Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
Love the blurb on the A330 MRTT.
For the record the RAAF is still waiting for the boom to be cleared for use.
The word is that Airbuses software driven boom is limited to one metre of movement at the tip. Anyone know how that compares with the standard USAF analogue boom?
Gareth Jones
Very interesting – noticed France is getting 50 A400m and Germany 53, while we’re only getting 22 – is that due to us having more of other types such as the C-17 and A330?
ArmChairCivvy
Hi GJ,
Yes “is that due to us having more of other types such as the C-17 and A330?” it is
- Germany takes the long-range jets, when needed, through a normal charter, but has bespoke strengthened flooring ready to install
- I would not be surprised if France’s tanker decision eats into their number (or if the A400 is so brilliant, is it still possible that the tankers would be within that number… maybe the type has already been selected?)
Ed
My suspicion is that the French will try to push the KC-135FR replacement through as a joint NATO project, akin to the NATO C-17 project, but strangely enough using the A-330 MRTT. Basically, they would aim to get a joint NATO fleet, with perhaps a dozen or so A-330s, and a national fleet of A-400Ms wired for refueling. For most of their day to day needs, they use their A-400Ms, and for the longer range exercises that currently use the KC-135s they would pay by the hour for the jointly owned A-330s.
As to whether this will happen is another matter entirely; not many countries in Europe actually need much tanker support, and those that do have their own arrangements available. The Germans don’t need much tanker support, but have their original A-310 MRTTs. The Italians have recently introduced their own Boeing 767 tankers. The UK obviously has the A-330s of its own, albeit in a rather absurd arrangement. Spain will probably be happy to make do with A-400Ms as tankers. Overall, not many of the countries in Europe have much need for large long range tankers, and those with such a need may not be lining up to buy high end A-330s, especially when IAI can convert a second hand Boeing 767 very cheaply…..
For the UK, the problem is that the A-400M was intended as a replacement for half of the C-130K fleet. The aim was to retire half the C-130K fleet in favour of the C-130J, and the other half would soldier on another ten years until the A-400M entered service. The problem is that this was the ’90s, and the A-400Ms were expected to be in service by 2005 or so, give or take; this would have meant that the last C-130Ks would have been out of service by now. Now, it is 2012, the A-400M is still not even entering service, let alone fully in service. The C-130Ks have suffered from much heavier use than projected in the ’90s, hauling equipment, cargo and troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, stressing their weary airframes. As such, they are basically having to be withdrawn now, without direct replacement; worse, the replacement for the older C-130Ks, namely the C-130Js, are running ragged for the same reasons, and now the Shylock government is planning to retire them earlier than originally planned.
As such, instead of replacing half the C-130Ks in the ’90s with 25 J-models, and the other half with 25 A-400Ms in the 2000s; we are retiring the remaining K-models without replacement. The J-models will then be replaced with 22 or so A-400Ms if we are lucky, i.e. we will have gone from over fifty K-models, down to not much more than twenty A-400Ms, supplemented by a batch of eight C-17s.
Not ideal………..
ArmChairCivvy
Agreed… not just counting capacity, purchase costs, LCCs per capacity or tons to range x. But simply ramps available
‘we will have gone from over fifty K-models, down to not much more than twenty A-400Ms, supplemented by a batch of eight C-17s’
I was mentioning that on the heavy lift thread. It’s such a botched situation, hence why I was proposing a mixed deal of using more civilian conversions and also hoping for some more A400m or C17′s when the money is there post 2015.
It amazes me that the RAF can spend 10′s of billions on Typhoon and pour more money at things like Lightning, Nimrod etc and yet not even a couple of billion more can/will be put in-to this vital capability.
wf
@Challenger: given the likely shutdown of the C17 line, I suspect buying more C17′s now and postponing the replacement of our fairly new C130J’s by A400′s into the post 2020 timeframe sounds like a better idea
Challenger
@wf
‘given the likely shutdown of the C17 line, I suspect buying more C17′s now and postponing the replacement of our fairly new C130J’s by A400′s into the post 2020 timeframe sounds like a better idea’
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe 4 additional C17? I known they aren’t cheap but even a small increase in numbbers would make a big difference.
