• Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Yet more A400m Woes....

T

tag_lincoln

Corporal
331
0
0
Only if we end up with A400M, looks like a prime candidtate to get the chop and save the carriers. If we ordered C17s now and waited in line they would still be in service before the A400M is anywhere near flying. And we know C17s work.
 
E

Ex-Bay

SNAFU master
Subscriber
3,817
2
0
Erm. . . "Buying" C17s? I thought they were leased ?
Or was it Hire Purchase?
 
Talk Wrench

Talk Wrench

E-Goat addict
Administrator
Subscriber
1000+ Posts
6,808
437
82
The Royal Air Force WILL be getting A400M. Because too much British money has spent on it, too many British Jobs depend on it and BAe/ EADS/ Airbus say you will!!!!

TW
 
R

riggertoSTAB

Guest
An RAF procurement project going over budget and late!

Not another Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MR4, Typhoon, Tornado F3 etc.

Has the defence budget anything left now Uncle Gordon's lot have bailed out all the other mistakes they have made?
 
E

Ex-Bay

SNAFU master
Subscriber
3,817
2
0
MontyPlumbs said:
We leased, but had to buy because we flew the ar$e off them....
Click to expand...

SO, in addition to actually using the C17, we paid a bit more and bought them because we had the temerity to do what it says on the tin ??. Strange Contract, methinks.
Come to think of it, why buy USA anyway?. Don't Antonov make some big planes ? Maybe we could lease a few of them. . . . . . .
 
B

big_dawg

LAC
89
0
0
Ex-Bay said:
Don't Antonov make some big planes ? Maybe we could lease a few of them. . . . . . .
Click to expand...

Already explored during the initial tendering of the original C-17 lease, heres what Antonov was offering:

An-124-210 Joint proposal with Air Foyle to meet UK's Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) requirement, with Rolls Royce RB211-524H-T engines, each rated 60,600 lbf (264 kN) and Honeywell avionics. STSA competition was abandoned in August 1999, reinstated and won by Boeing C-17A
 
E

Ex-Bay

SNAFU master
Subscriber
3,817
2
0
big_dawg said:
Already explored during the initial tendering of the original C-17 lease, heres what Antonov was offering:

An-124-210 Joint proposal with Air Foyle to meet UK's Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) requirement, with Rolls Royce RB211-524H-T engines, each rated 60,600 lbf (264 kN) and Honeywell avionics. STSA competition was abandoned in August 1999, reinstated and won by Boeing C-17A
Click to expand...

In view of Boeing's famous "Me, Me" attitude to tenders (the Tanker, for example), I cannot say that it surprises me they won with the C17. Perhaps Antonov might be invited again ?
 
M

MrMasher

Somewhere else now!
Subscriber
5,053
0
0
Ex-Bay said:
SO, in addition to actually using the C17, we paid a bit more and bought them because we had the temerity to do what it says on the tin ??. Strange Contract, methinks.
Come to think of it, why buy USA anyway?. Don't Antonov make some big planes ? Maybe we could lease a few of them. . . . . . .
Click to expand...

Ummmmm we do dont we? Sort of anyway.
We just dont fly, operate or maintain them.

Anyway, surely none of you are suprised at this announcement? I'm not. It never happens on time does it for the RAF?
Someone who writes the contracts should have clauses put in for lateness with an option on refund of money and cancellation of order.
That would sharpen the industry up somewhat methinks!
 
G

grumpyoldb

Guest
MrMasher said:
Ummmmm we do dont we? Sort of anyway.
We just dont fly, operate or maintain them.

Anyway, surely none of you are suprised at this announcement? I'm not. It never happens on time does it for the RAF?
Someone who writes the contracts should have clauses put in for lateness with an option on refund of money and cancellation of order.
That would sharpen the industry up somewhat methinks!
Click to expand...

The civil servants who are in charge of procurement do not need the equipment which they are ordering for the British forces full stop.
THEY do not require the equipment. It doesn't affect THEM. It doesn't make them less efficient(after all, they do that all by themselves). I doesn't affect their safety, and above all, THEY don't seem to be answerable when it all goes t!ts up.

Oh, if only procurement was brought in house. Give the air force brass the budget, and let the higher ranks take the resposibilty, and earn their keep.
 
T

tag_lincoln

Corporal
331
0
0
If we gave the top brass the budget they would just quadruple flying pay. Hopefully A400M will go the way of Nimrod AEW before it costs too much more money. Just get a few more C17s and get it over and done with. Although I guess they won't do that before the next general election.
 
T

tag_lincoln

Corporal
331
0
0
Ever since the lease to purchase of the first few (due to the amount of hours we flew them) we have purchased the rest outright, just do the same with however many more we need unless you see a drop in airlift requirement in the next few years.
If we did lease more and flew the leased ones less than our purchased ones at least we would have them as opposed to not having the A400M.
 
D

duffman

Flight Sergeant
1,015
0
0
hasn't the c17 production line now stopped?

The russian jets got knocked on the head because of, public anyway, was that the russian instruments would cost a bomb to change over from russian number, letters and metres to western writing and feet, don't know how true that was, or how much it would have cost in total. Also training and spares/support was seen as a possible problem incase the political situation changed.
 
E

Ex-Bay

SNAFU master
Subscriber
3,817
2
0
wolfy said:
Bit like saying to the Army we can't supply the armoured trucks but we can sell you some white vans!
Click to expand...

But is it?
The A330 airframe is (apparently) adaptable enough to be made into a tanker, so it has the lift capability. Is there any real reason why it should not also be a carrier ?

I don't get the logic of the carrier. THe A400m is supposed to be a heavy. can it be compared to the C130? It does not strike me as like-for-like.
If the C130K is running out of life, buy some more J model ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
7,553members
43,632threads
595,817posts
77online users
Top