B17GUNNER24
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:24 pm

Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:24 pm

i believe that it is we in the UK don't need the RAF to buy any ( the rest of the world don't as well)because we already have c-130's which in my opinion is a million times better than the a400m. Unfortunately in the UK we are stuck with them now but at this point when there is hardly any money in the budget for new planes anywhere in the world . why spend the money on something that is basically a modernised version of th c-130? I also think this way about the f-35! we should of kept the harriers and saved money. I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better and we are wasting our money on both aircraft!!


!what is your opinion on the a400m and the f-35?







Callum strong
Liverpool
united kingdom
The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4749
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:17 pm

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
why spend the money on something that is basically a modernised version of th c-130?

The A400M is a little bit bigger than your C-130. And can carry a little bit more payload.   
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
B17GUNNER24
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:24 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:36 pm

@flyingturtle


That's what i mean a lot more money for a little bit more size
The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1):
The A400M is a little bit bigger than your C-130. And can carry a little bit more payload.

Nonsense,
The A400 is a more than just a bit bigger, it can carry a lot more over further distances at much higher speeds.
It is just too expensive (aqcuisition price) compared with the C17.
I think it is the equivalent when talking about price explosion and performance problems with the JSF, also something
that was sold with too much promise for too little money.
[edit post]
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4749
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:47 pm

You're still way off the mark. And I was quite sarcastic. 

C-130 payload: 20 tons
A400 payload: 37 tons

Well, but a.net is a place to learn fascinating stuff every day.  
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
B17GUNNER24
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:24 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:18 pm

Thanks for replying guys but i still prefer the c-130 and well the raf dont have any money so we have to lease our c-17s and we have 1 operational aircraft carrier. Its not the best airforce=(
The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
 
mffoda
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:53 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
You're still way off the mark. And I was quite sarcastic. 

C-130 payload: 20 tons
A400 payload: 37 tons

I can see the sarcastic point... 37 tonnes      
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14479
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:08 am

The A400M on its original budget, schedule and features would not have been a waste of money.

Now that it's no longer "half a C-17 for half the money" and now that the Euro crisis is in full swing, I'm sure its price tag is hard to justify.

If the Germans cancelled as many frames as they were allowed to (7), and have said they won't be operating many more (13).

It doesn't bode will if EU's richest country (tm) can't find the money to support the program.
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!
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:39 am

The A400M would work as a single transport fleet fulfilling both the tactical and strategic airlift roles. That said the competition is better at fulfilling those roles individually. The C-17 is a much better strategic airlifter and the C-130J is a much better tactical airlifter. With the UK fielding the C-17/C-130J mix, I don't see what role the A400M fills.

For Germany or France however, the A400M makes sense.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:27 pm

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better

The harrier would get its ass handed to it if it came up against a modern 4th generation fighter, not to mention 4.5, or even 5th generation. The Harrier is old, subsonic, and its single saving grace it its V/STOL capacity, they need to be replaced.

The Harrier is out of production, so what do you buy? Ignoring the V/STOL capacity as the RN is now going CATOBAR with the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, what do you get? The RN could get a 4.5 gen Super Hornet, MiG-29K, SU-33, the Rafale M, or the F-35B/C. The Super Hornet is a decent fighter, but is not cheap. The Russian offerings will never happen, flying a French jet off a British carrier has a much better chance of that... but the Rafale M is between $90-124M dollars.

This leaves the F-35B/C. The B is a no go now that the QE carriers are CATOBAR. The F-35C is currently $139M, but that will come down significantly once production is streamlined. This will bring the F-35C into the price range of the other jets capable of CATOBAR usage.

So, you get a supersonic, stealth, modern fighter comparable in price to other offerings.

Sounds like you're preference for the Harrier is something like the bromance people have with the F-14 Tomcat. Great jets, but the need for them has come and past.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:41 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
Sounds like you're preference for the Harrier is something like the bromance people have with the F-14 Tomcat. Great jets, but the need for them has come and past.

I've heard Harriers are very easy to fly. So easy that a secret agent with an Austrian accent can do so after a 15-year layoff. No Canopy? No problem.

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better and we are wasting our money on both aircraft!!

I personally think you need to education yourself about the F35 in general and stop reading MSM article with authors who don't associate themselves with military equipment. The F-35 is the only stealth fighter/attack aircraft in the world right now. If you think the Harriers are better, then you obviously don't have an understanding of the technology onboard the F-35.
 