It seems like the A400m is doing a grand job of postponing itself anyway! Have it replace the older Hercules and then in a few years we can see whether something else is needed as the Hercules J’s head out of service.
Mark
Well if you look at it from a basic loads comparison we had 50 hercs and are going to 22 a400m and 8 c17 the equivalent of 76 hercs load roughly speaking so is that an increase or a decrease? Number of planes are down for sure but then the availability will be significantly improved and the planing assumptions require support to 2 small operations and 1 medium. For the first time in years the RAF will have a modern transport fleet with airliner type reliability and support. With one big advantage the transports all have a big cargo bay cross section time and again this is the issue you hear with the Hercules. the airborne battle group im sure wont be using landrover anymore its jackals, coyotes, warthogs Apaches and lynx from not on in and while c17 can do short landing expect it in the hanger for checks for some time afterwards.
As for the age of the c130Js, with a/c it really doesnt matter how long it is since you bought then but how many flight hours and cycles theyve dont. This fatigue life is all that matters and is calculate on a percentage split of tactical and logistical hours. The c130s have been doing really hard tactical flying for 10+ years carrying a disproportional load as the c130K really struggled with serviceability at the end(not surprisingly they were quite old)and the hub and spoke transport arrangements. This means they really will be done come the end of afghan ops unless you do a nimrod style overhaul.
The raf will have spent close to 30b on the development design service entry and support of typhoon over its entire cradle to grave life. On a400m, c17 and a330 over the same time scale and service life it will have prob got thru around 21b pounds so its not exactly spent nothing on transport a/c.
Challenger
@Mark
Fair play! I don’t doubt the abilities of a combined A400m + C17 fleet and it is great to know that they can shift the equivalent of 76 Hercules and should be able to manage 2 small or 1 medium operation.
I still think the fleet sounds a little small though. As you say individual aircraft will be able to lift quite a bit but what are the exact details on maintenance and operational availability?
The old problem of platforms not being able to be in 2 places as once may rear its head here! Plus if this fleet gets in-to the sort of hard graft their predecessors have seen in Afghanistan (hopefully not but you never know) won’t that mean trouble?
Id only like to see a handful more aircraft to work some safety margins in-to the equation, and only if those aircraft were cheap enough to justify further expense.
Challenger
@Mark
Oh and on the Hercules J’s, I totally agree with you. It’s all about how hard aircraft have been worked, and those airframes can’t be accused of not doing their bit. By the end of Afghanistan they will be absolutely shattered!
If the only way to keep them going for a few more years would be a Nimrod style gutting and rebuilding then… No thanks!
Mark
Challenger we can only hope the defense planners have put those issues into the mix. Maintenance and operational availability numbers arent I believe in the public domain. 2 places at once is an issue I guess and I would like a few more a/c added indeed I thinks theres capabilities with these a/c we should be utilizing which we dont currently plan to. Germany is looking to sell 13 of its a400m cheaper as it cant afford there total buy I would look at nabbing a couple of them.
Chris.B.
I still have concerns over the A400M. It’s cost a fortune to get into service and there’s no guarantees yet that it will meet the touted advantages in lower cost through life.
Compare that with Japans Kawasaki XC-2 program, which has been partially merged with their P-X program and to date the combined cost of both programs is under $3bn. The target price for the XC-2 is more along the lines of the Hercules C-130-30 (about $80million per unit) and has both lifting and range performance comparable with the A400M, while only having two (turbofan) engines, which should provide greater benefits from a maintenance angle.
Mark
ChrisB
Thats were its all relative. We paid 316m dollars for our last c17, 80m dollars is a c130 and 160m dollars is a a400m. There no evidence to suggest it wont meet its targets either.
Yeah but Japanese programs are hard to price with any accuracy and turbofans are not the ideal choice for rough strip landings.
