A guest post from Chris.B
Lately there has been a lot of talk about various transport helicopters for the RAF and other discussions regarding supporting x number of men at y distance on operations of various sizes. Now during a moment of boredom during a long day I did a bit of perusing around and saw some rather interesting numbers, which prompted the thought of taking a moment just to have a quick look at the future of the RAF’s heavy lift. If nothing else it’ll gives us something new to discuss/argue over and bridge the gap to some of the bosses’ upcoming articles.
So, the current state of air force heavy lift comprises 8 TriStars, 9 VC-10’s, around 30 C-130 Hercules and 8 C-17 Globemaster III’s. The TriStars and VC-10’s are on their way out soon, to be replaced by the Airbus A330-MRTT (known as ‘Voyager’ in UK service) as these aircraft start to come into service. The Hercules will also gradually be replaced by the Airbus A400M (to be known as ‘Atlas’ in UK service, purportedly), starting with the 7 ‘K’ models (presumably the RAF Falcons parachute display team will have to find some other mode of deployment). That will leave the RAF with a four platform system until the slightly newer C-130J’s also leave service, which will bring us down to three platforms.
The question though is whether the A400M is the right aircraft for the job?
The main problem as I see it is that the A400M is neither here nor there. Its payload carrying capacity is barely more than that of the C-130J, yet it settles in at comfortably close to double the price per unit! Compared to the C-17 the A400M is only about 70-75% of the price, but has less than half the carrying capacity out to a range of about 2500 nautical miles (30 tons for the A400M vs nearly 70 tons for the C-17).
To me that seems very odd and neatly wraps up the growing problem that I’m having with anything military being described as ‘Medium’. Medium in this case appears to mean overpriced for the small jobs and grossly underperforming on the big ones. So what are the alternatives?
The simplest and probably cheapest option in the long run is to purchase more Hercules aircraft of the C-130J variant for the ‘tactical’ role and more C-17 for the ‘Strategic’ role. This keeps the number of types down to three when the Voyager is factored in and should meet UK needs admirably. A key component of this is the fact that both these aircraft are already in service as opposed to the A400M, and thus we already have training and support arrangements in place. It’s also considerably less risky as we’re dealing with platforms we know a lot about, compared to the continual problems that have been incurred with the A400M.
There is another option that keeps the number of types down to three (Hercules, Globemaster, Voyager) but is slightly more off the wall. That option is to increase slightly the number of Hercules to cover the ‘tactical’ side, while buying more Voyager aircraft in the ‘strategic’ role (but separate from the current Voyager PFI). The reasoning is fairly simple; for about the same price as a Globemaster, the Voyager offers quite a significant leap in certain areas, albeit with some caveats.
For clarity, the current mark of Voyager (KC2 and KC3) being brought into service under the PFI Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) program is a version of the Airbus A330 which is something of a compromise. It has the ability to carry probe and drogue refuelling pods under both wings (KC2), under the fuselage and both wings (KC3) and keeps the split lower cargo deck, but the top deck is fitted out with permanent seating. The purpose of this is primarily to benefit the Air Tanker Consortium who are handling the FSTA deal, as it allows them to use aircraft that are not immediately needed by the RAF as charters to the private sector. This understandably limits the cargo carrying capacity of the aircraft when in RAF service.
My proposal here is to buy additional A330’s aside from (and as far as bloody possible from) the PFI deal. Let’s call them Voyager KC4. These would be of the full cargo variant, and preferably with the full tanker conversion that Australia got, that permits refuelling of boom/receptacle aircraft such as the Globemaster and the Sentry AEW&C. This version of the A330 retains the dual cargo bay on the lower deck, but also has a complete upper cargo deck free for palletised cargo, which can include palletised seating if needed.
The reason I think this might be an idea worth considering is two fold; firstly it would greatly expand the UK’s tanker fleet, something which is always in high demand from the US and other allies in coalition operations (along with “them”). As TD himself has said on many occasions, we need to think about what we can bring to alliances and tanking aircraft are always reported as being high on the US list of ‘wants’ from us. Secondly, the performance of the full freighter version of the A330 is simply staggering. It can carry the same maximum payload as the Globemaster (around 70 tons), but take that load almost 50% further, out to around 3,200 nautical miles, which gets you from Brize Norton to Afghanistan with no stops. Alternatively you can take 65 tons from Brize Norton to somewhere like Ascension Island or Kenya, again, with no stops.
Now I did say there were some caveats and here they are. Firstly, the A330 can only take palletised loads, lacking as it does a rear loading ramp. That means no tanks, no armoured vehicles, no disassembled helicopters. Those loads would have to be handled by the C-17’s, unless someone can come up with a rather inventive work around. While unfortunate, I don’t think that’s a deal breaker, as it’s uncertain how often we would actually need that capability in such an urgent demand that the C-17’s couldn’t handle it. Predominantly we would expect such vehicle lifts to be done by sea.
The second caveat is that the A330 is a civilian aircraft, with low wings and high landing gear. That somewhat restricts it to more prepared airfields, as the low hanging engines are more vulnerable to the ingestion of foreign debris and the high undercarriage is not especially suited to rough terrain. Any mishap on a rough field would like end very, very badly. Again though, I’m not sure as this would be considered a deal breaker. Landings on unprepared surfaces are not something we routinely ask even our C-17’s to perform, and while the low hanging engines cause issues on rough strips they also make routine maintenance considerably easier.
