Grim901Apart from being able to carry lots of things which can’t fit into a C-130J unless you cut them into pieces? Or much heavier loads, over longer distances? And see below about refuelling . . .
The KC-130J is consistently referred to as being “modified”. On LMs website it is listed as a variant of the C-130J. There is no mention of AAR in the capabilities of the C-130J, except under the KC-130J. This all suggests that it is not plug and play, but requires modification to the basic aircraft. The Airbus website, in contrast, specifically states that A400M has a built-in AAR capability. I don’t believe LM would omit to mention it if the C-130J had the same capability.
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Flexibility.aspx#AirToAirRefuelling
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c130/variants/kc-130j-supertanker.htmlSee the link above, which is pretty explicit.
Fair enough on the AAR point, I assumed more than I should have.
Can you provide some comparable figures for the A400M and C130 on carrying capacities etc. Last figures I remember seeing didn’t indicate much of a difference compared to the latest stretched C130’s. It was quite some time ago though.
I’m still struggling to see what niche the A400M is filling between the C130J’s we will still be operating and the C17’s (The A400’s are after all only replacing the C130K’s). Are there a lot of items that won’t quite fit into a C130 but are too small to really warrant a C17? It seems silly to be adding another entirely different type of aircraft to the inventory. What am I missing?
Grim901Let us remind ourselves of what happened in 2006 –
After months of haggling, a joint memorandum of understanding was signed on 12 December 2006. The full contents were not published, but in response to a specific question, Paul Drayson, the British minister who signed it for the UK said that yes, it did include access to source code – and unlike most politicians, he understood what that meant. He has a PhD in robotics. The US side refused to discuss the terms publicly, other than to say that a mutually satisfactory agreement had been reached.
So, there we have it. Unless you reckon that a British government minister lied about the contents of an agreement he’d signed, & specifically, about the key condition which he’d spent months negotiating over, & which he’d stated he would not sign an agreement without, you have to accept that the USA has reneged on its promises.
No Swerve you must have your facts wrong because the MOD hasn’t gone screaming publicly for lawyers to come in and force the US to do what it promised, therefore none of that could have happened and we’re all moaning because we imagined that happening ;).
Strange how the US will trust the UK with Trident but not a fighter jet we part developed and are building large portions of.
Grim901The C-130 has been around for well over 50 years, of course it’s going to be versatile! :rolleyes:
You say “the A400M will never get useful stuff like that”…..Thats some crystal ball you have! Any chance of this weeks lottery numbers?
Can you really see any of the A400 customers investing in a system like that? The point was that the US does throw money around and comes up with these novel solutions that Europe never seems to try. For example if it was just Britain that wanted a gunship variant, do you really think the MOD would put up the money to develop it alone?
Indeed we are, but we won’t be buying many (if any) more after number 7 (if the money is found for that). As for cancelling A400M to fund C-130 you’ll get a year or so earlier, what’s the point – you may as well wait a little longer for the new aeroplane which can do more than the C-130.:)
I’m yet to be convinced that the A400M we get a year after we could have had the C130’s will be very capable at all. Until they get the aircraft to spec, that will stay the case.
How much difference is there between the latest C130J’s and the A400M? Now what about the price difference? Now think if it will be better to have a more equal mix of a proper strategic transport like C17’s and C130’s, or an uneven mix of a few C130J’s, some A400Ms, and a couple of C17’s.
The basic infrastructure’s already built.:)
For the A400M? That seems a bit premature, are you sure?
FSTA’s too far down the line to be scrapped on a financially sensible basis, both in terms of aeroplanes and infrastructure, and more importantly it’s desperately needed to replace the antiques we operate now. Much as the VC10’s a good tanker, it’s exceedingly long in the tooth, as its the TriStar. 🙂
As for the C-130 tanking – someone should have been shot for the decision to allow that clause in the FSTA agreement. I suspect a large amount of money will go AirTankers way should we ever need to conduct AAR for rotary assets. Thankfully I don’t think we’ll have the need.:)
You misunderstand, I meant scrap the PFI, buy the aircraft outright (ideally with another 6-8 airframes).
And yes whoever agreed to the PFI in general should be shot, let alone the exclusive rights part.
@Swerve: The C130’s we have and could order more of would only require a plug and play refuelling kit as well wouldn’t they?
Finally, will the A400M actually be able to refuel a helo? Or is this just assumed? (I’m aware it can be used for standard refuelling ops, which if we do buy, and scrap the FSTA PFI, we can use to make up for the shortage of FSTA’s.)
Grim901But in reality, as far as the UK is concerned how do we expect to afford another 5 C-17? As for infrastructure, massive changes would still be needed.