Challenger
@Mark
Yes I saw the Germans want to get rid of some, it sounds a bit weird for them to be shedding them but I guess that’s the problem with locking yourself in-to these kinds of contracts.
From our point of view it could be great to pick some up cheap, after all we are going to have a considerably greater expedionary ability beyond theirs for many years to come.
Challenger
Id like to see 2-4 additional C17 snapped up in the next few years before production ends. Then we should strive to pick up roughly 8 of the 2nd hand German A400m. Either or both of those additions would make me very happy!
We should also look at ways to get more from the A330′S, if not getting more then is their at least any way they could be purchased instead of remaining in that ridiculous PFI?
Chris.B.
@ Mark,
Relative indeed. Though I have the A400M at more around the $140 million mark. You’re under selling its competitiveness!
I just wonder how many actual rough strip landings we’ll ask these things to make? And with them two engines instead of four, you could make back the availability time and maintenance costs fairly easily.
I think for the price they’re going at and the relative similarity in capability, it’s worth an investigation. They’ve already started being delivered, despite starting after the A400M program which is truly remarkable.
x
@ Chris B said “how many actual rough strip landings we’ll ask these things to make”
Yep. Reminds me of how the mighty C17 can carry a tank!!!!!!! Then it will spend a week or more in maintenance…..
I should imagine the Japanese gave some thought to turbo-fans and rough landing. Pretty fundamental mistake if they didn’t consider the problem.
Reminds me of criticism made against the P8 not being suitable for low level work. I would hope given the aviation experience in the USN somebody would have called out Boeing over that if there was a problem a long time before the plane left the CAD screen.
I know blistering cock ups are made but sometimes we can take doubt in expertise too far. Unless it ships…..
I dont think the the Japanese considered rough field performance as a key requirement
x
@ TD
Why not? There may be lots of concrete and tarmac runways close by, but to the north of Japan past Hokkaido (or on that island), on the northern Asian mainland, or the islands there is a lot of remote geography.
No not really X but just from things I have read over time, if you look at the take off and landing distances they are pretty long. Its just those trade offs I guess
x
This all very interesting. It seems these tactical lifters don’t offer much advantage over conventional ‘planes beyond their ramps.
I am still struggling to get around the fact that 747 is more expensive than C17 to operate.
Perhaps we need to dump all this STOL stuff on unprepared strips and go for moderate ranges and take off/landings with simple turbo props?
Chris.B.
I just think when you look at the cost considerations, the trade off for poorer rough field performance is worth it.
X, thats why the FSTA variant of the A330 is such a poor choice, great for refuelling and passengers but poor for pallets, which is the majority of stuff we seem to need.
Who said the C17 was cheaper than a 747 by the way, not sighted on the exact figures but find that pretty surprising to be honest, especially when viewed on a pounds per pallet basis
Interestingly, a single 747-400 freighter could do our daily Afghanistan pallet needs in one non stop trip
x
Somebody said it further up this thread or in Chris B’s. I was buying low hours 747 to take pressure off the C17 but apparently they are an expensive plane to run. The inference I took from it that a new C17, though more expensive than a second hand plane, must be cheaper to run by the hour. My reasoning was the planet is covered in 747 capable airports, even Bastion is long enough, and that there must be some value in having some cargo 747s leaving the C17 to the rough stuff. The centre of gravity is a lot of history’s campaigns is the capital city and many have big air ports. Some wars will happen where there are humans even though I am normally off fighting wars at the remote places.
@ Chris B re rough field performance (stop laughing at the back.)
Yes I agree. I am being mischievous. There are bases everywhere don’t you know? It is is this gulf between tactical planes and simple planes that can use runways. Surely we can build a plane to carry 35t/40t without rough field performance and ramps a lot cheaper than a tactical plane? I can’t believe expensive air liners without seats are the only option to move air freight.
I think that is the rationale behind the recent 146 UOR
The thing with big 747 freighters is they are ten a penny on the charter market so why would you spend your finite cash on having them in house?