Now there is actually an additional advantage for my proposed Voyager KC4, but I didn’t want to include it in the earlier section because it’s more of a paper advantage for now. Essentially, as we move forward modern air forces are turning more and more to commercial platforms to provide the basis of certain large aircraft roles such as Maritime Patrol, Airborne Early Warning and Control, and various ISTAR roles.
A good example of this is the Boeing 737, which serves as the base platform both for Australia’s new ‘Wedgetail’ Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft (fitted with a large AESA search radar) and also for the US Navy’s planned purchase of over 100 P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (yes, the US Navy will operate almost as many MPA as we have fighters!). The main advantages of this set up are the low maintenance and running costs of civilian based aircraft, and their very high endurance on task.
With the end of the UK’s Sentry AEW&C service life in sight, and the imminent retirement of the Sentinel ISTAR platform (used both in Afghanistan and Libya), as well as the current complete lack of any MPA, there is a future for developing the A330 to cover a number of additional roles and thus further reducing the number of aircraft types in service.
And now the fun part. Discuss!
Interesting article a few things a400m will carry twice the payload of c130 over the same range or the same payload as a c130 over twice the range. Bit better than your suggestion. Also the a400 will have a similar cockpit layout to the a330 maybe easier cross training. A400 is the airlifter of choice in Europe more modern than a c130 and hopefully maintenance friendly. It offers aar and potientaly future Istar capability. Currently I’m lead to believe are transports bulk out in volume before weight which is a400s big advantage a much larger cross section.
Sentry in uk service is a probe refuelling system not sure what rivet joint will have if anything in uk service.
The a330f
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/freighter/a330-200f/
A330 may make a battle space management a/c but I wouldn’t go replacing Astor with it, gx is cheap to run in comparision.gx is being used more and more for Istar and bacn tasking and fit out for that purpose.
“My proposal here is to buy additional A330’s aside from (and as far as bloody possible from) the PFI deal. Let’s call them Voyager KC4. These would be of the full cargo variant, and preferably with the full tanker conversion that Australia got, that permits refuelling of boom/receptacle aircraft such as the Globemaster and the Sentry AEW&C. This version of the A330 retains the dual cargo bay on the lower deck, but also has a complete upper cargo deck free for palletised cargo, which can include palletised seating if needed.”
I may be wrong but under the terms of the PFI only Air Tanker can refuel RAF aircraft. So this is a non starter without tearing up the contract.
I would not enthuse too much about the 737 in military use. The endurance comes from the new engines, and here is what Wired reported late last year, when the announcement was out:
“Any frequent flier in a 737 probably has noticed the flat bottom on the engine nacelles housing the current engine’s 61-inch fans. The flat bottoms are necessary to provide enough clearance between the ground and the engines. The new engines have 68-inch fans, the best compromise between providing more thrust without being too large for the plane, said 737 program manager John Hamilton.
“When you look at drag, fuel efficiency and weight, the 68-inch fan is really the optimum solution for the 737 airplane going forward,” Hamilton said during a teleconference with reporters.”
- so 61 inches was not giving a generous clearance (nor endurance) and the new 68 is “touch and go” literally, even in major airports
“I may be wrong but under the terms of the PFI only Air Tanker can refuel RAF aircraft.”
I might have missed something, but the exclusivity rule in the FSTA contract actually says that the MOD has committed itself to pay AirTanker 8000 pounds for flight and 300 pounds per hour of chartering of third part planes.
Additional RAF-owned tankers would not mean any penalty, so no issues for, say, A400 used as tanker or Buddy-Buddy on F35.
Indeed the problem does not seem to be about refueling, but transport: the RAF has chartered airtankers from Omega services in a few rare occurencies, and i’m sure that can be avoided with the Voyager.
On the other hand, judging from the number of chartered airplanes used to support Afghan ops, the RAF will forever charter tens of airplanes during a major operation.
And here we might have an immense problem.
The NAO report specified that there are exception to the penalty in the FSTA contract, but failed to explain them.
Hopefully one says that, once the RAF is using all FSTA planes (meaning that it has called on the services of the 5 part-time airplanes as well), any additional requirement can be met with chartering without incurring in penalties.
If the RAF does charter a plane to carry something instead of using one of the 9 Voyagers in the core fleet and/or Voyagers on call, it pays penalties.
Hopefully, if it charters planes on top of use of the whole fleet, there are no issues.
If there are, the RAF has just shot itself in the testicles.
First of al, both the Hercules (max payload C-130J around 37,216 lbs, not kg
*and* the C-17 production lines are closing up shop, leaving the A400M line the only real alternative for the foreseeable future. The A400M is also positioned in the market to replace the gazillion Hercs used around the world – especially for those airforces which cannot afford the C-17.
So the cards for the A400M program are pretty well stacked in its favor.
Russia’s An77 and Brazils KC-390 are just not up for the task (yet).
Also, most -if not all- army vehicles are now standard in the 15-40t range for starters; the MRAP *revolution* has seen to that, so even lighter aircraft like the CN-235/C-295 are really not an option for modern (Western) militaries.
Your choice for “going commercial” with dual use “KC-4s” has merit, but these birds need fixed and secure runways for proper ops, and the “hub and spoke” log trail is something more and more frowned upon by military planners.