As for the C-130, there is no chance of delivery within 3 years of now, even if we ordered tomorrow. As for C-130 refuelling, it’d be pointless even thinking of it as it’s prohibited under the terms of the FSTA agreement.
We are negotiating for C17 number 7 now. 😀 And cancelling A400M would leave us with enough for a few more plus the C130’s.
The change would be much more minimal than buying 25 totally different aircraft.
As fas as i’m aware, we won’t be getting the A400M for at least another 3 years (3 years from first flight for first delivery is the official EADS line, first of which won’t even be going to us either.)
I know about the FSTA job, I still hope it’ll be scrapped (I can dream for my sanity’s sake). There may be a loophole in there somewhere about helicopter refuelling, which we have helos equipped for, but no refueller to do the job. Only a C130 can do that currently right?
I was also just using it as an example of the C130’s versatility, it helps to have the US trying all kinds of fun things with them. Like right now they’re trying out a new “plug and play” style AC130 for the USMC, you just wheel in the kit and weapons on pallets and off you go, the A400M will never get useful stuff like that.
Word around the campfire is a 7th C-17A and A400M cut to 19 or lower:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4394666&c=AIR&s=TOP
:D:D:D
Grim901Let us hope they have not wasted the delays enforced by the software problems, & are well prepared for flight testing.
It’ll still be overweight and missing specs to meet this flight date. I doubt we’ll see a to spec A400M for several years and at greatly inflated price.
I’d much rather have an extra 5 C17’s and 20 C130J’s. No need for infrastructure changes, cheaper and proven aircraft, much more potential in the C130’s for alteration especially (special forces, refuelling, AC130 etc).
I’d revisit the A400M in 5-10 as the current C130’s start to drop.
Grim901I’m not sure that I understand what all the fuss is about. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Do you think any of the European partner nations that participated in the F-16 production program were given access to avionics sourcecode? Not a chance.
The issue is not access to the sourcecode. The issue is how, when, and at what price will European unique weapons and systems be integrated into the F-35. These are details that are best worked out before the European partners buy their aircraft, not after.
No the issue is very much access to the source code for Britain. For most other nations, after seeing what Britain went through to obtain the guarantees, they knew they were unlikely to get it, but Britain were given assurances at the very highest level to keep us in the program back in 2006.
If the roles were reversed and you had to come and ask a British engineer to do something on your F35’s every time you wanted to update them or change something, how would you react?
If anything the price will be cheaper and the work (for at least some nations) will be done quicker using the American plan for updates etc. but that really isn’t the issue. Now that they’ve gone back on this promise, how do we know we aren’t also being sold a less effective aircraft, as we were assured we weren’t?
Whilst I doubt a “kill switch” will be built in, or that they’d ever have the balls to use one and watch as their entire aerospace export sector collapses, especially against an ally, the fact remains that we can’t have a comprehensive understanding of the aircraft without the code. We also therefore, can not develop other elements or modifications to the aircraft without US approval and compliance, maybe weapons integration is plug and play, are radars and all the other bits that a nation may wish to alter?
Grim901Oh joy, already too late to be in service wehn at least 2 major nations need it to be. And still with no outcome on whether EADS will actually stick to the contract they agreed upon.
Grim901Is the source code that relevant to integrate weapons?
I mean, Amraams are integrated with the Typhoon, was the EF’s code given to the USA to complete the integration?
You miss the point, to integrate AMRAAM nto Typhoon, you need the Typhoon source code, which the British have, so they integrated it themselves. No need to go cap in hand to the US to ask for them to do them job.
Grim901I never said in anyway shape or form it can down planes, U LOST!!:D:D:cool:;)
Good, because the AIM9X is a missile.
Grim901Is not the code source the language of the program?
They have all the right to keep it for themselves, why to share the code?, this is probably a patented code, and rather than hidding “alien secrets”, are just protecting their copyright to aviod ilegal programming.
I’m not sure if was the same situation with the F16s sold, but what would be the gain if Europe or other customers are getting the source?, are they planning to desing new programs?? i don’t understand why all this fuss.
Add more fuel to the F35 flamming, i guess
The source code is required to make any major modification to the plane and integrate any other weapons. Obviously not everyone uses the same weapons as the USA, so they’d like to integrate their own. For sales purposes, the US are doing that with just about any requests the partners make, but in 10 years time when the aircraft are bought and paid for, what incentive do they have to integrate foreign weapons or equipment in a timely manner, especially when that country could just buy US weapons and make it easier. (That’s one of the more worst case scenario type things).
More generally, it is needed for certain levels of maintenance etc. and for maintaining full sovereignty over an aircraft. Without the codes the US always has to be in the loop on some level.