Must admit, I actually like the idea of a small fleet of 747 freighters but what we should have done is gone for the freight version of the A330 for FSTA which would have been almost as good for cargo and better in many other areas.
A good compromise
Shame
x
The idea being we don’t have to charter them. Just run out to the hanger, switch the ignition on, and go. (That is how planes work isn’t it?)
I am on about using them to shift offensive stuff not canned produce and copier paper.
Have you seen how much they carry? Parts must be cheaper than C17 too.
And when you are NOT lugging the heavy stuff? They just sit there clocking up airframe hours.
At least with charter, you can use and ignore, let them earn their keep in civilian service.
Or have HMG start a government run freight company, when you need the planes, temporarily transfer them to military service, then go back to making money for the government. Who knows, you might just get a tax break next time round if it turns out profitable.
Chris.B.
The real key to using “militarised” commercial liners is that you can fall back on the large swathe of flight data and commercial maintenance knowledge & infrastructure. A military cargo conversion of an existing freight aircraft costs you very little in terms of development (you’re really only looking at putting DAS etc on them and making sure they’re compatible with your existing kit/procedures) while taking advantage of an already well developed supply chain etc. Such aircraft tend to be built with efficient operation in mind to.
For our purposes we have all sorts of uses for such aircraft. In addition to Afghanistan we have far flung bases in the middle east, the Falklands, Canada, Cyprus etc, and often fly crews and equipment all across the globe for various reasons. When you send RAF crews to something like Maple Flag for example, you need a support plane to go with them to take the ground crews plus some stores. Bingo, use for your airliner conversion.
The problem with relying on commercial airliners is always going to be availability. When you most need it, are you going to be able to hire a commercial transport and get it immediately? Risky proposal relying on that.
And the prime benefit; saving time and hours on aircraft like the C-17. They’re expensive to operate and better served carrying odd equipment. If all you need to do is move pallets or people, that kind of thing, you’re better off using something like an A330 instead of wasting the hours on a Globemaster.
Mark
There is only about 170 747F (they cost more to buy than a c17) in the world so there isn’t loads the cargo carriers prefer the twin wide body jet airbus’s proposed a380 freighter hasn’t really taken off either. There’s only about 200 airports in the world that handle 747s and at max all up weight require around 3100m of runway to get off so bastion could only of handled them over the last year prior it was too short. A330 (and I agree the Australian version should have been the uk version and airtanker could have utilise the air cargo market) requires about 2300m runway less work to build and secure. Like cars planes need to be used to remain healthy of course once you introduce the type to uk service training maintenance spares holding das comms IFF ballistic protection ect all need addressing for hostile theatre operations.
x
@ Observer
Everything has a shelf life.
@ Mark
So these 200 airports. That nearly average outs at one per country. So if war breaks out in the developed world we are covered.
@ All
Moving these few tons around by air gets more and more expensive by the day doesn’t it???
x
@ Chris B
It seems air-freighting seems to be a game of diminish returns. We have airports everywhere and yet as soon as serious loads are mentioned the number of air ports and suitable airframes shrinks. We have tactical super planes that can carry huge weights until there is no concrete and all of a sudden their cargo carrying capability is reduced to that of a big truck. Currently we are discussing whether a design from the fifties (the C130) is better than a 1990s plane (A400m) that only just about performs better than a design of own from the late 50s or early 60s (Short’s Belfast) And if we move up a class we find that our super lifter (C17) from the 90s is outperformed by another 60s design (747) But at least the super lifter can on occasion, if the risk is acceptable and we can afford to have it in dock for a week, be landed without recourse to a few thousand tons of concrete; as long as I have just said it isn’t moving much than a big truck. Both of the fore mentioned mega-planes cost hundreds of millions. Suggest here buying 8 ships for the similar price each that can move 6000tons and 23k fuel barrels and you are seen as some raving sea mad loon.
Love the blurb on the A330 MRTT.
