UK Defence Forum

There are 14 a/c with the RAF at present increasing to 18 a/c as the year progresses. The aircraft are receiving a number of upgrades and will continue to do so over the next year or so.

The a400 can and is now cleared for parachuting and is currently testing 16 tonne single load drops. The issues identified with long sticks of parachutes dropping from both doors simulatiously is not unique to a400m indeed the very same issues affect c17 and c130.

The a400m can actually operate out off all the same locations as c130 Hercules in fact the a400m will operate out of landing sites with softer ground than c130, thank to German specified cbr specs and a much better landing gear. RAF have been conducting landings down the beach recently.

There is an issue refuelling helicopters and testing is in place to offer a solution should that capability happen it will most likely require the receiver to remain plugged in longer than had been planned,

Why have we retained c130. Well we were always supposed to a400m was only supposed to replace half the c130 the other half being replaced by c130js. Why mainly cost we don't have the funds to replace all the c130s with a400m and it takes time to clear all the SF profiles and gear which is currently cleared on c130. Possible osprey replacement for c130 in the future may be of interest.

As for turbo jets / props. Props are more efficent if you plan to fly low level tactic sorties also FOD is a real issue with jet engines in unprepared surfaces. The abbresive materials on the compressor blades seriously degrade engine life expectancy. It's one of the reasons why c17 spends a week in the hanger for a service every time it conducts such a landing.

An A400M alongside two C-17s and a Voyager in Barbados to support aid delivery:

The Armchair Soldier wrote:An A400M alongside two C-17s and a Voyager in Barbados to support aid delivery:

must be an optical illusion A400 looks big and fat

If this hadn't been an EU project, at a time when the Government was keen to demonstrate our European credentials, would the RAF still have wanted this aircraft? or would they have been happy with the C130J/C17 mix?

james k wrote:would the RAF still have wanted this aircraft?

I would say yes, but the engine would have been bought from Canada (the only one that was available off-the-shelf) and not chosen by a French President (based on a concept drawing) and thus the project would have been done and dusted years ago... and been a roaring success, rather than having been bailed out by the founder Gvmnts inserting semi-equity (on top of the guaranteed buy)

I must say they're a fine looking bird, they have a real chunky, solid looking appearance about them..

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

james k wrote:would the RAF still have wanted this aircraft?

I would say yes, but the engine would have been bought from Canada (the only one that was available off-the-shelf) and not chosen by a French President (based on a concept drawing) and thus the project would have been done and dusted years ago... and been a roaring success, rather than having been bailed out by the founder Gvmnts inserting semi-equity (on top of the guaranteed buy)

Just got a book called "On Atlas' shoulders", flicking through, there was a proposal to get C-5 Galaxies back in the 70's. I wonder if that had succeeded, would there have been an A400 project as it is today?

I'm not criticising the aircraft but for the life of me I can't see the point in it. The C130J and C17 fleet seemed capable of transporting pretty much everything required for the RAF to support the Army, predominantly 16 Air Assault Brigade, what new capability does the Atlas add?

Cooper wrote:I must say they're a fine looking bird, they have a real chunky, solid looking appearance about them..

They're always great at airshows too IMO, they appear to handle very well considering what she looks like and what the role is.

james k wrote:I'm not criticising the aircraft but for the life of me I can't see the point in it. The C130J and C17 fleet seemed capable of transporting pretty much everything required for the RAF to support the Army, predominantly 16 Air Assault Brigade, what new capability does the Atlas add?

Army kit is getting bigger and fatter but you still want to carry it a long way and dump it into rough environments - C-17/C-130J do either to varying degrees but neither can do both at the adequate tempo that the Army would require in the future.

TD did an excellent series on the A400, recommend you give it a read. Section 2 addresses the problem behind kit growth quite nicely.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/t ... 7-options/

james k wrote:I'm not criticising the aircraft but for the life of me I can't see the point in it. The C130J and C17 fleet seemed capable of transporting pretty much everything required for the RAF to support the Army, predominantly 16 Air Assault Brigade, what new capability does the Atlas add?

I doubt the C130 will be able to carry any new 8 wheeled vehicle for the Army and whilst the C17 could, it won't be able to land in all the same places as the Atlas.

Do we need the C17 then? would more Atlas make more sense?

I doubt the C130 will be able to carry any new 8 wheeled vehicle for the Army and whilst the C17 could, it won't be able to land in all the same places as the Atlas.[/quote]

Last of the 'white tail' (unsold) C17's has just been purchased by India, so that boat has sailed, and I've no doubt we'll buy more A400's as the C130 fleet is eventually retired.

Cooper wrote:Last of the 'white tail' (unsold) C17's has just been purchased by India, so that boat has sailed, and I've no doubt we'll buy more A400's as the C130 fleet is eventually retired.

Might be an opportunity to curry favour in the Brexit negotiations if we agree to take some off Germany from their back order....

Little J wrote:a proposal to get C-5 Galaxies back in the 70's. I wonder if that had succeeded, would there have been an A400 project as it is today?

The most serious one (backed by Germany, though they had no industrial participation in it) was to re-engine Antonovs - and redo the avionics - with RR engines

Cooper wrote:I doubt the C130 will be able to carry any new 8 wheeled vehicle for the Army and whilst the C17 could, it won't be able to land in all the same places as the Atlas.

- bang on the money there, and here there's a difference between the resilience (translates to round trips, translates to capacity) between jets and turboprops

The 'Western Antonov' is still an awesome concept. It's payload / range puts the C-17 to shame.

Defence Minister Guto Bebb discusses the vital role that the new £70m hangar at RAF Brize Norton will play in maintaining the Royal Air Force Atlas A400M fleet and safeguarding the UK's essential defence capabilities

The Royal Air Force's Atlas A400M aircraft has successfully completed trials that will enable it to undertake air-sea rescue operations

Written Answer says that final A400M Atlas delivery to the RAF is not expected before 2022. So, i take it that the UK has accepted (substantial) delays to delivery in the new Airbus deal. At one point deliveries were due to wrap up as soon as March 2018... http://qnadailyreport.blob.core.windows ... -02-27.pdf …

The UK currently has 18 of the 22 A400M Atlas it has ordered. 15 are in use, 3 are in Seville for a retrofit to "to bring them up to the latest capability standard", whatever that means today after the deal with Airbus watered everything down in undefined ways.

Indonesia to buy 2 A400M's

http://alert5.com/2018/03/08/indonesia- ... ove-goods/

Does anyone know the approximate UK workshare per A400M airframe?

Gabriele wrote: i take it that the UK has accepted (substantial) delays to delivery in the new Airbus deal. At one point deliveries were due to wrap up as soon as March 2018...

All of those in the original consortium (, which I believe has not been added to, unlike with the Eurofighter) have an interest - if they have flyable planes to fill the gap - to let export deliveries happen first.
- the couple of bn that had to pumped into the project, to keep it afloat, is only payable back from sales to non-consortium members. So how long do we want to keep our monies in the Airbus pocket - that's the question