B17GUNNER24
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:24 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:04 pm

I think u missed my point because ive typed it wrong. I mean we hardly have any money for the RAF to buy aircraft so im saying we should have saved money and kept our harriers instead of getting a new fleet of f-35's untl the RAF can get enough money to buy more aircraft carriers(The raf currently only have 1 aircraft carrier in service) then buy our a new aircraft fleet( F-35s). I admit that the F-35 is a leap forward in stealth/attack planes that are affordableand after watching videos of it and looking at the specs of it ive come around to liking it but i just think the harrier now was great for the falklands war and iraq but am now realising that harriers are very outdated and we need to invest in new technolgy because most new generation planes today could blow the harrier out of the sky with a machine gun . When we get are f-35s we will have 3 great fighter planes the eurofighter typhoon, tornado gr4 and the f-35. The raf have also retired our only survailence aircraft(i think) the Nimrod. The raf need to stop cutting down our airforce.

Thanks for your comments
The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3987
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:22 pm

The f-35 has moderate stealth capabilities and only from the frontal aspect. It is not stealthy against L-band radar, which is being fitted to Russian frontline aircraft...as well as ground stations. By the time the F-35 enters service, its stealth will be further compromised.

The stealth comes primarily from the shape of the structure, the materials used for that structure and the final coatings applied...and still won't offer significant protection from any aspect except the front.

It has an IR signature just as intense as any jet fighter ever made...and more than most. It's vulnerable from ground fire, so it's ground support capabilities are limited. It's ground support will have to be from altitude...not particularly efficient or accurate, regardless of how smart its weapons are...weapons which can be fitted to any modern fighter.

At altitude, it's primarily frontal aspect stealth becomes less effective since the bottom and engine become visible to radar and IR. If it's not nose on, it's not particularly stealthy.

It will have very sophisticated electronics but those could be fitted to any aircraft.

Its price has at least doubled from the original $65 million per copy touted in the sales brochures.

Regardless, the F-35 will be a good plane but it won't be significantly better than 4.5 gen aircraft.

Drones, cruise missiles and advanced anti radar countermeasures supply most of any advantages the F-35 will have and for less.

So yes, it'll be a nice plane if it ever gets to front line service...which won't happen in this decade. It's just not as good as it's biggest fans seem to believe.
What the...?
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:56 pm

A lot of the above is paper airplane talk. Sure, the F-35 is not as optimized for stealth from other than the frontal aspect. However, it still has a significantly lower radar cross section than any 4.5 gen bird. And this is particularly the case when it's carrying a full internal payload, as it would do in a high air threat environment.

Internal carriage is not some minor detail. It allows the plane to go significantly faster, manoeuvre at higher speeds, and have a significantly lower RCS when loaded, which dramatically improves survivability in combat.

The problem with a lot of the press and hobbyist talk is that they compare brochure numbers (something very frustrating to the guys I know in the project office here in Canada) and the F-35s brochure numbers compare terribly to clean 4/4.5gen jets on Wikipedia. But clean jets are useless in combat. Compare real-life numbers and the picture is very different. Both on performance and cost (how much does an F-18E/F cost once you have buy sensor pods, more external fuel tanks, cost in maintenance on two engines and higher fuel burn for 20 years, etc.?).

In the UKs case, it's a question of what to field for the carrier force. The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft. NoW that they've gone CATOBAR, the F-35C makes much more sense. It might work out cheaper, carries more ordinance (and brings it home), and performs much better than the F-35B. Compare the F-35C to the naval Rafale or a navalized Eurofighter. The first won't offer the same performance or survivability. The second would probably cost more to field and to operate.
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:54 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 13):
The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft.

That's not entirely true. You can recover STOV/L aircraft in weather conditions that make Catobar recovery impossible. This has been proven several times in joint operations between RN and USN in the Indian and Pacific oceans. The same in the North Atlantic.The USN had to launch additional tankers to allow a full flight divert to land base. In a war situation thats as good as being shot down.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:54 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
I've heard Harriers are very easy to fly. So easy that a secret agent with an Austrian accent can do so after a 15-year layoff. No Canopy? No problem.

Harrier's are notoriously difficult to fly especially in STOVL mode...F-35 will be considerably easier to fly. The lift fan creates a screen of blown air that keeps the engine from sucking hot exhaust gas. When you suck hot gas - it is the engine turbine inlet temp that gets high- causing the engine to 'throttle-back' so the temp is not exceeded, creating a pop stall (which is very dangerous). And not to mention that pilot workload has decreased sharply compared in the F-35B because of better automation.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
It is not stealthy against L-band radar, which is being fitted to Russian frontline aircraft...as well as ground stations.