For the record the RAAF is still waiting for the boom to be cleared for use.
The word is that Airbuses software driven boom is limited to one metre of movement at the tip. Anyone know how that compares with the standard USAF analogue boom?
Very interesting – noticed France is getting 50 A400m and Germany 53, while we’re only getting 22 – is that due to us having more of other types such as the C-17 and A330?
Hi GJ,
Yes “is that due to us having more of other types such as the C-17 and A330?” it is
- Germany takes the long-range jets, when needed, through a normal charter, but has bespoke strengthened flooring ready to install
- I would not be surprised if France’s tanker decision eats into their number (or if the A400 is so brilliant, is it still possible that the tankers would be within that number… maybe the type has already been selected?)
My suspicion is that the French will try to push the KC-135FR replacement through as a joint NATO project, akin to the NATO C-17 project, but strangely enough using the A-330 MRTT. Basically, they would aim to get a joint NATO fleet, with perhaps a dozen or so A-330s, and a national fleet of A-400Ms wired for refueling. For most of their day to day needs, they use their A-400Ms, and for the longer range exercises that currently use the KC-135s they would pay by the hour for the jointly owned A-330s.
As to whether this will happen is another matter entirely; not many countries in Europe actually need much tanker support, and those that do have their own arrangements available. The Germans don’t need much tanker support, but have their original A-310 MRTTs. The Italians have recently introduced their own Boeing 767 tankers. The UK obviously has the A-330s of its own, albeit in a rather absurd arrangement. Spain will probably be happy to make do with A-400Ms as tankers. Overall, not many of the countries in Europe have much need for large long range tankers, and those with such a need may not be lining up to buy high end A-330s, especially when IAI can convert a second hand Boeing 767 very cheaply…..
For the UK, the problem is that the A-400M was intended as a replacement for half of the C-130K fleet. The aim was to retire half the C-130K fleet in favour of the C-130J, and the other half would soldier on another ten years until the A-400M entered service. The problem is that this was the ’90s, and the A-400Ms were expected to be in service by 2005 or so, give or take; this would have meant that the last C-130Ks would have been out of service by now. Now, it is 2012, the A-400M is still not even entering service, let alone fully in service. The C-130Ks have suffered from much heavier use than projected in the ’90s, hauling equipment, cargo and troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, stressing their weary airframes. As such, they are basically having to be withdrawn now, without direct replacement; worse, the replacement for the older C-130Ks, namely the C-130Js, are running ragged for the same reasons, and now the Shylock government is planning to retire them earlier than originally planned.
As such, instead of replacing half the C-130Ks in the ’90s with 25 J-models, and the other half with 25 A-400Ms in the 2000s; we are retiring the remaining K-models without replacement. The J-models will then be replaced with 22 or so A-400Ms if we are lucky, i.e. we will have gone from over fifty K-models, down to not much more than twenty A-400Ms, supplemented by a batch of eight C-17s.
Not ideal………..
Agreed… not just counting capacity, purchase costs, LCCs per capacity or tons to range x. But simply ramps available
Just a nice couple of pictures
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-five-grizzlies-go-wild-in-toulouse-372747/
@Ed
‘we will have gone from over fifty K-models, down to not much more than twenty A-400Ms, supplemented by a batch of eight C-17s’
I was mentioning that on the heavy lift thread. It’s such a botched situation, hence why I was proposing a mixed deal of using more civilian conversions and also hoping for some more A400m or C17′s when the money is there post 2015.
It amazes me that the RAF can spend 10′s of billions on Typhoon and pour more money at things like Lightning, Nimrod etc and yet not even a couple of billion more can/will be put in-to this vital capability.
@Challenger: given the likely shutdown of the C17 line, I suspect buying more C17′s now and postponing the replacement of our fairly new C130J’s by A400′s into the post 2020 timeframe sounds like a better idea
@wf
‘given the likely shutdown of the C17 line, I suspect buying more C17′s now and postponing the replacement of our fairly new C130J’s by A400′s into the post 2020 timeframe sounds like a better idea’
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe 4 additional C17? I known they aren’t cheap but even a small increase in numbbers would make a big difference.
