Sign in / up

back to article New RAF transport plane is 'Euro-w*nking makework project'

A peer and former defence minister has described the A400M military transport plane - which is being bought by the cash-strapped UK armed forces for a secret but outrageous amount of money - as a "Euro-wanking make-work project" in the written Parliamentary record. Airbus President and CEO Tom Enders and the A400M Programme …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Wibble257
            Reply Icon
            FAIL

            Are you Lewis Page Richard

            So you agree that the article says nothing in terms of facts and is just opinion? If you read any of the articles, books etc by Lewis Page you will see he is very, very pro US equipment and completely against UK/European equipment but rarely, if ever backs this up with facts. I do not believe his military knowledge is as bad as his articles suggest so he clearly dumbs it down to the mainly non-military readership.

            Governments always keep the costs of new contracts secret; it is just the same as large commercial companies. You are implying some sort of cover up. When the time comes the National Audit Office will review the contracts and may offer criticism if it is justified. This is the way it works there is no conspiracy!!

            Both Lord Gilbert and Page do not use any real facts to support their argument and what facts that are used there are no sources. It is total garbage and there is also a complete lack of common sense and logic. The argument that the A400 is slower than the C17 so therefore the A400 is rubbish is completely void. The speed of a cargo aircraft is irrelevant in real terms. Now if the argument went on to say that the A400 has a higher hourly servicing rate and the servicing is more expensive that that would be a valid argument but as usual Page does not go into the real detail. This is Top Trumps Air Power where faster is always best!! The sustainability is the important factor so as long as the aircraft can arrive at 1600 each and every day, for example, it does not matter that it took off 30 mins before a C17 would have.

            The payload argument is equally void. You need to work out what the maximum and average payload is before you start looking and what aircraft you need. For example, if you rarely carry more than 20 tons then there is no need to have lots of aircraft that can carry 50 tons. If you regularly carry big, but light equipment such as helicopters then the size of the cargo area is important and the A400 is pretty big. What wikipedia and Mr Page wont tell you is the RAF work a simple schedule with their cargo aircraft and will fly into whatever FOB that is in use at regular and set intervals be it every day, 5 days or week or so on. The aircraft will still depart whether it is empty or full and it will come back at the same time whether it is empty or full. The reality is the C17 will rarely be anywhere near it’s maximum payload so the A400 can easily do the regular scheduled flights (if that is what the RAF wants) and leave the C17 free to do the heavy stuff if and when it comes up. All the really heavy stuff (tanks etc) is sent out by boat as it is a lot cheaper, aircraft are only used when the equipment is needed in theatre (or back from theatre) quickly.

            The bottom line is none of us know exactly what the A400 can and can not do at this time. It might end up being an expensive white elephant or it might end up being a flexible and capable aircraft. What Gilbert, Page and the other wikipedia Top Trumps Air Power experts should not being doing is passing judgement until they have the facts and knowledge to make a valid argument.

            1 0

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Goes both ways

    The original Hercules design may be over 50 years old, but quite a few old ideas still work. After all, we ARE flogging airships back to the US:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/threecounties/hi/front_page/newsid_8855000/8855934.stm

    If we are looking to save UK jobs, maybe we should be looking at some SkyCat 1000's. Might only do 185kph, but it can carry 1000T, and is a UK company. Might be slower than a C17/C130/A400, but it is a whole load quicker than a ship. No runway needed, tarmac or otherwise. No port needed, just enough space to unload.

    0 0
  3. GeorgeTuk

    Down with this kind of thing...

    ...a totally stupid buying decision based on following someone else.

    1 1
  4. Dave 15

    Should we

    Should we always just buy the cheapest. Buying an American plane may be 'cheaper' on the surface, but it

    a) Employs NO British people, thus means we just export money (and jobs)

    b) Fails to enhance British skills, thus meaning we will never compete

    c) Makes us subject to the Americans continued indulgence, the biggest problem with the proposed airbus solution is the fact it still relies on American technology.

    To be honest we should be able to defend ourselves - that means we need to be able to make our own planes, tanks, missiles, ships, bullets, guns, uniforms etc. etc. etc. If we can't then we are defenceless and might as well stop all defence spending as it is just a waste

    2 0
  5. Wibble257
    FAIL

    WUM

    Richard you are just a WUM. You are offering nothing to this argument except childish swearing and baseless conspiracy/cover up theories. When you finish school you can join the RAF and start watching the grown up news and reading grown up newspapers and learn about life in the real world.

    Either counter the arguments I have made or go and finish your homework.

    2 2

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        @ Richard

        >why your opinion is more valid than Lewis or Lord Gilbert

        This lacks an apostrophe s. Besides, Lewis' opinion and Lord Gilbert's opinion are far from equivalent. They are close to antagonistic, actually.

        Lewis campaigns for C17s to do short-haul missions, while Gilbert campaigns for C130s.

        Gilbert's POV is understandable in a cash-strapped situation (let's use inferior but cheaper crafts for the same role, as everyone does), while Lewis' view is that the C17, which will be flawn by a grand _4_ countries, and which has drastic landing strip requirements, can replace a robust short-haul, short strip craft like the A400 (or the old Hercules).

