:: Community Forums ›

#1: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: Roy_A_Lingle, Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:33 am
----
Hi Folks!

I know aircraft can be way off topic, but I think this one will be of interest to some of members of the CIA group. After all this is about aircraft that can airlift some AFVs.

The Canadian gov. is looking for some new cargo planes to replace their aging C-130H airlifters.

They looked at the A400M by Airbus (which I understand NO prototypes have been completed yet) and Lockheed's C-130J (which I understand is currently in service and flying with the U.S.A.F.).

A contact is being put together for 17 aircraft.

www.defense-update.com....htm#c130j

Now I wonder why someone would go out and buy a current airframe that is flying (which also means the bugs are being worked out of that new airframe) rather that something that is still just a scale model and a large pile of blue prints?

I have heard a number of times (over at the old web site) that the answer to the problem of limiting AFV weight, to that of a C-130, could be fixed if the US would only buy the A400M LIKE ALL the Europians are doing.

The U.S. Army is standing up it's seventh SBCT. The C-130 is currently flying. The A400M is still just a dream by a company that is losing possible customers with each passing week. If the management of Airbus doesn't get it's act together, it's just might be that the A400M will NEVER get built.

Spot report and some chewing on an old bone.
Sgt, Scouts out!

#2: Re: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: Al_Bowie,

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:23 pm
----
Buying of the blueprint can be a dangerous proposition whether it is Aircraft or Armour. The Australian Government bought the F111 off the blueprint and had a ten year multi million dollar delay. Whilst it is true that we got one of the worlds best (still) attack aircraft the fact is we had a gap (temporarily filled by F4E) in our defence capability for over ten years.
The new Mega Airbus is another point in case with Qantas very warily revising its purchase after the trouble plagued aircraft actually flew. It seems the engines have a very short life (Not related to the engine design as they are highly successful on other airframes) span.
A proven design is the way to go particularly regarding the Herc.
Cheers
Al

#3: Re: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: Maple_Leaf_Eh,

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:34 am
----
The Canadian Herc fleet is downright ancient. These are the oldest flying Hercs on the planet. Flown long and hard, well maintainted, but not nimble and nubile anymore. (Remind anyone of themselves maybe?) It is a miracle none have fallen out of the sky from old age yet. I don't think they are all Hs; something tells me the fleet is four models including original 1960's buys, attrition replacements in the 70's and 80's, a couple of ex-civilian stretches, and a few relative youngster military patterns.

The Canadian strategic air fleet consists of four combi A310s that were foisted on the military when the number two national airline went broke. The air force wasn't too interested in them because they were pax only. After much politicking and contracting out, they all had side doors and reinforced floors installed. Same tail numbers, virtually new fuselages. The other airplane type are the Hercs. The airbridges to Bosnia and now to the sandbox are chewing up the airframe hours across the fleets. Hence the urgency to buy a small handful of C17s and a few dozen C130Js. With this government the planes will be delivered early or on time.

Airbus apparently made several invitations for the acquisition team to try their SIMULATOR, but there were already crews CROSS-TRAINING on flying Js. Simple logic when time is short.

#4: Re: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: Hanno_Spoelstra,

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:36 am
----

- Roy_A_Lingle

Now I wonder why someone would go out and buy a current airframe that is flying (which also means the bugs are being worked out of that new airframe) rather that something that is still just a scale model and a large pile of blue prints?

It is quite simple - if you have a need for an aircraft NOW, go and buy one off the production line. If you are in need of an aircraft in the future, go and pay a company to design and build you one. You then have the possibility to influence the design to suit your future needs.

Since a very long time, no single aircraft has been designed & built without pre-orders from customers, be they civilian or military.

#5: Re: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: tankmodeler, Location: Ontario

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:26 am
----

- Maple_Leaf_Eh

Airbus apparently made several invitations for the acquisition team to try their SIMULATOR, but there were already crews CROSS-TRAINING on flying Js. Simple logic when time is short.

That must have been a real "Hail Mary" from Airbus to imagine thaht we'd buy A400s. Not that they don't offer a lot of what we would really like in a medium sized airlifter, but we are on short rats for money, have a desperate need for airframes now and have a 40+ year familiarisation on the Herc. Anyting else just isn't in the cards.

I'm sure the blue suits also knew that if they even sniffed the hydraulics of an A400 sim, then the Canadian press would be all over it and muddy the waters at a point when replacements are needed real-soon-now.

Notice that we're also buying more Chinooks 10 years after we got rid of our last batch due to the previous government's inability to understand the military.

Paul Roberts
President
AMPS

#6: Re: OT, Airbus lost to Lockheed Martin Author: Al_Bowie,

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:56 pm
----
We have similar histories. We mothballed all our A model Chooks then traded them (plus a small fortune) for a half dozen D models. We also traded our E model Hercs for J model Hercs and bought a small number of C17's (4?). They are deciding what to do about the H Model Hercs as I type (then again they have been deciding what to do about the Caribou replacement for 15 years past its retirement date - still flying) . It's a pity that you didn't go the same way on Heavy Armour.
Cheers
Al

-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Page 1 of 1