Hi Marcase,
I wonder what makes you say that “Russia’s An77 and Brazils KC-390 are just not up for the task (yet)”?
- there’s also the Indo-Russian Herc replacement coming up (not too soon, judging from the J orders for use by Indian SF) and the Swedish offer to take in use(and on-develop) the KC-390 should Brazil go for Gripen
Blimey boss, that was quick!
@ Jim,
The air refuelling exlusivity is laregly b******s if I remember. I think it only applies to the RAF buying capacity from private suppliers when AirTanker Voyagers are available as an alternative.
@ Mark,
“Sentry in uk service is a probe refuelling system…”
– I thought they canned that over the cost?
Anyway, reading it back again I perhaps did under play the A400M compared to the C-130J, but luckily you overplayed it to compensate! Based on the figures given by Airbus the Atlas will take 30 tons to the same range as the Hercs 20 tons, but it can only 20 tons itself a bit further, maybe another 30-40%. The comparison is still valid. For a plane double the price it does rather fall short.
@ Marcase
The C-17 lines will be open for a while yet. The Indian order is expected to carry through till 2015 with options for more. Plenty of time to order, sort of.
If the A400m is eventually replacing all the Hercules that’s a drop from originally nearly 40 down to 22. Is this considered acceptable because of the greater capacity it offers?
I do agree on the strange attitude to medium capability. Large or small both offer different aspects, medium only gives you the worst of both worlds without any obvious benifit.
RE ” a drop from originally nearly 40 down to 22. Is this considered acceptable because of the greater capacity it offers?”
- I’ve always wondered
- now we’ve got the three tactical (jet) lifters as a stopgap
- what would be a modern Skyvan? We need 10-12 to complement the rotary lift within theatre (and between bases, even in normal times)… take the sting out of training jump costs, as well
Chris b
Your thinking of Astor and the refuel prob.
c130 is about 16tns c130-30 is 19tns, a400m is closer to 32tns. I will declare I had the pleasure of being on a400ms design team for several years so maybe a little bias. It also has a better landing gear than herc for the rough landings
“Your thinking of Astor and the refuel prob”
– Bingo.
“I will declare I had the pleasure of being on a400ms design team for several years so maybe a little bias”
Well Lockheed has put there stake in the ground at 47,812lbs useful payload, or about 21.6 tons, for the C-130J-30 (Hercules C4 – an explosive name if you ask me). My concern is that for the price A400M doesn’t offer that great a leap in capability. The C-130 would probably be better as a short range transporter, the C-17 and A330 taking the longer/heavier legs.
– Ah ha!
Chrisb
That’s all far points you can get up to 36 tns in a400m it range will suffer mind again though the main design request was to maximise the available cross section which was perceived as the hercs biggest weakness.
It’s prices like everything is hard to compare a lot of good extras on the a400m as standard and political interference.
As for the in theatre supply I’d don’t think fixed wing is really the way to go unless is something like an unpressurised Sherpa. Big helicopter ch53 would be gd if it would go 40 kts faster.
Perhaps in theatre was the wrong choice. Maybe low priority/demand/Uk runabout/para currency is a better sentence, thing.
Good post Chris,
Though this:
“With the end of the UK’s Sentry AEW&C service life in sight, and the imminent retirement of the Sentinel ISTAR platform”
Dont count on it – very likely Sentry will be re-lifed and soldier on, probably in a joint upgrade with the USAF’s own tired fleet. I cant see it being replaced anytime soon as the costs prohibit it (E2 is just too weak compared, capability wise and what we need), unless we follow the Aussies in their belated Wedgetail programe (I think I’m right in that theirs doesnt have AAR capability atm), ie buying from Boeinmg direct to lower costs.
Sentinel may yet also have a place after Afghanistan, with NATO AGS, and Raython has approached the MoD with ideas on its uses outside its current fit. Unless with our EC-135′s we combine its role into that airframe to come up with a quasi ‘J-STARS/Rivet-Joint’ like platform.
The C-17 can be tacticle in roles such as rough unpaved strip landings, the US frequently exercises this in Red-Flag (its an impressive sight and noise!) and other exercises, whilst the Aussies have also tested it; but I agree that role should be undertaken by Herc or ‘Atlas’.
A good article, so you would prefer a larger number of C-130J’s than a mix of smaller numbers of J’s with A400s? Whilst complimenting the C-17 and lousey PFI Voayagers with 100% MoD owned ones.
I’d prefer C-130J-30/C-17/Non-PFI Voyager, perhaps with a little uplift in the C-130 and C-17 numbers.
If considering possible E3 Sentry replacements should we also mention Japan’s E767?
Given the larger size of the airframe a wider selection of mission equipment could perhaps be carried? That would allow a single new fleet aircraft to pick up some of our other gapped or threatened capabilities from Rivet Joint, Maritime Patrol and Sentinel.
In the early nineties the RAF said it needed at least 34 transports with cargo ramps, to be in the places they needed to be. At the moment the plan is 8 C-17 + 22 A400M = 30, so 4 short.
Of course the 10 short body C-130J could be given the US coastguard conversion for maritime patrol, which still allows the cargo role.
Or 1 more C-17 + 3 A400M to go to the first plan for 25.
If I had designed the A400M, I would have said a maximum payload of 45 tons, not 37. I agree it is slightly too small, but still more useful than a C-130.