L-band radars are not designed to be a targeting system. They are only useful for search only; they can't tell the different between a 747 and a fighter jet because they lack resolution. There is a big magnitude of difference between aiming a weapon at a 747 sized target and a fighter jet.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10145
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:56 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):

Harrier's are notoriously difficult to fly especially in STOVL mode...F-35 will be considerably easier to fly.

I see sarcasm is lost on you, also surprised you missed the reference to True Lies, the Austrian bloke would be Arnold.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:21 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
L-band radars are not designed to be a targeting system.

Along with this, there is a HUGE difference between simply detecting a stealth aircraft and actually shooting one down. The Ruskies have a long way to go in missile technology if they want to even match current US stuff.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:02 am

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Reply 11):
untl the RAF can get enough money to buy more aircraft carriers(The raf currently only have 1 aircraft carrier in service) then buy our a new aircraft fleet( F-35s).

I have to make the correction here, but the Fleet Air Arm and the carriers have nothing to do with the RAF - both are art of the Royal Navy. Also while HMS Illustrious is currently the only carrier in service for the RN, by 2020 you should have two between Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales so you're going to get the new carriers you mention. I guess I just don't understand your concerns here in terms of the inclusion of the F-35 in the future Fleet Air Arm?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3987
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:44 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 17):

Detecting them is the first part of the targeting process. The F-117 shot down in Serbia was targeted using very long wavelength radar...and pinpointed by SA-3's when the bay doors opened...and that was a lot stealthier than the F-35.

Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find. Their huge IR signature makes them detectable and shows exactly where they are.

L-band also gets more accurate as the range closes, which is particularly useful on a fighter aircraft. Besides, if you can explode a missile at a 747 sized target, you have a very good chance of hitting the F-35 sized target. Shoot enough missiles, (which are a lot cheaper than F-35's), and the odds of a hit improve significantly.

Cruise missiles and UAV's make much more useful stealth options. They're cheaper and you can easily overwhelm defenses without putting pilots in danger.

The increased sophistication of jamming technologies has, to a larger than ever degree, rendered the entire question of stealth, moot.

When most of the known defenses have been neutralized, stealth isn't as important. The success of Canada's F-18 deployment history is proof that stealth isn't the panacea it's cracked up to be.

Unless Canada decides to become a first strike nation, (which somehow I doubt), stealth in it's fighter fleet is of very questionable usefulness.

It's a high price to pay for something that Canada has never needed and will very likely never be needed.
What the...?
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:05 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find.

Oh jesus, not the F117 incident again. It was shot down because they were flying the same flight path, run after run. The Serbs fired off a missile and it luckily hit the target. Compare that one extremely lucky incident to how many sorties the F117 flew through it's history without being detected and the odds are on the stealth side.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
It's a high price to pay for something that Canada has never needed and will very likely never be needed.

It is a high price and we will pay it. Saying what we will and will not need is ignorant. Did anyone predict we will be dropping bombs on Libya this summer? No. The world is a volatile place and no one can predict what will happen. On that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS3TsqySbw

[Edited 2011-12-05 14:06:15]
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:43 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 13):
In the UKs case, it's a question of what to field for the carrier force. The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft.

The Fleet air arm received the Harrier almost as an afterthought, the Invincible carriers were originally specced as "through deck cruisers" Their job was to operate ASW helicopters. The Harrier was a way for the Fleet air arm to keep a fixed wing capabilit, as it could operate from the new class of ships, even if they werent ideal (poorly shaped hangar, badly located lifts, initial ski jump angle too little, poor deck layout)
At the time of the Falklands war, many "experts" pointed out that the previous Ark Royal with its AEW Gannets, Phantoms and Buccaneers could have provided the fleet with a proper AEW screen, a strong offensive capability, plus a far better fighter screen for both the fleet and over San Carlos.

The problem with the Sea Harrier was that it was just good enough to beat a mediocre opponent, this then dictated UK carrrier aviation for the next 25 years. Yes it is unfortunate that we have nothing until the next decade, but we haven't had anything you would dare put in harms way since the Sea Harriers were retired in 2003. Since then we sent carriers to sea with a few mud movers on deck and no way of defending themselves.