On another point, the British were promised full sovereignty and ability to upgrade on their own (i.e they’d need the source codes) before they committed so much to the project. The Americans have now gone back on their word and a signed contract. To the best of my knowledge Britain isn’t planning on making a new stealth fighter of our own any time soon, nor is the UK in the habit of breaking copyright laws and stealing from its closest ally in order to make said fighter, so the official reasons given seem to fall apart. Keep in mind that BAE, the only company we would give it to, is already intimately involved in designing the plane thanks to the $2 billion Britain put in to get a design share, so will be bound to confidentiality in some way and also makes the majority of it’s money on the US market, so pissing them off by giving away the secrets would be a stupid decision in every way.
I wouldn’t pull out at this point, I think it’s too late, which is why the announcement has probably come now. They kept Britain on board with false promises until we were too far gone to pull out.
The back of my mind does wonder though, how much does BAE know about the fighter, and with the 3 LRIP airframes we’re getting, could we knock it off and build our own version instead?
Grim901Excuse my ignorance, but what LHA stood for? Tarawa class was called LHA right? (from the top of my head)
Landing Helicopter assault. An LPH in all but name.
Grim901I doubt the CVF’s were designed with steam cats ever in mind for use. If they still need to use steam cats by the time when they expect the conversion from STOVL to CATOBAR to take place (about mid-life so 25 years time) then the US must be screwed. If it takes them another 25 years to get EMALS working their new CVNs will be impotent.
I’m sure that they wouldn’t be lauding up the CVFs adaptability without thinking of actually being able to install EMALS, it will have gone past the basic level of being able to physically fit it into the available space.
Grim901I know it’sa little off topic but we were talking about it here a couple of days back so i’ll post it anyway.
We were discussing the issue of getting rid of British SSN/SSBN waste. This is a summary of something said in Prime Minister’s Questions today on the issue:
Lib Dem MP Alan Reid asks about nuclear waste and fears over “secret sites” for the dismantling nuclear submarine waste – Mr Brown says it is a long-running argument and the MOD is talking to local MPs in the areas where there are potential sites. “This is not happening behind closed doors,” he says.
Basically, they can’t agree on a site to do the decommisioning.
Grim901According much speculation (see the F-35 thread), Japan has decided to go for the F-35, though nothing set in stone yet.
Personally would love to see both take up the Tiffie, with TVC and AESA (with the swashplate),
The TVC looks awesome:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18065281001?bctid=44876616001
I just read an interview with the head of Eurofighter who said that the AESA is one of the top priorities for negotiations into integration (either on the T3’s or retrofitted) along with Meteor, TVC didn’t even get a mention, it’s likely to have slipped down the priority list with budgets going bye-bye.
The F35 for Japan article I read sort of copped out at the end, it made it sound lke it was one of the options considered, along with F22 and Typhoon, not that they’d narrowed down to just the F35 yet. It also pointed out the how F35 fits like a glove for F-XX but that F-X is a separate requirement (for now at least).
I think that Canada will buy Typhoon as they are unlikely to get Raptor. Japan are almost definitely going to get it as there is no 5th generation fighter they can get hold of.
They could get the F35 without any problems, it’s whether or not that is their preferred solution for F-X that is the issue. (Let’s not debate the point here please, I can’t be bothered to sift through more fan boy stuff).
i heard a roomer that they are maybe having a competion, in true jsf partner spirit! :rolleyes:
Its rumour.
I no next to nothing about the Canadian forces, so what is it they’re planning to replace where Typhoon/F35 could be bought instead of, aren’t the CF-18’s fairly recent still? (I didn’t bother with the article so apologies if it was mentioned there).
Grim901That link explains better than I can if ya can’t read and understand it, then there’s no way of helping ya:rolleyes:
I looked at it for less than 30 seconds and discarded it as an unreliable (and poorly presented) source. I haven’t seen a webpage that poor since the 90’s.
If you like you can lay out the basic points for me though, I may just be able to comprehend them you never know, but I doubt my university education will have prepared me for the level of basic English present.
SS-26 is a troll. That’s really all the clarification you need. 😉 (He certainly won’t cough up any facts.) A prime example is at the end of the AIM-9X thread were he states that a sub-launched AIM-9X is simply a rip off of a Russian unguided torpedo. 😀
“Originally Posted by SS-26
Your regards are usless this IS a copy/build-on of Russky tech”LOL
The above reply by him gave me an inkling, but thanks for the clarification.
@R38: The last I heard the Sea Viper wouldn’t be fully qualified for use on the T45’s before 2011, not sure how far that ties into the barge test firings, but it’ll require at least a couple of T45 based tests too.
Sign In
