Hold on let me get this right

We already own C17's. We have pilots and navigators trained to fly them? Engineers trained to maintain them? Presumably we've also got the complementary Lockheed care plan and a warehouse full of spares to keep them in the air. The plane is available like now...

...and we've decided to go and buy something else?

The MoD simply isn't fit for purpose. We should scrap it, flog off the buildings and sell the defence contract to Tiscali who after all, have a record of ruining life for millions of people that the British military can only aspire to.

How sad,

We used to be right at the forefront of aircraft design (TSR2/SR177 and oh so many others) not to mention other forms of transport (hovercraft) and though there were plenty of gaffs (the Lightnings' endurance) it wasn't until the USA pulled the 'it will all be done by missiles' line that the government of the day decided to kill off the British aviation industry.

This half-arsed mucking around approach is even worse - either we develop our own stuff entirely, or we buy from over seas, trying to do both at the same time is madness.

Right - time for a coffee.

ttfn

Missed leave...?

"Often missing large chunks of their hard-earned home leaves waiting for delayed or cancelled planes;"

Happens in civvie street all the time.

Terminal 5? 9/11? Ryanair...?

Defence Procurement as a Game

The problem is that all through from the 50s to the early 80s, defence procurement was a game. No one _really_ thought that a war starting with either a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the Russians or the the 2nd Shock Army streaming through the Fulda Gap was really winnable, or even fightable in a meaningful sense, so the whole military-industrial complex turned into a game. Lots of money, but no real outcomes. Falklands proved the stupidity of that: we had a navy that couldn't defend itself against essentially third-world forces, so would be totally incapable against anyone serious, an airforce that could only engage in pointless raids over a long distance, raids that a proper carrier could have provided hour in and hour out, by dredging scrapyards and an Army that was woefully undermanned. But since then, it's not got any better. The Air Force continue to fight not even the last war but in fact the early parts of the second world war (hell, by 1943 the game was up for short-range interceptors), the Navy has a few sub-hunters for a submarine threat that doesn't exist and non-functional air defence pickets for a fleet that no longer exists and the poor bloody Infantry pick up the pieces.

Britain could use a large, conventional or nuclear carrier with a fleet of low-tech aircraft. INdeed, for present problems, the Ark Royal circa 1972 plus some old Buccaneers would be a seriously useful force. The air force should just be all loaded onto carriers, but if they can't manage that should stop pissing about in fast jets (to fight whom, exactly?) and see if they can buy some decent ground attack aircraft, while the Army should get some decent helicopters.

Buying from America is not guaranteed to be cheeper

Dare I say it, the Joint Strike Fighter...

What about the tanks?

So if the A400M only has a maximum payload of ~30 tonnes how are we going to move our Challenger 2 MBTs to the various conflict zones around the world? at 60+ tonnes we will still need C17s so yet more wasted tax money. Or we could waste a few more million or billion and build a new 30 tonne tank just so it can be carried by our new planes.

Or maybe just maybe the A400M is to replace only the C130s with their maximum payload of ~20 tonnes where the A400M is an improvement, although i suspect the cost is not justifiable.

Now the real question is do we need a lighter class of plane or could we manage with only C17s and no C130 or A400M. There must be a reason the US operate both the C17 and the C130 though.

- Anon

30 year wait - for an (air)bus!

I recall reading about what was then called FIMA (IIRC), basically the same plane, in 1985. ISD of 2015 - 30 years gestation.

Just as well it is only a bus with wings. How long for a flying Formula 1 car? Oh yeah, Typhoon....! 1979 first studies, 2009 deployed out of UK to Falklands. 30 years-ish again.

So, what will we need to do in 30 years. Erm..??

There's a great saying in Texas - 'either crap, or get off the pot'. Airbus/BAES/MoD must have numb arses. And only a modest amount of crap to show for all the effort.

Lewis Page by any chance?

Usual anti-RAF tosh from Lewis Page I see... He'll defend the navy spending until the end though...

As said by others here, before knocking this get the facts correct. The A400 and C17 have different roles, they are more than just a big tube with wings...

And why has it desended to this state?

As the contributors above note, we (Britain!) had good technology and people. Why have many of our Engineers and Scientists gone and to were? Firstly, when Britain stopped developing interesting stuff, they "Brain Drained" to the USA. Then when we stopped building interesting stuff they went to America and Europe. We have niches (like motor racing) but seem destined to lose them as well if we're not careful.

Why did we stop developing and building? "Oh, our Engineers and Scientist were too exacting and made it too expensive and we were told by our allies not to compete..." and "Foreign Engineers are so much better at designing and building to cost than us....." If these ideas are the excuses used then our Civil servants, Accountants, Bankers and "City" leaders have a great deal to answer for as nether of the sentiments reflect the truth completely or accurately and do a disgraceful dis-service.

No one in the Political class seems keen to attack and cast out these incompetent wretches because they do not consider it is in their interests to do so. The author is a notable and cogent critic but he has only a little voice, regrettably. Would that others would do a service to British forces, subjects and taxpayers by amplifying his voice.

c130...

So long as the standard pallets fit, just re-engine the existing airframe - or incrementally update the structure.

Aircraft design is variations on saussage lengths, wing positions and sizes - why do anything more complicated unless there's a *seriously* compelling design reason to change. We have built (civilian/airlift) aircraft the same way since the DC3 (if not before)..what's the point in changing.

maybe open source flight control software.....

More Europe!

This shows we need a more integrated Europe where national politics play far less of a role. Away with the various national defense industries and work on a real European scale. For that matter, away with the national military as well. The Yanks enjoy massive advantages because of the scale they work at while the European countries are merely small fry.

Antonov

I would have thought it would have been much simpler to have bought a few Antonov 124 with their 170 ion load carrying capacity.

C-17 Tactical Airlift

The C-17 can do tactical airlift, the RAF pilots just miss out that part of the syllabus in the states as it wasn't part of the rental contract, that's why it can taxi backwards under its own power. It can't go everywhere a C-130 can so you have to have them too, but then the A400 probably can't either, still as we'll be operating all three that shouldn't be a problem, we'll be able to pick exactly the right airlifter for any situation....

As for flying tanks about, generally it's better to send them by sea unless you need them really urgently.

@And why has it desended to this state?

Think of it in IT terms.

Imagine a single company building an OS, by improving on its previous design, adding new features etc = works

Now imagine one built by a bunch of amateurs just turning up and working on the bits that interest them also works.

Now imagine writing an OS where the same proportion of lines of code, screen pixels and features have to be written by each country. There is no cost limit and every year 1/3 of the suppliers and customer requirements change as a new party is elected in 1/3 of the countries.

The prospect of being hanged...

...concentrates the mind wonderfully.

How many of the wonderful weapons of the past century only came into existence because the engineers, managers, and politicians knew how bad it would be if they didn't get them into service?

And it's maybe easy to forget all the different types of American transport which were not a huge success. The C-130 and the C-17 are the pick of the crop. There were planes designed in the 1950s we don't remember, not just American. (The Beverley and the Argosy come to mind from British sources, and the Belfast just scrapes in as a 1950s design.)

One advantage the Americans have had is that their country is big enough for people to want long-range air transport. That's why the DC-3 was there to be turned into the C-47.

Anyway, the A400M doesn't seem all that much better than the C-141