So I can't agree with you on the Harrier, its day has passed and its time to move on.

Regarding the A400M, we don't need it, the collossal delays in the programme have resulted in the RAF operating a fleet of C17's which do all that the A400 could, but better, bigger, heavier and faster, and probably cheaper as well.
If we hadn't signed to buy them, a mix of more C130's and C17's would do the job far better.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3987
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:25 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 20):
Oh jesus, not the F117 incident again. It was shot down because they were flying the same flight path, run after run. The Serbs fired off a missile and it luckily hit the target. Compare that one extremely lucky incident to how many sorties the F117 flew through it's history without being detected and the odds are on the stealth side.

Oh jesus...not the, "it only happened once so it's not relevant", retort. The missile still had to track the target in order to hit the plane.

As it turns out, the F-117 was significantly more stealthy than the F-35. That significantly increases the odds of another 'lucky shot'.

Trust me...I don't question the usefulness of stealth in general, just the mediocre stealth on the F-35, specifically.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 20):
It is a high price and we will pay it. Saying what we will and will not need is ignorant. Did anyone predict we will be dropping bombs on Libya this summer? No. The world is a volatile place and no one can predict what will happen. On that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS3T...qySbw

Not bothering to hear any voice but your own is ignorant. Saying what we will and will not need is free speech. Some of us can actually think for ourselves too.

Using Libya as an example is silly...since no stealth aircraft were involved in the campaign...and how many F-18's were shot down again? How many has Canada lost in any campaign using the F-18's?

Heck...the world is such a scary place, maybe we should get nukes too...or ICBM's...or strategic bombers...how about an aircraft carrier or two...then we can get the 'B' model F-35's...yay. We can get all sorts of stuff we don't need now, never have needed and most likely never will. Just screw the dumb schmuck taxpayers who have to pay for it.
What the...?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:53 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

Detecting them is the first part of the targeting process. The F-117 shot down in Serbia was targeted using very long wavelength radar...and pinpointed by SA-3's when the bay doors opened...and that was a lot stealthier than the F-35.

Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find. Their huge IR signature makes them detectable and shows exactly where they are.

See the previous discussion regarding the F-117 shoot down. It was primarily due to very poor tactics and complacency that resulted in the shoot down.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

L-band also gets more accurate as the range closes, which is particularly useful on a fighter aircraft. Besides, if you can explode a missile at a 747 sized target, you have a very good chance of hitting the F-35 sized target. Shoot enough missiles, (which are a lot cheaper than F-35's), and the odds of a hit improve significantly.

L-band radars don't get more accurate as the range closes. Furthermore, the arrays for L-band radars are huge in order to get any decent resolution. The one they put of the T-50 is extremely small in comparison. X-band radars can be very small and still get excellent resolution.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Cruise missiles and UAV's make much more useful stealth options. They're cheaper and you can easily overwhelm defenses without putting pilots in danger.

Cruise missiles are still very expensive; you are talking about $2-3 million dollars for a one time use missile. UAV's can be hacked or jammed, rendering them useless.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
When most of the known defenses have been neutralized, stealth isn't as important. The success of Canada's F-18 deployment history is proof that stealth isn't the panacea it's cracked up to be.

Stealth is still very important after day one. There is always the possibility of not getting a SAM site after day one.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

Unless Canada decides to become a first strike nation, (which somehow I doubt), stealth in it's fighter fleet is of very questionable usefulness.

Norway, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands are all buying F-35's, and never had a global first strike capability. The only nation that does is the US, and to a very limited extent, the UK.

[Edited 2011-12-05 19:08:03]
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:18 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Heck...the world is such a scary place, maybe we should get nukes too...or ICBM's...or strategic bombers...how about an aircraft carrier or two...then we can get the 'B' model F-35's...yay. We can get all sorts of stuff we don't need now, never have needed and most likely never will. Just screw the dumb schmuck taxpayers who have to pay for it.

If the F35 cost was such a big issue, the Conservatives wouldn't be in a Majority right now. So people who voted for them either agree with the F35 or don't care. I'm just glad the left side can be pushed off into a corner for a bit, let Canada be run the way it's supposed to be, without interference from the 'clatter and noise'.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
since no stealth aircraft were involved in the campaign.

The B2 bomber was actively used for sorties, so you are wrong. If the F35 was already in service it's a guarantee it would be used, we'll just have to wait for Iran.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
.and how many F-18's were shot down again?