        That is basically flawed.

        1 0
    2. arkhangelsk
      Reply Icon

      Pot, kettle, black

      Let's review your long posts. Remember, the thesis of the article is that the A-400M is not worth it, so a counter will involve actually saying something good about A-400:

      1) The C-130J: Interesting tidbit, but hardly makes one think of anything more than remember that the A-400 (OK, and the propfan An-70, just to be fair) turboprop may also be forced outside of its optimal altitude band for similar reasons, thus its practical performance in peacetime may be less than what is promised to us. Not exactly something to make us feel the A-400 is all worth it.

      2) C-17 Rough: That actually sounds more like an argument to get C-130Ks or cheap Antonov-12s or whatever. Doesn't help the A-400.

      3) C-17 Para: True, but unless you can show that the A-400 will somehow require less training, less maintenance and all, this is not much of a pro-A-400 argument. In fact, it makes one conclude that the A-400 (which ain't cheap, and the cost of the plane is, though not proportional, correlated to its likely maintenance cost) will never do para-dropping or low-level either, which

      4) USAF-RAF: Interesting, but it is not a plus for the A-400.

      5) Interoperability: So, some parts aren't the same. Some parts are, which is more than could be said for the A-400.

      6) C-17 project was nearly cancelled: True, but it wasn't. I agree that C-17 is something of an overhyped aircraft thanks to the efforts of a certain blog which closed shop (not just stopped making new posts; DISAPPEARED from public view) 2 months before the numbers FINALLY caught up with the C-17, but it is there. If you want a Western strategic transport, there are not exactly a ton of alternatives. If you want cheaper (and in many respect better), buy Russian and improve relationships. Not the A-400.

      7) Double: Yes, there is a difference. The C-17 will probably carry that Chinook farther than the A-400, creating a band of areas and destinations that can be reached in one leap on the C-17, but not the A-400. Anyway, in his book, Lewis did mention that the US average load for the C-17 is 33-tons, which is very close to the MAXIMUM weight (read: greatly reduced range) capacity of the A-400.

      8) Wiki: Stop talking tautologies. All this means is that the A-400 will suffer from the same limitations; hardly something to promote it.

      Big Post 2:

      2) Contracts: Companies are forced to reveal such secrets to their stockholders so they may decide whether their money has been well spent. Well, the UK people ARE the stockholders for the government.

      3) What you've just said is that speed is less important if the sortie rate is low. Speed is over-rated due to fixed time costs in loading and maintenance, but not completely unimportant. In fact, your first longie already states some reasons why it may be important.

      4) That schedule is presumably made based on average and maximum loads (say P=.95, with the remaining top-5% peaks being handled by specially scheduled flights) per day. For example, if certain airbase averages say 20 tons a day, but may go to 40 tons about 1 in every 10 days, they will under this scheme have to schedule 1 C-17 or TWO A-400M every day to guarantee that everything that has to go out can be shipped. Hardly a pro A-400 argument.

      5) Basically a "Have-blind-faith-in-government" argument. If you are right, and we are not getting the information we need to judge reasonably whether we are getting fleeced or not from open sources, we can only conclude the government trying to avoid criticism of its actions by using the secrecy veal.

      In none of this do we see any solid reason to be pro A-400.

      0 1
  6. Wibble257
    FAIL

    There is another Page

    Richard you have offered ZERO in this debate. Lewis Page has offered ZERO actual facts or even common sense. Lord Gilbert was part of the Labour government that originally bought the C130 and in doing so bowed to pressure from the US to reduce the order for the Belfast (the A400 of its day). Later as head of the MOD Lord Gilbert sold the 10 Belfast we did buy forcing us to lease them back at extortionate costs for the Falklands War. The last Labour Government had 13 years to cancel the A400 so if he felt so strongly about it he had time to do something but instead they kept on signing those agreements. So Gilberts track record of supporting the US economy at the expense British/European Economy and allowing the MOD to not have the right equipment for the job is pretty good.

    Ark

    1. The A400 is replacing the C130 so will operate in a similar manner which mean lots short in theatre trips at lower levels were the speed difference between props and fans is less relevant and fans can be of an advantage.

    2. You can not buy the C130K new any more and if we bought them second hand the costs of bringing them up to standard would be too high (total costs may be higher than buying new A400ms). It is more likely that the RAF will keep hold of a few old C130Ks for this purpose. Plus we don’t know how robust the A400m is at rough strips yet, it may be fine.

    3. The A400 is to replace the C130 therefore it will do the jobs currently done by the C130, para dropping etc etc. You argue that we don’t know that the A400 will be cheaper but we don’t know it will be more expensive either!! That is the whole point of why the article is so useless is that is does not use facts or relevant information. It is just Lewis trying to get a PR job for Boeing again.

    4. Nor is it a negative.

    5. It is not a question about whether the parts fit!! It is about contracts, control, parts tracking, budgets etc etc. You cannot just bolt any old part to an aircraft regardless of whether it fits or not.