A longtime rant is that the Voyager PFI is an abomination. It should be scrapped & all connected to it (including Gordon) sent to the Tower for life.
Dont underestimate the amount of hours used on our current c130 fleet they have been hammered for a decade in very harsh terrain if you want the c130Js to continue be prepared to spend a lot of money on them, how the c130K are still going is quite frankly nothing short of miraculous engineering work buy the raf.
an overview update of a400m. http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/airbus-military-product-update-2012
E3D replacement was to have been E10 a 767 based option http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-10_MC2A but was terminated. Would say its replacement is now sometime off but prob should be a330 based after boeings underhand tactics on the usaf tanker contract why buy boeing.
Firstly I am not entirely sure where the A400 payload figures come from in the article but more importantly we need to talk about the payload box. The A400 solves an issue that has always faced C130 in that it can run out of space before hitting its payload limit.
What caused me far more bemusement is this statement:
“With the end of the UK’s Sentry AEW&C service life in sight,”
I haven’t heard about that on the grapevine at any point from any source. The UK Sentry are in airframe terms still young, the 707 is a big old tough bird and the RAF examples with their modern engines don’t have the cycles of civil airliners. The older USAF examples could well see another thirty to forty years of service ahead of them and there is no reason why the RAF examples could not serve just as long. The main problem with the RAF fleet is the lack of funding for the latest block updates leading to component obsolescence issues.
The RAF Sentry are paid for, in service, with plenty of airframe life left and still more then capable of meeting UK requirements. Retiring them and starting a replacement program would be a waste of money.
I agree that the Sentry has plenty of life in it yet, we shouldn’t base this decision on the possible replacement of another capability many years done the line.
We seem to be stuck with the A400m, which is a real problem given its ridiculous cost and medium capability. With the Hercules production line drawing to a close that may perhaps not be a good alternative in any case.
We know we will end up with 8 C17 and 22 A400m. Would looking in-to the purchase of more BAE 146 not be feasible? I’m imagining up-to a dozen of these could deal with internal and low intensity troop carrying which would take a great deal of strain off of the other 30 high-end transports which could then be used for other tasks.
Would another option be a few more C17, or do people think they are just too expensive.
Also who knows, maybe the A400m could see an additional buy later on when the budget is healthier and the price comes down?
Having said that I wouldn’t mind having more A330, providing the price was right and that horrid PFI crap wasn’t included.
Firstly good article
The Voyoger PFI hasn’t been the MOD’s most popular project which if we were all truthful wouldn’t have happened if Gordon brown hadn’t been totally anti Armed Forces and opened the purse strings wider in the good times we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I’d look at anyway possible to terminate the PFI purchase the aircraft and buildings the airtanker built at Brize norton then keep the C-130′s flying say 10 using the rest as spares and attrition or purchase the C-295 and use as temporary MPA and cargo aircraft till a better MPA could be procured.I’d like more C-17′s but there too expensive and wait for the next tactical airlifter Lockheed Martin are proported to be designing. The UOR Bae 145′s should be stored rather than sold as we had these aircraft before and sold them so basically we bought these aircraft twice.
Good Planning
@ Chris – Interesting read. However I see little merit in buying commercial transport aircraft. On occasions that we do need them we will need far more than we have. Most of the time post Afghanistan they won’t be needed. If we do need them then we can generally find that the private sector will provide a large capability that we only have to pay for when we use it.
I do take your point about AAR. However given our ability to supply up to 13 or so A330 tankers in a crisis should we really take this further in coalition operations. These planes are not cheap and they cost a lot to run.
The main advantage in my mind of the A400M is its ability to operate as a tanker as well as a cargo aircraft. Converting around half of our fleet as an austere tanker combined with the 13 voyagers would give us an immense capability to provide AAR to non US lead coalitions while allowing us the flexibility of maintaining a large tactical transport fleet.
If we could get out of the FSTA PFI then I see merit in the suggestion but adding in even more A330s to the mix seem’s expensive to me without providing an improved capability.
Hello ArmChairCivvy,
What I meant to say is that the Herc is pretty well at the end of its modification/improvements run. Any further improvements will result in an actual new designed plane, considering the J-model is (and I quote LM) “the pinnacle of the Hercules design”.
So even if India et al order additional C-130s, that will be basically it for that sterling bird. It will soldier on supported by aftermarket suppliers, but LM will turn it over and move on to other projects (wether that is a good LM strategy is another matter).
Any future C-130X models will have to fight the “new” generation KC-390 and AN-77 which will by then hitting the tarmac. Though my money would be on the KC-390 and less on the An-77 considering its checkered history and future, regardless of its engineering feats.
Hi Martin,
I agree this would be the way to go ” Converting around half of our fleet as an austere tanker combined with the 13 voyagers would give us an immense capability to provide AAR to non US lead coalitions while allowing us the flexibility of maintaining a large tactical transport fleet.”
The amazing speed at which these conversions can be done (of course, with A400m it has been designed in, so will be very fast indeed) is attested to here http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21F8E7A_BD8A_55BA_43FA63F04FC5D6B4.pdf
Anyone know if the AAR of a helo has been tested, as the speed difference should not be a problem (USMC do it routinely with their Hercs)?
Hi Challenger, from yesterday “medium only gives you the worst of both worlds without any obvious benifit.”
