UK blocks A400M deal?

Barry walker said on the 8-Feb-2010 at 10:40

The sooner the UK pulls out of the A400 programme the better. Additional C130s and C17s would be cheaper and more capable.

kenny said on the 13-Feb-2010 at 08:24

The RAF could retire the oldest C130s and bring in A400s to replace them. Or just get more C17s.

IAN GOLDSTRAW said on the 14-Feb-2010 at 17:48

I'm not a fan of aircraft built by consortiums, it shows with these cost overruns in this the A400, and the Typhoon. Another C17 & C130J's to replace the ageing C130k's
Both proven types and off the shelf ready to buy!

Barry walker said on the 14-Feb-2010 at 17:55

Next pull out of the F35 and buy Rafales for the carriers and more Typhoons for the RAF

chris nunn said on the 15-Feb-2010 at 15:43

its simple you sign a contract and airbus must honour that contract or the uk should walk away
buy more C17's and c130's
the A400 was just an uprated belfast

David E. Baker said on the 19-Feb-2010 at 17:42

The A400M is a waste of tax payers money. Buy more C17s and C130s, far more practical and available now!

Andrew Dyson said on the 21-Feb-2010 at 13:05

This was a fixed price contract and should be honoured. Alternatively some second hand tankers as per the Tristar programe at a very reduced price to save the A400M programme.

Harry McColl said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 10:15

Waste of time and money. Buy more C-130's and C-17's.

M Alan Brady said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 14:21

Who cares if the C-130 is available now?? The A400M represents the cutting edge of turboprop technology. I seriously doubt EADS would have made this kind of investment if there were no future in the basic platform, and this is a European project, with no American help. Buy it. Invest in it. Be proud of it. The C-130 represents the past. This, along with the C-17 personifies present and future of strategic airlift.

Harry McColl said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 14:59

EADS is not making the investment, they are asking others to bail it out.

If this, along with the C-17 personifies present and future of strategic airlift, then buy the C-17, which on paper is a better aircraft and is currently flying.

Europe will never develop anything that their armed forces want and require without political interference and protection of their countries interests.

Whilst this is a sad fact, it is also true. Look at previous collaborations where they have been a disaster and a waste of money.

chris nunn said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 15:26

if eads/airbus knew what they were doing they would have got it so wrong
anyway this has been a political order all along as the raf seem very happy with the C130/C17 mix
adding another aircraft type is a vast waste of money and time

Harry McColl said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 16:12

Two aircraft types is sufficient and the C-130/C-17 mix fits the bill. I agree with the previous comment, adding another type will only complicate the maintenance and training requirements.

Has anyone bothered to ask the RAF what they want?

Barry walker said on the 28-Feb-2010 at 21:34

My brother worked in MOD until Xmas. He would confirm that procurement decisions were based on
1. Political spin
2. Jobs in marginal seats
3. What the forces need/want.

David Crouch said on the 1-Mar-2010 at 15:40

Why Why Why, does it always happen that anything To be produced for the armed forces increses in price 10 times no matter what. and the daft b------s allow it to happen.
It seems to me that members of parliment must have shares in the said defenseindustri.
I find it all so dissapointing, and they could buy from the ruskys a lot cheeper. After all it,s tax money were talking about

M Alan Brady said on the 3-Mar-2010 at 04:17

But some collaborations have been very successful, like the Tornado, Jaguar, Alpha-jet, and more recently the Typhoon. This is the way of it since no single European nation can make such a massive investment alone. (besides Sweeden and France apparently) Despite the political realities and bickering, the bottom line is that the European Union needs to maintain an independent aerospace design and manufacturing capability. Since they don't have the political will or the money to design and manufacture the equivalent of the C-17, then the A400M is the next best thing. There is no alternative, unless it comes from the USA. I am American but I have a lot of respect for and confidence in European aerospace.

chris nunn said on the 3-Mar-2010 at 08:23

it is interesting to note the above comment how
quote then the A400 is the next best thing.
we dont want the next best thing we want the best aircraft for the job and with a mix of C130 & C17 we probably have it
yes the RAF is still short of heavy lift capacity so give them more C130 & C17 as they already have the expertise in operating these
one of the problems with international colaberation is the length of time it takes to get the aircraft into service,all the above projects mentioned ran years late and i believe over budget

David Crouch said on the 3-Mar-2010 at 14:41

All things said so far make a point.
However thinking back to WW2, they seemed to design on paper and build new aircraft in very short times and no s**t from polititions now with fantastic datamashines it takes 20yrs that i call progress well done all.
Yes by all means take a look at little Sweeden, and shame yourselves

M Alan Brady said on the 5-Mar-2010 at 18:38

Right, but remember that the aircraft of today are "force-multipliers". They take years to develop and are always over-budget but in the end when they finally enter service they provide a lot of bang for the buck. So you don't want the "next best thing"? OK then the best possible airlift combination for Europe would be a healthy mix of the C-17 and the A400M though yes this would be costly. I notice that no-body can properly respond to the fact that even the latest version of the C-130 is still much less capable than the A400M, which carries twice the payload over the same distance.

Harry McColl said on the 5-Mar-2010 at 19:32

Yes, the C-130 is less capable than the A400M, that is why you would mix it with C-17's.

Alan said on the 6-Mar-2010 at 00:30

Guys,

the point is the C130 is long in the tooth. Top aircraft but is too small. The A400M can as stated above do the job better longer and biggr but can land on the same type of airstrips as the C130. The C17 is excellent but we cannot afford the numbers so the A400M is the next best thing. The C17 does havea ok rough feild capability but the A400M will be better. It will complimmnt the C17.

chris nunn said on the 6-Mar-2010 at 14:23

the thing is do we need something in the middle of the C17 and C130
countries are not falling over themselfs to order the A400 indeed the south africans have canx theres so does that mean a european country will have to take them
the A400 is a political aircraft the polititians want it so the military will be forced to have it
the RAF should have what they want/need and ive not heard them shouting that they want the A400

M Alan Brady said on the 6-Mar-2010 at 17:56

At the end of the day there are great arguments for building the A400M in quantity while maintaining and possibly adding to existing fleets of C-130J's. Boeing is constantly looking for an excuse to close down the line at Long Beach though orders for the C-17 continue to trickle in, up to 250 now. Yes money is tight but the capabilities these aircraft represent are worth the investment. I understand the UK and Germany are unhappy with the A400M but in time they will come around as the aircraft proves itself in the coming years.

chris nunn said on the 6-Mar-2010 at 18:19

I hope mr brady is correct but can not help but think that the A400 is just a political gesture
if we need something between the C130 and C17 do we also need some thing smaller than the C130 ie the spartan where does it stop
I may have missed it but do not remember the military saying we need the A400
i wonder if and when the A400 will come into service at best what 3 years
should be just in time for the end of the afghan conflict

chris mastin said on the 9-Mar-2010 at 22:39

the a400m is over priced, too late for the raf, we
should rebuild the c130k,s the us are rep/wing box
section, giving zero airframe hrs, we have six c130,s
in storage that could be rebuilt, now.and back in service
we need thes now not, in three years time.

David Crouch said on the 10-Mar-2010 at 20:09

Overpriced,Overweight,Overestimated
and whey overtime.
But not over orderd, I can,t ever see it beeing orderd by the thousends, to get back the investment.
And thats what its all about, stupid, to me.
Oh, and POLITICS

chris mastin said on the 10-Mar-2010 at 22:40

chile wants to buy our c130k,s so there no good for
the raf but ok for a nother country,