    6. How is the C17 over hyped? How is the Russian kit cheaper and better?

    7. Who cares what the USAF average load is? We are in Afghanistan TFN so as long as an A400 can fly a Chinook to Afghanistan then all is well beyond that who knows. You also forget the A400 is replacing the C130 not the C17. It is there mainly for the in theatre stuff the fact that it will be better at the long distance stuff than the C130J is a positive not a negative.

    8. The A400 will suffer from different issues because it is a different aircraft. It may be built in such a way that maintaining it is cheaper, quicker and easier, the spares supply may be faster. The point is we don’t know but everyone is assuming that it will be bad because it suites their blinkered view.

    2. What world do you live in? Have you written a FOI request asking the government for the costs of each A400? The reality is that the probably do not even know. These things are ridiculously complicated. However, we do live in modern country and the facts will come out. Like I said the National Audit Office regularly reviews these sorts things and is always happy to give the government hell in it’s reports.

    Ie

    http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1833&thisSection=military

    3. In English please?

    4. Why would they schedule more freight than an aircraft can carry? The schedule runs regularly at the same time etc etc to make is easy to coordinate and you have to take into account Slot times at Brize Norton and the destination. Importantly, you have to take into account the over flight clearance needed for the countries en-route which can be a nightmare/impossible to change short notice. You can not just send 2 aircraft although it sometimes possible to swap aircraft types. When there are surges, roulements etc they will schedule extra aircraft in advance. Or do you believe it is cost effective to send the biggest aircraft in the fleet on every flight on the off chance something heavy needs to be carried?

    5. Not at all. But just assuming there is some sort of conspiracy/cover-up when there is not proof is just stupid. However, I am not so ignorant think that supplying finance to the EU and UK is a bad thing as we will recycle some of the money back as tax. It is also important the UK/EU retains the skilled workforce to work on projects such as this as not only will we be forced to buy aircraft from the US we will also have to send them to the USA for servicing.

    Everyone also forgets the A400 can do something the C17 can not, Air to Air Refuel which will allow the RAF to replace the Vc10 and C130 in the Falklands with one aircraft. Cheap and simple. It should also allow, if money can be found, the RAF to use the AAR capability of the Merlins and possibly Chinooks.

    Anyway the whole point of my replies is not to be pro-A400 or pro-C17. The simple fact that you conveniently ignore is none of know how good, or bad the A400 will be. It might be brilliant, it might be rubbish we simply do not have the data we need to make an informed opinion. Lord Gilbert clearly has 2nd and 3rd agenda’s in writing what he did as does Page. There is absolutely nothing in what Page and Gilbert have stated that can be taken as fact or as a valid opinion. Sadly, this is common with all the articles Mr Page writes, they are all meaningless opinion dressed up as facts. Top Trumps Air Power. So, as my first line I wrote states the article is dribble.

    I will leave you with this link:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346673/a400m-poised-for-us-market-spotlight.html

    0 0
    1. arkhangelsk
      Reply Icon

      How is the C17 over hyped? How is the Russian kit cheaper and better?

      Mostly, the C-17 is most hyped regarding its rough-field performance. It is a pretty good STOL aircraft in good conditions, but it has high ground pressure which means its stops drag on in the rain, it kicks up more dust than it has to ... all things that don't add to its luster as a rough-field aircraft.

      Russo/Ukraine vs Europe

      An-70 v A-400M

      https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0koa4ipOBjbYmVmYzQyMGMtNmU3Ny00Y2ZmLTlkNTktYzY1YTQxMzY5Mjlm&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

      (excerpted from unpublished Antonov publication, from the blog previously mentioned.)

      0 0
    2. arkhangelsk
      Reply Icon

      Your argument is appealing to the unknown...

      ... a common apologist tactic when most of the available information is unfavorable. To which I say a few things:

      1) For big decisions in life, it is rare to have as much info as you feel you need. This fact does not relieve you of the need to do the best with what you do have.

      2) As a rule, superficial stats > (sounds better than) reality. Forecast Stats based off Drawing > Forecast Stats based off Prototype > Stats of Final Product. There have been pleasant surprises, admittedly, but they are the exception. If a plane sounds bad now in prototype, betting on it to turn out good is like betting on "True Communism by 1980".

      3) In the question of basic performance, open sources are generally not too far off; since all weapons must conform to physics, putting values that are too far off home ground (such as the famous "SSN speed >20 knots" crap sung by the USN), don't work.

      4) In the unlikely event that in the classified files there IS a factor that will completely reverse the conclusion, the fault is entirely with the government.

      The very premise of democracy is that the citizen can make broad brush decisions in their best interests. To do that, necessarily they need correct information, and providing it is one of the duties of government agencies in democratic countrires. Having semi-independent reviewers like the GAO or NAO is a step, but ultimately they are no substitute for this availability of information to the open public.

      So, if there is secret info that would reverse the conclusion obtainable from open sources, yet we make the wrong decision b/c it wasn't revealed in the name of secrecy, it would be used as an excuse by government officials to say "leave it all to us", but the fault is really on them - in a democracy at least.

      0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like