- I would still say the same as in my comment then
- but neither of us (?) had the Life Cycle Cost information vs. tactical capacity which is on the slide 33 of the Airbus Military Update thread
Looks to me that RAF is getting their mix right (save for the unpressurised delivery van, in small numbers; maybe the defensive aids are just too expensive to install in anything smaller than the BAE146? For that one the design already existed because of the Royal Flight, so the cost was just incremental, not full to include design and testing)
Just out of curiosity but am I right in suggesting that we’re at a point that lots and lots of our equipment requires replacement? Or is it just like this all the time?
Shame we have less than no money at the mo
Why don’t we schedule asset replacement to run over the 30 (or so) years that they last? Seems we need to replace carriers, destroyers, attack subs, frigates, strike jets, light copters, APCs, heavy lift, tankers and AEW/AWACS all within a few years of each other… isn’t that nearly everything?
Simon
Indeed, this is what happens after a decade of intense operations in Afghanistan, add on Iraq and key; political/service dithering.
Though the E3 is good for another decade before needing airframe mods…its just software thats the issue.
Its a shame all these big-ticket assets are concentina-ing (is that a word?) in their need for replacement/renewal…does make in-fighting for funds worse :C
Hi Mike,
Project Eagle, to turn them into independent A2A combat centres, was cancelled. No doubt there are other needs that are of higher priority,
RE “Though the E3 is good for another decade before needing airframe mods…its just software thats the issue”
I just wonder how many bn’s disappear from the top of the budget when the UORs that are in use and are chosen to be kept will need to be funded, RE
“does make in-fighting for funds worse”
@ Fedaykin
“Firstly I am not entirely sure where the A400 payload figures come from in the article”
– Airbus, pre their 2012 promotional brochure.
“What caused me far more bemusement is this statement:“With the end of the UK’s Sentry AEW&C service life in sight,””
– The Sentry is over 30 years old now and the 707 line has ceased a while back. With engine upgrades they might make it into the middle of the next decade and maybe even up to 2030. With the relative snails pace that defence often works at, especially for a low order number program, you need to be thinking now about what you’re going to do to replace them. Mark pointed out the E-10 program, which had it been successful would have seen Sentry coming out of service over this decade.
Thus my proposal above for a Voyager based system would start coming together for proposals and testing probably at the end of this decade.
@ Michael,
“I’d like more C-17′s but there too expensive,”
– They’re about $200 million dollars compared to the A400M currently working at figures of around $140 million, and given that the C-17 is in production and still attracting orders while A400M is still struggling along to get ready for service. Given the large leap in performance that a C-17 represents, I think they’re worth it.
@ Martin
“Interesting read. However I see little merit in buying commercial transport aircraft”
– TD did a post a while back on the Voyager PFI. In it he noted that about 40 large pallets (463L Master Pallet) worth of stuff is flown into Afghanistan per day. One of the proposed new Voyager aircraft above could handle 75% of that. A follow on flight could bring the remaining 8 along with over 200 troops if needed.
The key to these aircraft is 1) their ability to supplement the long range tanker fleet and 2) there ability to free up the C-17′s by handling a lot of the passenger and bulk freight missions, over vast distances and in a more economical manner.
Take for example the repatriation of lost British soldiers. This is a task that would be much better suited to the Voyager, freeing up the C-17 for heavy military loads such as vehicles. It’s about efficient load distribution, the hallmark of any truly good logistical organisation.
“However given our ability to supply up to 13 or so A330 tankers in a crisis should we really take this further in coalition operations. These planes are not cheap and they cost a lot to run.”
– Air to air tanking is one of the prime assets that we bring to the table, especially as so many nations did as they did in Libya, e.g. providing a small number of fighter jets to the party. If we’re anticipating the US to look to the Pacific, then that demand for our AAR will only increase. And relatively speaking an A330 is not that bad cost wise, given the design and low maintenance cost. I’d imagine the MoD will bill the other nations later for fuel use.
When you consider that C-130 can be converted to tanking to if needed, that gives us a lot of capability over different ranges.
@ Marcase
“Any future C-130X models will have to fight the “new” generation KC-390 and AN-77 which will by then hitting the tarmac”
– Marshall Aerospace has a good track record looking after Hercs, and recently won a new contract. The KC-390 is a powerpoint project at the minute. There is no replacement small, tactical lifter outside really of Airbus’s C-295 system, which is an inadequate C-130 replacement.
Now maybe down the line, once A400 has come down in price and the C-130′s have well and truly run their course, then maybe we could make that switch. But not now.
@Simon,
“Just out of curiosity but am I right in suggesting that we’re at a point that lots and lots of our equipment requires replacement? Or is it just like this all the time?”
– Stuff will always be going of service and need replacing. In the same way now that we’re trying to stagger out our ship building requirements now, so those same ships in the future will reach the retirement stage one after the other. Such is the pace of change.
@ Chris.B
“– The Sentry is 30 years old now and the 707 line has ceased a while back. With engine upgrades they might make it into the middle of the next decade and maybe even up to 2030. With the relative snails pace that defence often works at, especially for a low order number program, you need to be thinking now about what you’re going to do to replace them. Mark pointed out the E-10 program, which had it been successful would have seen Sentry coming out of service over this decade.”
