded if we had mass bombing, foreign invasion and occupation and in one case (not that I'm arguing that it was wrong-I don't think that at all), a couple of nukes dropped on cities.

But we are veering off topic, it will be interesting to see how the C-X does, Japanese projects are by nature interesting.
I just think it's extremely fanciful to expect it in service before A400M.
Consider the glacial pace of another uniquely Japanese project, the updated version of that four engined sea-plane, basically getting a 'C-130J style' makeover from the original 1960's/70's aircraft, which was both an ASW (for a time) and SAR tasked machine.
Don't see anything like that anywhere else do you?
Nor a new military air lifter powered by twin CF-6 fans.
Then there is that new 4 engine MPA they are doing too, like I say, their stuff is often very different.
Ben and Jerry's flavours in a largely vanilla world?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Kawasaki C-X Vs. A400

Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:33 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
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 good.
A400M bad.

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 from what we know is within budget and essentially on time, the A400M is not, that is also a fact but so what, does that mean that the a/c will not enter service or won't eventually meet its targets, no one has said that so why can the faults and comparisons not be done?
That the Japan product cannot be exported has no bearing on the current problems that the A400M is having, it was designed from the outset to be exported, Airbus did not just decide to add features to make the product exportable and thus created the cost overruns.

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
Does not make any logical sense does it?
Unless it's really about maintaining an economic advantage/dominance for the US, from the very same people who are in effect complaining when others are doing, in retaining this sort of aerospace capability, just what the US does all the time.

At times I wish the US did pay more attention to economic advantage / dominance like their EU cousins, if they did they would not allow their country to become a consumer nation running up trade and economic deficits with the rest of the industrial world resulting in a devaluing of their dollar which has knock off effects on us smaller nations. The EU does not run massive deficits with the US, maybe they could learn how its done.

Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
To the C-X itself, are we saying that an aircraft powered by twin large CF-6 turbofans is the most suitable for ALL aspects of the military air lifter mission, including at the most tactical end, what can be called the 'Khe-San' part of the envelope?

Don't think anyone said that, and since it can't be exported, its not much relevant, but one can certainely dream about its capabilities on an aviation forum, its why the forum exist.  
Quoting GDB (Reply 47):
C-X is designed for Japan, a major part of it's mission will be to support the military on the smaller, further flung, Japanese islands, which it should do admirably

I think that is the same that folks are also saying about the A400M, the cost is being questioned and the running of the program, discussion is fair game right? None of the doomsday predicitons of global catastrophe if the A380 program was continued occurred, what has happened as a lot of folks also predicted, was that the program would be overbudget, would be slow to re-coup its investments, and may not be a profitable program if its production run is too short, so far, how have those "reasonable" predictions been?

Quoting GDB (Reply 48):
Nations like Germany and Italy, in the teeth of opposition from their electorates, have/are increasing their troop levels in Afghanistan, as well as, by circumstances on the ground as much as anything else, allowing them a more active role.

I wonder about that, why exactly are they in Afghanistan? Prior to 9/11 if you asked in the US about the Taliban you may have gotten a blank stare, Europe on the other hand had much more exposure due to its greater exposure to the "excesses" of the Taliban, schools, women, national treasures, etc. etc.

Quoting GDB (Reply 48):
The US President asked, they have complied, even if it is politically toxic for them.

Yes, US presidents have asked numerous times, initially Afghanistan was a no go, Gulf War 1 was a go, Gulf War 2 was a no, last conflict in Europe was a no, but I am ready to accept that if they are now in Afghanistan that it means that the Europeans are now willing to be more involved on the world stage.

Quoting GDB (Reply 48):
Germany, Italy and Japan do have one thing in common, (apart from being on the losing side in WW2!), the effect that conflict had and still has on their national culture ever since. The same is substantially true of France as well.
We British think our forebears had a rough time of it with the bombing and privations, but we did not have intensive ground warfare on our soil.

There are reasons for that which in hindsight also have to be looked at, people did not just decide to have a war on their shores. The UK today does a lot of business with Germany in spite of the massive bombings done to UK terriroty and its citizens, is it somehow relevant to discuss this because of cost overruns on the A400M?

Quoting GDB (Reply 48):
I think we British and the Americans would be somewhat more pacifistic minded if we had mass bombing, foreign invasion and occupation and in one case (not that I'm arguing that it was wrong-I don't think that at all), a couple of nukes dropped on cities.

Would it have been better if thousands more Americans were killed storming the beaches of Japan, the men, women and children in Japan who died in those bombings would probably also have died during the invasion, surrender prior to the power of the bomb being seen was unheard of, but once again, do we need to discuss this because the A400M has some cost overruns?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atsiang, Google Adsense [Bot] and 10 guests