It seems like the A400m is doing a grand job of postponing itself anyway! Have it replace the older Hercules and then in a few years we can see whether something else is needed as the Hercules J’s head out of service.
Well if you look at it from a basic loads comparison we had 50 hercs and are going to 22 a400m and 8 c17 the equivalent of 76 hercs load roughly speaking so is that an increase or a decrease? Number of planes are down for sure but then the availability will be significantly improved and the planing assumptions require support to 2 small operations and 1 medium. For the first time in years the RAF will have a modern transport fleet with airliner type reliability and support. With one big advantage the transports all have a big cargo bay cross section time and again this is the issue you hear with the Hercules. the airborne battle group im sure wont be using landrover anymore its jackals, coyotes, warthogs Apaches and lynx from not on in and while c17 can do short landing expect it in the hanger for checks for some time afterwards.
As for the age of the c130Js, with a/c it really doesnt matter how long it is since you bought then but how many flight hours and cycles theyve dont. This fatigue life is all that matters and is calculate on a percentage split of tactical and logistical hours. The c130s have been doing really hard tactical flying for 10+ years carrying a disproportional load as the c130K really struggled with serviceability at the end(not surprisingly they were quite old)and the hub and spoke transport arrangements. This means they really will be done come the end of afghan ops unless you do a nimrod style overhaul.
The raf will have spent close to 30b on the development design service entry and support of typhoon over its entire cradle to grave life. On a400m, c17 and a330 over the same time scale and service life it will have prob got thru around 21b pounds so its not exactly spent nothing on transport a/c.
@Mark
Fair play! I don’t doubt the abilities of a combined A400m + C17 fleet and it is great to know that they can shift the equivalent of 76 Hercules and should be able to manage 2 small or 1 medium operation.
I still think the fleet sounds a little small though. As you say individual aircraft will be able to lift quite a bit but what are the exact details on maintenance and operational availability?
The old problem of platforms not being able to be in 2 places as once may rear its head here! Plus if this fleet gets in-to the sort of hard graft their predecessors have seen in Afghanistan (hopefully not but you never know) won’t that mean trouble?
Id only like to see a handful more aircraft to work some safety margins in-to the equation, and only if those aircraft were cheap enough to justify further expense.
@Mark
Oh and on the Hercules J’s, I totally agree with you. It’s all about how hard aircraft have been worked, and those airframes can’t be accused of not doing their bit. By the end of Afghanistan they will be absolutely shattered!
If the only way to keep them going for a few more years would be a Nimrod style gutting and rebuilding then… No thanks!
Challenger we can only hope the defense planners have put those issues into the mix. Maintenance and operational availability numbers arent I believe in the public domain. 2 places at once is an issue I guess and I would like a few more a/c added indeed I thinks theres capabilities with these a/c we should be utilizing which we dont currently plan to. Germany is looking to sell 13 of its a400m cheaper as it cant afford there total buy I would look at nabbing a couple of them.
I still have concerns over the A400M. It’s cost a fortune to get into service and there’s no guarantees yet that it will meet the touted advantages in lower cost through life.
Compare that with Japans Kawasaki XC-2 program, which has been partially merged with their P-X program and to date the combined cost of both programs is under $3bn. The target price for the XC-2 is more along the lines of the Hercules C-130-30 (about $80million per unit) and has both lifting and range performance comparable with the A400M, while only having two (turbofan) engines, which should provide greater benefits from a maintenance angle.
ChrisB
Thats were its all relative. We paid 316m dollars for our last c17, 80m dollars is a c130 and 160m dollars is a a400m. There no evidence to suggest it wont meet its targets either.
Yeah but Japanese programs are hard to price with any accuracy and turbofans are not the ideal choice for rough strip landings.
@Mark
Yes I saw the Germans want to get rid of some, it sounds a bit weird for them to be shedding them but I guess that’s the problem with locking yourself in-to these kinds of contracts.