Sorry but utter tosh! Sentry is just over 20 years being delivered in 1991 and in cycle terms they are virtually new! When it comes to engines you suggest that somehow with with modifications they can limp into the next decade!? RAF Sentry are fitted with CFM56 a modern in production engine which have not done anywhere near the kind of miles that a civilian airliner using them would do!!! Parts are plentiful in production and available from multiple sources. If they really were wearing out (which I very much doubt) new examples can be purchased and hung on the wing at commercial rates for a relatively low price. The E-10 program was cancelled because the E3 with upgrades could perform the task and the EVEN OLDER USAF examples could operate for another thirty years minimum! So the idea that newer RAF examples can barely make it into the next decade is frankly absurd! Heck the USAF operates even older aircraft like the B52 with plans to operate them for another forty years! The RAF RC135 being converted in the States were built in the 1960s!
The major problem with RAF Sentry is funding for a new Block upgrade with the MOD faffing around contracting it out rather then just following the USAF Block 40/45 upgrade.
Sorry if I come over as rudely blunt but it appears to me you have put together a pet theory about future a330 Voyager uses and are trying to fit things to it. Suggesting that somehow the Sentry AEW.1 is on its last legs when facts clearly show otherwise is as I have said earlier absurd! The cost difference between retaining Sentry.AEW 1 and upgrading it for the next 30 years vs retiring it and adopting a new type is massive!
Comparing unit cost against max payload is only one aspect. You have to consider efficiency, ie how many cargo ton-miles per gallon do you get from each option – which won’t necessarily give the same ranking as minimum mpg when empty, as naturally you’d expect the smaller aircraft to use less fuel. And also fleet productivity, ie if we have 22 large A400M, how many more smaller C130 do we have to maintain in order to shift a given load across a given distance.
Also consider things like cross-loading. If you have C17 flying into a hub and A400M flying on to more austere airfields, how much more faffing about to transfer loads into smaller C130, and how many more loads can be transferred directly to an A400.
@ Fedaykin
“Sorry but utter tosh! Sentry is just over 20 years being delivered in 1991″
– Our Sentry’s may be, but the Sentry design is 30 years old.
“RAF Sentry are fitted with CFM56 a modern in production engine”
– Ours are fitted with the CFM56 Block 2. The current production model is the block 7. Those are effectively two different engines. You can’t just bodge components from the block 7 onto the block 2.
“If they really were wearing out (which I very much doubt) new examples can be purchased and hung on the wing at commercial rates for a relatively low price”
– Not really. You’d have to buy the Block 7 (or I believe the 5 might still be in production). You’d have to buy completely new engines and go all the way through the testing and certification process again.
“Suggesting that somehow the Sentry AEW.1 is on its last legs”
– I didn’t. All I said in the article was “With the end of the UK’s Sentry AEW&C service life in sight”, which it is. Another 10-15 years maybe. In terms of designing, approving and constructing aircraft, 10-15 years is not a large leap. You need to be thinking about their replacements and how you’re going to go about it now. Just because someone else managed to reap extra life out of an old airframe does not mean that a) you can do the same and b) that it is an adivsable thing to do.
Unless you’re suggesting we should hit up a US boneyard and find some Phantoms with a bit of life left in them. Maybe they could replace the F-35 on the Carriers?
So typical!?
“The major problem with RAF Sentry is funding for a new Block upgrade with the MOD faffing around contracting it out rather then just following the USAF Block 40/45 upgrade.”
- one would think that keeping the ones flying with mixed NATO manning and the UK ones roughly in line would make sense (if the price of upgrade puts them in line with USAF, too, no harm done)
@ Brian Black – According to the sales broachre TD has posted 13 A400M can do the same job as 29 “previous generation tactical airlifters” with 35% lower lifecycle costs (p33/44). How much of that is sales spin and how it would work in reality I can’t say…
No Chris.B you are now twisting things because your ideas have been called out as silly. You were clearly suggesting they are on their last legs…they are not.
You were suggesting the engines were a major issue…they are low hours in comparison to civilian engines and parts are plentiful.
You suggest that putting new CFM56,whatever block it is at as problematic…Boeing and CFM are well used to putting new engines on 707 and KC135. If the RAF requested new CFM56 to replace the old ones the costs and time doing it would be paltry in comparison to inducting an entirely new type. For that matter what engines are being fitted to the RAF RC135?! CFM have been bidding engine updates for the KC135 and the RIVET joint fleet up to very recently. Clearly they have some idea along with Boeing about how to do it!
That it is a thirty year old design is immaterial, the USAF and RAF have kept far older types in service and relevant. The airframe is young in civil airline terms and block upgrades are there to keep it at the forefront of capability. You are suggesting binning a supportable fairly new aircraft that can operate for another thirty to forty years to support your pet theory.
Where is the seed money to do research into your new AEW&C type? You talk about 10-15 year time scales. The Sentry AEW.1 can operate for at least another thirty years that means giving your worse case 15 year planning cycle means we don’t even need to think about it to 2025-27.
Again you are thinking up problems about a perfectly capable paid for type to fit around the problem you have in your mind so it fits into a pet theory about the a330 Voyager. You made a very clear statement that the Sentry.AEW 1 was on its last decade of service…there is utterly no evidence of that and its clearly a concept you have plucked out of thin air!
@ Fedaykin
“You were clearly suggesting they are on their last legs…they are not”
– No. I clearly said that end of their service life was in sight, which it is, in the same sense that the end of the Type 23 is in sight, without it being suggested it is a knackered old crone.