Just because none were shot down doesn't mean they weren't constantly tracked and targeted. We went through over 10,000 rounds of chaff/flare during that campaign, that speaks the need for stealth in itself. No pilot in their right mind would choose a non-stealth fighter over a stealth jet. Thankfully, the dumb schmuck taxpayers who don't know any better and confuse a F15 and F18 won't be playing with the lives of Canadian, and allied for that matter, pilots just to save a buck.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:53 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
Cruise missiles are still very expensive; you are talking about $2-3 million dollars for a one time use missile. UAV's can be hacked or jammed, rendering them useless.

Do you have any cites / sources that show / prove that any UAV has been "hacked", and thus did not accomplish its mission? I'm curious.... I don't recall seeing anything about that subject.      
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:03 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 25):
Do you have any cites / sources that show / prove that any UAV has been "hacked", and thus did not accomplish its mission? I'm curious.... I don't recall seeing anything about that subject.

The Iranians have claimed to have done so recently, but there have been a number of instances where we have lost contact with a UAV.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:06 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 26):
The Iranians have claimed to have done so recently,

The Iranians have claimed Allah is on their side too. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Again, I asked for cites / sources of UAVs failing their mission. Do you have any? Or no?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2534
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:40 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 27):
The Iranians have claimed Allah is on their side too. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Again, I asked for cites / sources of UAVs failing their mission. Do you have any? Or no?

It was reported a few years ago that Predator drone feeds were hacked by Iraqi insurgents.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

If a bunch of insurgents could do that with very little in the way of support, imagine what a more sophisticated opponent (say, China, Russia, et al) can do.

Not to mention that we have lost UAV's in the past due to datalinks being interrupted, resulting in having a manned fighter go up and shoot it down... for example, in 2009, a MQ-9 Reaper lost communication with ground controllers and communications could not be reestablished over Afghanistan. A F-15E was sent up to shoot it down.
 
GDB
Posts: 12678
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm

If you want the capability, be it in transport (the RAF were never going to get the 10 C-17's they wanted, the C-130J really has some limitations as far as the ground forces equipment is concerned), or in modern, first day of the war, sensor fused fast air - from a carrier - really F-35 is the only game in town.

However if the UK does not see the need for these capabilities, then yes, they are a waste of money.
But HM Government does want these capabilities.

As to retiring the Harriers early, that's a result of the government's general posture of cut deep and fast early on - across all spending - which would then lead to a bounce back in the economy with growth rising....about now.
Oh dear. So Osbourne was wrong then. We are not just like Greece after all (only the dopey Lib Dems fell for that one).

I agree last years Defence Review was in many ways a farce, however there was/is a large black hole in the MoD budget.
Not for the first time though, indeed for the most part there has been one of various sizes since about.....1950!
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:20 pm

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Reply 5):
Thanks for replying guys but i still prefer the c-130 and well the raf dont have any money so we have to lease our c-17s and we have 1 operational aircraft carrier. Its not the best airforce=(

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the RAF end up buying those C-17s? They leased them initially and then turned around and bought them.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14479
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:30 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 29):
the RAF were never going to get the 10 C-17's they wanted

Seems they are getting there, one frame at a time...

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 30):

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the RAF end up buying those C-17s? They leased them initially and then turned around and bought them.

Yes, the original 4 were leased then purchased at the end of the lease.

The UK owns 7 C-17s as of Nov 2010.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...17_Globemaster_III#Royal_Air_Force
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: 12678
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:30 pm

Yes it was a lease, that was turned into an outright buy.
But they are getting no more than 7, last years cuts saw to that. I based the figure of 10 aircraft on reported RAF serial number allocations to that type.

This lease was roundly criticised by the House Of Commons spending watchdogs, then the C-17 proved invaluable, these reports from this body are usually a year or two out of date by the time they publish.
Something to bear in mind when used as a source - which most journalists don't do!
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:42 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 8):
The A400M would work as a single transport fleet fulfilling both the tactical and strategic airlift roles. That said the competition is better at fulfilling those roles individually.

How can you say that? The A400M is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the A400M here on A.net, they have to realize that the A400 is the most modern and sophisticated tactical transporter in the world.

The engines alone are the most powerfull, efficiently and modern in their class.

A modernized C-130 is not even close.     
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:13 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 33):
How can you say that? The A400M is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the A400M here on A.net, they have to realize that the A400 is the most modern and sophisticated tactical transporter in the world.