From our point of view it could be great to pick some up cheap, after all we are going to have a considerably greater expedionary ability beyond theirs for many years to come.
Id like to see 2-4 additional C17 snapped up in the next few years before production ends. Then we should strive to pick up roughly 8 of the 2nd hand German A400m. Either or both of those additions would make me very happy!
We should also look at ways to get more from the A330′S, if not getting more then is their at least any way they could be purchased instead of remaining in that ridiculous PFI?
@ Mark,
Relative indeed. Though I have the A400M at more around the $140 million mark. You’re under selling its competitiveness!
I just wonder how many actual rough strip landings we’ll ask these things to make? And with them two engines instead of four, you could make back the availability time and maintenance costs fairly easily.
I think for the price they’re going at and the relative similarity in capability, it’s worth an investigation. They’ve already started being delivered, despite starting after the A400M program which is truly remarkable.
@ Chris B said “how many actual rough strip landings we’ll ask these things to make”
Yep. Reminds me of how the mighty C17 can carry a tank!!!!!!! Then it will spend a week or more in maintenance…..
I should imagine the Japanese gave some thought to turbo-fans and rough landing. Pretty fundamental mistake if they didn’t consider the problem.
Reminds me of criticism made against the P8 not being suitable for low level work. I would hope given the aviation experience in the USN somebody would have called out Boeing over that if there was a problem a long time before the plane left the CAD screen.
I know blistering cock ups are made but sometimes we can take doubt in expertise too far. Unless it ships…..
I dont think the the Japanese considered rough field performance as a key requirement
@ TD
Why not? There may be lots of concrete and tarmac runways close by, but to the north of Japan past Hokkaido (or on that island), on the northern Asian mainland, or the islands there is a lot of remote geography.
Do you know for certain they didn’t consider it?
No not really X but just from things I have read over time, if you look at the take off and landing distances they are pretty long. Its just those trade offs I guess
This all very interesting. It seems these tactical lifters don’t offer much advantage over conventional ‘planes beyond their ramps.
I am still struggling to get around the fact that 747 is more expensive than C17 to operate.
Perhaps we need to dump all this STOL stuff on unprepared strips and go for moderate ranges and take off/landings with simple turbo props?
I just think when you look at the cost considerations, the trade off for poorer rough field performance is worth it.
X, thats why the FSTA variant of the A330 is such a poor choice, great for refuelling and passengers but poor for pallets, which is the majority of stuff we seem to need.
Who said the C17 was cheaper than a 747 by the way, not sighted on the exact figures but find that pretty surprising to be honest, especially when viewed on a pounds per pallet basis
Interestingly, a single 747-400 freighter could do our daily Afghanistan pallet needs in one non stop trip
Somebody said it further up this thread or in Chris B’s. I was buying low hours 747 to take pressure off the C17 but apparently they are an expensive plane to run. The inference I took from it that a new C17, though more expensive than a second hand plane, must be cheaper to run by the hour. My reasoning was the planet is covered in 747 capable airports, even Bastion is long enough, and that there must be some value in having some cargo 747s leaving the C17 to the rough stuff. The centre of gravity is a lot of history’s campaigns is the capital city and many have big air ports. Some wars will happen where there are humans even though I am normally off fighting wars at the remote places.
@ Chris B re rough field performance (stop laughing at the back.)
Yes I agree. I am being mischievous. There are bases everywhere don’t you know? It is is this gulf between tactical planes and simple planes that can use runways. Surely we can build a plane to carry 35t/40t without rough field performance and ramps a lot cheaper than a tactical plane? I can’t believe expensive air liners without seats are the only option to move air freight.
I think that is the rationale behind the recent 146 UOR
The thing with big 747 freighters is they are ten a penny on the charter market so why would you spend your finite cash on having them in house?
Must admit, I actually like the idea of a small fleet of 747 freighters but what we should have done is gone for the freight version of the A330 for FSTA which would have been almost as good for cargo and better in many other areas.