“You were suggesting the engines were a major issue…they are low hours in comparison to civilian engines and parts are plentiful,”
– Again, the Block 7 in production now is a completely different engine to the block 2. You can just switch order a compressor fan for the new model and then bodge it into the old model.
“If the RAF requested new CFM56 to replace the old ones the costs and time doing it would be paltry in comparison to inducting an entirely new type”
– 4 brand new engines per aircraft, over 6 airframes. That’s 24 new engines just to start with. These then have to be certified. That does cost money you know.
“CFM have been bidding engine updates for the KC135 and the RIVET joint fleet up to very recently. Clearly they have some idea along with Boeing about how to do it!”
– Yes CFM also bid for the replacement engines on the Yanks Sentry aircraft, except Pratt and Whitney came in cheaper.
“You are suggesting binning a supportable fairly new aircraft that can operate for another thirty to forty years to support your pet theory”
– Actually the stunning thing about your tirade is that this small aspect of the article (the possible replacement for Sentry) was presented at the end, as an afterthought, a sort of bonus if you will, and has no real impact on the main premise of the article (which is centered around cargo lift). If it didn’t happen it would not change the main thrust of the “pet theory”.
I do find it remarkable you’re extreme confidence in Sentry though as a an aircraft that will push on into the 2040′s. Only in April the entire fleet was grounded (again) for inspection. We only operate six of the original seven aircraft because one has been gutted for spares. Or were we not supposed to mention that?
@ Fedaykin
Look I even did a bit of leg work for you and found the quote that I remembered from Northrop Grumman;
“Working in partnership with the Sentry Project Team, the Northrop Grumman team provides the complete range of through-life services, including capability sustainment modernisation needed to support the Sentry E-3D AWACS aircraft through to its 2025 out-of-service date,”
There, hopefully that helps.
Well I call BS on that…call a tirade if you wish.
@ chris b i know it’s only a minor point in your article but i don’t see any reason why they would go on for many years i don’t think 20 years more is too unreasonable. I don’t think the fact the fleet was grounded for inspections or that one has been written off, after all it was a ground incident, should give you reason to think it won’t get into 2040.
Thanks, Gareth. I was just looking for some directly comparable numbers between 400 and 130, and notice that the Airbus Military site has a similar comparison between A400 and ‘previous gen’ airlifters (do they have a specific model in mind?) and the figures used there are eight A400M against 18 previous generation aircraft at a lifecycle cost of 55 per cent of the previous gen fleet.
The uk ordered its 8th c17 for 300m dollars did we get done?
Rivet joint I think will also have the latest cfm 56 engines
@ Fedaykin,
“Well I call BS on that..”
Well in that case you’re calling BS on the company that is managing the support for AWACS. On balance, I trust their knowledge of the program a little more than I trust you. Of course it’s conceivable that they might find a way to push it out further, you never know.
What I don’t understand is why you’re getting so heated over what it is a relatively minor point, what was essentially just a “and this could be a bonus feature” type thing right at the end.
Northrop Grumman is interested in the RAF buying the 737AEW&C so what they have to say on the matter is suspect. I have heard nothing on the grapevine that the MOD actually plans to retire them.
You raise issues with maintenance and airframes being cannibalised…that has nothing to do with the remaining life of the aircraft just MOD penny pinching.
Block 2 Block 7 so what, parts are plentiful now to keep what are young engines going and if we need new ones we tap CFM to make an offer.
24 new engines and certification is nothing in comparison to adopting a new type and you seem to avoid the point that the engines in airline terms are young.
CFM lost out to Pratt on the RIVET Joint replacing engines… cost is only part of the story. The main issue was the larger fan on the CFM interfered with the sensor. Again are you saying Boeing and CFM have problems fitting new engines to old types?
The USAF with their even older Sentry clearly plan to keep them for many more years and the RAF is inducting even older RC135 which are also getting new CFM, so much for your certification issues.
I am not particularly heated over it but what is clearly a pet theory or “bonus” as you keep on calling it that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny needed some debunking. As for what you have to say over the a400 again there are huge holes in your thinking…the figures don’t add up. Our current C130J are thrashed and you still haven’t answered the main issue with the type which is a small cargo box meaning they often run out of space before they run out of payload.
Hi BB,
As you can see (from the slides,33rd specifically, on the TD thread):
- they made it 35%, again not specifying the comparison
RE “eight A400M against 18 previous generation aircraft at a lifecycle cost of 55 per cent of the previous gen fleet”
@ Fedaykin,
“I am not particularly heated over it but what is clearly a pet theory or “bonus” as you keep on calling it that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny needed some debunking”
– Except you didn’t. Like I said, Northrop Grumman, the people who run the support contract, have the out of service date at 2025. Forgive me but you, like me, are just a name sitting behind a computer. Northrop Grumman, the people who know considerably more about it than any of us here seem to agree with my rough time frame. I’d say you’ve got a long way to go before you “debunk” anything.
“Block 2 Block 7 so what, parts are plentiful now to keep what are young engines going and if we need new ones we tap CFM to make an offer”
– This is what makes me the most suspicious. You wave away the difference between the Block 2 and Block 7 as if it’s nothing, a minor inconvenince. They are different engines. The majority of the parts for a block 7 will not be compatible with the original engine. I would be very surprised if parts for the Block 2 were made at all now. Generally companies try to encourage people to move on from their old products. Unless the UK plans to buy engines off the Iranian 707′s that are still going.