The engines alone are the most powerfull, efficiently and modern in their class.

I have a funny story to tell you.

Once opon a time, several kings got together and decided they were tired of importing thier wagons. So they would pool thier money and develop thier own wagon to use and sell to others. They all agreed that It should be 1/2 the size of the wagons they currently used, and this would mean it would cost 1/2 as much. But Woe... WOE. The Mules to pull the wagon were to come from across the great ocean. No the kings could not have that, no matter if the best mules avalible in the known world came from there. So they started a new stable to provide mules. This new place would bring in horses from a well known horse breeder, and donkeys from a different breeder.

Years later, the kings went to see how thier new wagon was doing. They were shocked to find that the wagon wasn't the size they ordered, being unable to haul the loads they desired. They were shocked to find that thier new wagon would cost as much as the old imported one. Worse yet was to come, they discovered thier mules were broken down nags which often didn't do what the driver told them. Teeth grinding and general wailing occured. The kings went to the wagon maker and said "this is not what we agreed on". The wagon maker shrugged and said "your gold is already spent, if you desire your wagons to be built, you must give us more gold". The kings responded "we agreed on a price, we have paid it, were are our wagons?" The maker shrugged and said, "I have no wagons for you. I will let the craftsmen know that they will need to visit your soup kitchens if they desire to eat since you will not pay them". So the kings put thier heads together and agreed that they had no choice, they might not have any money in the treasury, but to buy the wagons now would be cheaper than punishing the greedy wagon maker and buying different wagons in the future.

So the Kings still await thier wagons that do less than desired, for double the money promised. Also they still have Mules with serious flaws.


On a more serious note Autothrust... Go look up what happened to those vehicles that were too big for a C130 but just right for a A400M. Canceled or overwieght... all of them. So they don't fit in even an origional spec A400M much less than the current shortfall. Tactical transport can be accomplished with a C17 just as easy as a A400M. Its just dumb to use your transports in such a manner unless you have no choice. Most armies work hard to ensure they have a choice in thier tactical and strategic planning, as failing to have choices often means failing to win conflics.
 
GDB
Posts: 12678
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:03 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 34):
On a more serious note Autothrust... Go look up what happened to those vehicles that were too big for a C130 but just right for a A400M. Canceled or overwieght... all

What about all those vehicles, from combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are upgraded, up armoured?
Of the ones purchased for urgent operational requirements, not part of any previous procurement planning? They tend to be big beasts capable of affording at least some defence against IEDs for example.
That at least is the UK experience these past 10 years, unlike the US they don't have huge fleets of C-17's they don't have C-5's, never could afford to buy and operate enough C-17's.
Guess what fills that gap?
The US experience here is irrelevant, they have all those C-17's and C-5's.

And yes, it's a lot easier to design and build new vehicles, other military kit, for A400M carriage than for C-130J. They are in development or production across NATO.
Despite the justly legendary nature of the Herc, a legend just as great (if not greater) than it's WW2 forebear the C-47, it's modernisations, still it has a cargo compartment sized for 1950's US Army requirements.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:12 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 33):
How can you say that? The A400M is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the A400M here on A.net, they have to realize that the A400 is the most modern and sophisticated tactical transporter in the world.

Irony at it's finest. You defend the A400M for the same reasons you hate the F35. Watch this:

'How can you say that? The F35 is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the F35 here on A.net, they have to realize that the JSF is the most modern and sophisticated fighter jet in the world.'

 
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:28 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 36):
'How can you say that? The F35 is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the F35 here on A.net, they have to realize that the JSF is the most modern and sophisticated fighter jet in the world.'

With evident design flaws !

To asnwer the intial post
A400M: Maybe (depends on how the countries purchasing it actually use it and not everybody needs a fleet of C-17's)

F-35: No with the strong exception of the F-35B model unless a large conflict breaks out in the near future I dont see a need for it unless they get all the bugs worked out of it, in my opinion the F-35B is the biggest waste of money.

[Edited 2011-12-11 21:29:25]

[Edited 2011-12-11 21:30:08]
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:00 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 33):
How can you say that? The A400M is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the A400M here on A.net, they have to realize that the A400 is the most modern and sophisticated tactical transporter in the world.

The engines alone are the most powerfull, efficiently and modern in their class.

A modernized C-130 is not even close.     