A good compromise
Shame
The idea being we don’t have to charter them. Just run out to the hanger, switch the ignition on, and go. (That is how planes work isn’t it?)
I am on about using them to shift offensive stuff not canned produce and copier paper.
Have you seen how much they carry? Parts must be cheaper than C17 too.
Some 747 links:
Dream Lifter
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/747_400LCF_DREAM_LIFTER.jpg
747 Onboard loader
http://www.ausairpower.net/loaders.html
@x
And when you are NOT lugging the heavy stuff? They just sit there clocking up airframe hours.
At least with charter, you can use and ignore, let them earn their keep in civilian service.
Or have HMG start a government run freight company, when you need the planes, temporarily transfer them to military service, then go back to making money for the government. Who knows, you might just get a tax break next time round if it turns out profitable.
The real key to using “militarised” commercial liners is that you can fall back on the large swathe of flight data and commercial maintenance knowledge & infrastructure. A military cargo conversion of an existing freight aircraft costs you very little in terms of development (you’re really only looking at putting DAS etc on them and making sure they’re compatible with your existing kit/procedures) while taking advantage of an already well developed supply chain etc. Such aircraft tend to be built with efficient operation in mind to.
For our purposes we have all sorts of uses for such aircraft. In addition to Afghanistan we have far flung bases in the middle east, the Falklands, Canada, Cyprus etc, and often fly crews and equipment all across the globe for various reasons. When you send RAF crews to something like Maple Flag for example, you need a support plane to go with them to take the ground crews plus some stores. Bingo, use for your airliner conversion.
The problem with relying on commercial airliners is always going to be availability. When you most need it, are you going to be able to hire a commercial transport and get it immediately? Risky proposal relying on that.
And the prime benefit; saving time and hours on aircraft like the C-17. They’re expensive to operate and better served carrying odd equipment. If all you need to do is move pallets or people, that kind of thing, you’re better off using something like an A330 instead of wasting the hours on a Globemaster.
There is only about 170 747F (they cost more to buy than a c17) in the world so there isn’t loads the cargo carriers prefer the twin wide body jet airbus’s proposed a380 freighter hasn’t really taken off either. There’s only about 200 airports in the world that handle 747s and at max all up weight require around 3100m of runway to get off so bastion could only of handled them over the last year prior it was too short. A330 (and I agree the Australian version should have been the uk version and airtanker could have utilise the air cargo market) requires about 2300m runway less work to build and secure. Like cars planes need to be used to remain healthy of course once you introduce the type to uk service training maintenance spares holding das comms IFF ballistic protection ect all need addressing for hostile theatre operations.
@ Observer
Everything has a shelf life.
@ Mark
So these 200 airports. That nearly average outs at one per country. So if war breaks out in the developed world we are covered.
@ All
Moving these few tons around by air gets more and more expensive by the day doesn’t it???
@ Chris B
It seems air-freighting seems to be a game of diminish returns. We have airports everywhere and yet as soon as serious loads are mentioned the number of air ports and suitable airframes shrinks. We have tactical super planes that can carry huge weights until there is no concrete and all of a sudden their cargo carrying capability is reduced to that of a big truck. Currently we are discussing whether a design from the fifties (the C130) is better than a 1990s plane (A400m) that only just about performs better than a design of own from the late 50s or early 60s (Short’s Belfast) And if we move up a class we find that our super lifter (C17) from the 90s is outperformed by another 60s design (747) But at least the super lifter can on occasion, if the risk is acceptable and we can afford to have it in dock for a week, be landed without recourse to a few thousand tons of concrete; as long as I have just said it isn’t moving much than a big truck. Both of the fore mentioned mega-planes cost hundreds of millions. Suggest here buying 8 ships for the similar price each that can move 6000tons and 23k fuel barrels and you are seen as some raving sea mad loon.
(OK I admit to the raving sea mad loon bit…
)
@ x
Me thinks you’re over egging it a little bit