And I would very much doubt that a seven aircraft fleet running the same engines for 20 years would have been able to keep the engines in “young” condition.
“the RAF is inducting even older RC135 which are also getting new CFM, so much for your certification issues
– Those are the youngest of the bunch, with about 20,000 odd hours left on them. And again, you’re talking about brand new CFM, not the block 2. And yes, they will need to be certified, unless you’re now trying to tell me that you can fly whatever aircraft and engine combo you choose with out getting a ticket for it?
“As for what you have to say over the a400 again there are huge holes in your thinking…the figures don’t add up”
– You moaned about the Airbus figures. They were taken from Airbus. So call them up and have a word with them.
“Our current C130J are thrashed”
– They’ve only been in service for about ten or so years and Marshall Aerospace recently won a deal to do maintenance and upgardes on them. Thrashed is not the word I would use.
“.. you still haven’t answered the main issue with the type which is a small cargo box meaning they often run out of space before they run out of payload”
– The whole point of purchasing the “Voyager KC4″ proposed here would be to allow the C-17′s to deal with most of the oversized and odd military stuff. The C-130 have served us well for a while now, I would expect that to continue. Alright, they might not be able to fly helicopters inside, but for most of what we ask them to do, they are fine.
The problem you’re having is attaching far too much importance to that AEW bit at the end.
@ Mark
‘I will declare I had the pleasure of being on a400ms design team for several years so maybe a little bias. It also has a better landing gear than herc for the rough landings’
Mark as someone who worked on the design team could you answer a few questions? could you say how, in what way it is better? What sort of maintenance is req’d pre planned and post rough strip landing and how does that compare to the C130? What sort of eng and supply support are planned in from the beginning from Airbus, will 2nd line be done by Airbus? What sort of multinational support is planned for support supply and eng, is it similar to the planned multination spares support chain for the F35? Sorry for all the questions just professionally interested in this sort of thing.
Hi Topman
Multinational support is to an extend what the government wants it to be. There is a multinational centre for training and maintenance in sevilla but there will also be national centres in france germany and the UK. Aibus offer what they call FISS which will offer maintenance similar to what a330 mrtt is getting in second line and at deployed locations but dont know what the uk has signed up for in relation to a400m.
Airbus have build in a very similar level of health monitoring and ease of maintenance that they use in there civil jets (they also used similar modeling tools that f35 did) in particular they have stretched the heavy maintenance periods (if memory serves it was something like 80days down time over 12 years service for heavy maintenance was projected).
The landing gear im told (not my area ) is more robust with better overall load distribution than whats gone before. It can kneel to help loading not sure if c130 can do that dont know it well enough. The carbon braking system they were quite pleased with too.
The maintenance specific to pre and post rough strip landings in comparison to c130 is something I cant answer.
“The problem you’re having is attaching far too much importance to that AEW bit at the end.”
The reason is simple what you said and are still saying is stupid and needs to be addressed.
Again the Block 7 thing, not a problem for RC135 but a problem for Sentry AEW.1 as you see it. That is so weak that it is frankly unbelievable. Whatever CFM would offer would be unique anyway. Anyway it doesn’t remove the fact that the current engines are young in airline terms with no parts supply issues.
An idea I’ve been mulling: could the RAF operate TD’s forward presence flights using tankers? Not Voyagers, necessarily: possibly light tankers (ex civvie 757s?), but with added, or addable, ISR equipment. I don’t need to rehash the benefits to us of these ostensibly non-belligerent detachments but they could also provide the host nation with a useful resource for cross training and operations. Could be a real force multiplier for us and them.
And while I’m here, and off topic, re light transports: RUAG Do228 anyone?
@ Fedaykin
“Again the Block 7 thing, not a problem for RC135 but a problem for Sentry AEW.1 as you see it. That is so weak that it is frankly unbelievable”
– Because, and you’re pushing my patience, the engines in the Sentry are Block 2, not block 7. They are not “young” by any stretch of the imagination, unless you’re talking young in a “Triggers Broom” sense of the word. You cannot just bodge parts from a block 7 into a block 2, for reasons that should be astoundingly bloody obvious.
You can re-engine the Sentry with block 7 engines, but it will cost money. You seem to think they can just whip them out and replace them for price of a newspaper and a packet of 20 John Players Specials.
The Airseeker program for example is £700 million for 3 aircraft exclu. support costs (another £500m to 2025). Granted, they’re going to have a lot of Gucci kit installed in them, part of which is the new engines.
If my proposal for a “Voyager KC4″ became a reality and then it was later decided to buy additional Voyager and convert them into some AESA based AWACS, yes, I imagine that would cost more than sticking new engines on a Sentry, but by the time that became a consideration the Sentry would be looking long in the tooth anyway and you’d be buying brand spanking new aircraft with their attendent extension in useful life.
To clarify, I’m not proposing the end of Sentry tomorrow or anything quite so hasty.
I just get thoroughly annoyed when some twonk comes along and starts banging on about calling people out etc when you don’t appear to have done even the basic research.
Believe it or not, some of us spend quite a bit of time thoroughly checking things before committing them to (electronic) paper. I recommend you try it some time.