You didn't get the gist of my comment. A C-17 is a significantly better strategic airlifter than an A400M. And a C-130J is a better tactical airlifted than an A400M because it's smaller. Heck, I'd argue that for most cases, the best tactical airliftedrwould be a C-27J or C-295.

There's a lot that airplanes are capable of. But there's reality on how aircraft usage is restricted. For example, the RCAF has certified and allows austere airfield ops with the C-17. This is a necessity for us with the Arctic. The Brits have severe restrictions on their C-17s for austere ops. They scarcely use the aircraft tactically.

When you have something as big as an A400M, you are more likely to restrict its usage in the tactical role than you are a C-27J. This is precisely why it doesn't make for a great tactical airlifter, no matter how much it can carry. On the other hand, for strat airlift you want a bird that's as big as possible to limit the number of trips you have to make. This is what makes the C-17 a much better strat airlifter.

The A400M may be a great tactical transporter. But I am willing to bet that it will see very little actual usage in hard TAL roles once it is pressed into service. That's not to say it's not a great aircraft or inappropriate for most of its countries. For a lot of its European customers, the A400M is the right mix of strat and TAL, specifically because these days Strat is far more important for expeditionary roles, humanitarian missions, etc.. But for a country like the UK, which is already fielding C-17s, what's the purpose of having another large bird that its ops planners will be conservative with? I'd suggest that RAF planners would be happier fielding another dozen C-17s, than two dozen A400Ms.

[Edited 2011-12-18 13:06:27]
 
GDB
Posts: 12678
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:42 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 38):
I'd suggest that RAF planners would be happier fielding another dozen C-17s

Which they'd never get, or never asked for.
C-17, the original lease of 4 was intended as a stop gap before the then FLA, later A400M, was developed and procured.
Circumstances changed, the RAF found itself at a much higher operational tempo than envisaged before 2001, FLA slipped further into the future.
So the C-17 fleet expanded, lease turned into buy.

But the service always had an eye on an aircraft with more capability than C-130J, more affordable to buy and operate than a C-17.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:28 pm

Not wanting to start a new thread because of this A400M related news;

http://www.aviationnews.eu/2011/12/1...ture-cooperation-with-south-afric/

Quote:
Airbus Military confirms that, following constructive discussions with Armscor, it has refunded South Africa’s pre-delivery payments for the A400M military transport aircraft while at the same time, opening the door to further close cooperation with South Africa.

“The agreement we signed with Armscor on 29 November 2011, draws a line under the cancelled A400M acquisition, but crucially, it lets us all move forward together to explore further opportunities, including upcoming acquisition projects led by ARMSCOR., “explained Airbus Military CEO, Mr Domingo Urena.

Background notes:
South Africa was given full industrial partner status in the A400M programme in 2005. In return, South Africa committed to acquire 8 A400M aircraft in a firm- and fixed-price contract worth EUR 837 million (which had never increased).

Despite South Africa cancelling its A400M acquisition in November 2009, local companies, Denel Aerostructures and Aerosud, have remained responsible for the design engineering, manufacturing and supply of several major parts, including:
• aircraft top shells (roof),
• wing-fuselage fairing (the largest single aircraft component ever manufactured in South Africa),
• aerodynamically complex wing-tips (which directly influence fuel efficiency and carbon emissions)
• cabin and cockpit insulation & linings and
• galleys

In addition, Cape Town-based Cobham South Africa, supplies the satellite communications antennae and related systems.

Airbus has also launched and committed to ZAR4 billion worth of industrial and research activities with South African partners through to 2020.
[edit post]
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5370
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:08 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 38):
When you have something as big as an A400M, you are more likely to restrict its usage in the tactical role than you are a C-27J. This is precisely why it doesn't make for a great tactical airlifter, no matter how much it can carry. On the other hand, for strat airlift you want a bird that's as big as possible to limit the number of trips you have to make. This is what makes the C-17 a much better strat airlifter.

The RAAF's choices make a good combination then.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mehdi Nazarinia - Mehdi Photos
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Songyuan Andy Zheng


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel T Jones
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrei Bezmylov

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art..._27j-transporters-for-%24950m.html
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14479
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:30 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 38):
When you have something as big as an A400M, you are more likely to restrict its usage in the tactical role than you are a C-27J. This is precisely why it doesn't make for a great tactical airlifter, no matter how much it can carry.
Quoting YTZ (Reply 38):
The A400M may be a great tactical transporter. But I am willing to bet that it will see very little actual usage in hard TAL roles once it is pressed into service.

Yes, many here made much of it's soft field landing characteristics, but don't seem to understand that a commander isn't going to plop a $200M+, 122,000 kg asset into a meadow just to show it can be done.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 39):
Airbus Military confirms that, following constructive discussions with Armscor, it has refunded South Africa’s pre-delivery payments for the A400M military transport aircraft while at the same time, opening the door to further close cooperation with South Africa.
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 40):

Despite South Africa cancelling its A400M acquisition in November 2009
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 40):
Airbus has also launched and committed to ZAR4 billion worth of industrial and research activities with South African partners through to 2020.

Of course, no mention of how EADS wanted SA to accept huge schedule and budget overruns, but that's par for the course. Nice of them to cling to the money for two years.
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!
 
ytz
Posts: 3039
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:41 am

Yeah. I actually think that would be a good combination for the RAAF. The C-27J would have made an tactical airlifter for a place like Afghanistan. They are essentially the right sized replacement for the Caribou/Buffalo.

The need for the Hercs comes from the need to airlift the LAVs. A lot of Army equipment is smaller than that though. Resupply runs in theatre don't need Hercs. Indeed, a smaller aircraft that can get closer to the FOBs/COPs is far more useful.

In an ideal world, 1-1.5 squadrons of each would be sufficient for most mid-sized countries.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:18 am

Quoting YTZ (Reply 43):
The need for the Hercs comes from the need to airlift the LAVs. A lot of Army equipment is smaller than that though. Resupply runs in theatre don't need Hercs. Indeed, a smaller aircraft that can get closer to the FOBs/COPs is far more useful.

I think increasingly that heavy lift helicopters will replace conventional "tactical" lift. With the very large size of the modern armored cars used to transport troops, hauling it by sling is much easier than comming up with a new medium lift transport every time the things get bigger.
 
jollo
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:29 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
Of course, no mention of how EADS wanted SA to accept huge schedule and budget overruns

Schedule delays, for sure (years!). But did EADS actually ask South Africa for more money ? How much more?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14479
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:29 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 44):
I think increasingly that heavy lift helicopters will replace conventional "tactical" lift. With the very large size of the modern armored cars used to transport troops, hauling it by sling is much easier than comming up with a new medium lift transport every time the things get bigger.

  

Seems the UK operates ~60 Chinooks and the US Army should end up with 450+.

Some googling reveals:

Quote:

Under the U.S. Army Modernization Program, CH-47Ds will be upgraded to Remanufactured CH-47F aircraft. New-Build CH-47F begin deliveries in 2006. CH-47F contains a fully integrated, digital cockpit management system, long-range fuel tanks and advanced cargo-handling capabilities that complement the aircraft’s mission performance and handling characteristics. The CH-47F’s triple-hook system stabilizes large external loads, such as 1550mm howitzers, allowing them to be carried at speeds up to 140 knots (260 km/hr) – or twice as fast as single-suspension loads. Multiple external loads (fuel blivets for example) can be delivered to three separate destinations in a single sortie.

Under the 2005 contract, the US Army will modernize its entire fleet of 397 CH-47D Chinooks to the new F-model configuration and procure at least 55 additional new-build CH-47F Chinooks.

Ref: http://www.helis.com/60s/CH-47_Chinook.php
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!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5693
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?

Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:41 am

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 21):
ngar, badly located lifts, initial ski jump angle too little, poor deck layout)
At the time of the Falklands war, many "experts" pointed out that the previous Ark Royal with its AEW Gannets, Phantoms and Buccaneers could have provided the fleet with a proper AEW screen, a strong offensive capability, plus a far better fighter screen for both the fleet and over San Carlos.

The problem with the Sea Harrier was that it was just good enough to beat a mediocre opponent, this then dictated UK carrrier aviation for the next 25 years. Yes it is unfortunate that we have nothing until the next decade, but we haven't had anything you would dare put in harms way since the Sea Harriers were retired in 2003. Since then we sent carriers to sea with a few mud movers on deck and no way of defending themselves.

So I can't agree with you on the Harrier, its day has passed and its time to move on.

Before you completely discount the Sea Harrier you should do a little more research. In the Falklands war there were many days that the weather was so bad a Conventional Carrier would not have been able to launch or recover Aircraft.


It was in fact, a superb Aircraft flown by excellent Pilots but they were up against some very determined and capable Pilots who out numbered the RN and RAF significantly.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos