The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 23 Nov 2014, 09:08

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2009, 19:48 
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 11:40
Posts: 982
Location: Waterfalls , Harare south
did armscor or whoever responsible for ordering 8 a400m even research what other aircraft might be available. i have to say ,it looks shady because with the so called a400m you are not getting what you pay for. i hear SAA ordered a couple of 340-500
and later realised it wasnt feasible .thats
why they had a profit this year. they got a refund.

_________________
"My dream is that somehow South Africans and Zimbabweans create relationships of such a nature that the Limpopo river is no longer a border, but is a source of water and food.” -Bishop Paul Verryn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEbv02k7Ag


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 06:01 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 739
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
It is unthinkable that the SAAF would put down a requirement for the A400M without some prior research on needs/availabilities and capabilities/cost. A consideration which may have helped to sway the decision was local industrial participation in the project. Because, die vet weet, this country needs to seriously move from a nation of rock hewers and farmers to a first world industrialised society. To accomplish that, we need to create A LOT of sustainable high tech jobs to add value to the rocks that we hew from our earth before we export it. Currently, a major part of our export consists of just rocks or semi-rocks. We absolutely must change that situation around if we want to progress as a nation.

High tech engineering in South Africa is undergoing challenging times, exacerbated by a cash-strapped government which does not see its way open to seriously spend on local R&D. The spending that it is currently doing in this field has been initiated by the pre-Zuma government: the A400M project out of which the government is currently considering pulling out; the PBMR nuclear project which is virtually abandoned by the government and Eskom to name but two. I heard that the satellite project in Stellenbosch also went through some tough times. It was rumoured that the engineers there were asked to state the smallest amount with which they can survive. That amount became their salary. This type of situation makes a career in engineering in South Africa problematic.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 09:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 17:19
Posts: 5194
The funny thing about the A400M acquisition is that it was not chosen as a result of a SAAF request.

Airbus Military made their proposal direct to the Government who then concluded the contract without it going through a tender process. The SAAF was then told that were going to receive eight A400Ms and that they had better find funds somewhere to intergrate, fly and maintain them. :roll:

I think it is common cause that their is no direct equivalent to the A400M.

The C-390 was not even launched when the A400M was purchased and it is smaller than the C-130. The C-130J is much smaller than the A400M and I think it cannot carry an Oryx without removing the rotor head. The C-17 is way too big and expensive.

The An-70 is a great aircraft, but it is Ukrainian and has been in development for the last ten years as a result of very little funding. I believe Russia is once again looking to get involved, after dumping it some years ago, so development may be speeded up, but customer delivery is still some years hence. While being very close to the A400M, it will suffer from its CIS heritage, ie, airframe/engine maintenance, hours between servicing and spares backup will be a huge burdon to an airforce used to Western practices and support.

All the above was typed from memory, so facts may be a little out. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 11:02 
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 11:40
Posts: 982
Location: Waterfalls , Harare south
II-76
range-3650km
speed-900km/h
takeoff weight-157tonnes

AN-70
range-6000km
speed-780km/h
takeoff weight-145tonnes

A400M
range-3289
speed-780km/h
takeoof weight-141tonnes

range is at maximum payload.
the a400m are said to be for peace keeping missions. to get to sudan or somalia it has to land at least twice for refuelling. the an-70 doesnt have to land and yet it accomodates more.
whats so different about the a400m to result in a cost of more than 150mill USD

_________________
"My dream is that somehow South Africans and Zimbabweans create relationships of such a nature that the Limpopo river is no longer a border, but is a source of water and food.” -Bishop Paul Verryn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEbv02k7Ag


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 12:32 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 739
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
skyhawk77 wrote:
II-76
range-3650km
speed-900km/h
takeoff weight-157tonnes

AN-70
range-6000km
speed-780km/h
takeoff weight-145tonnes

A400M
range-3289
speed-780km/h
takeoof weight-141tonnes

range is at maximum payload.
the a400m are said to be for peace keeping missions. to get to sudan or somalia it has to land at least twice for refuelling. the an-70 doesnt have to land and yet it accomodates more.
whats so different about the a400m to result in a cost of more than 150mill USD


I checked the A400M website and the range figure's unit is in nautical miles, not km. A map on the website shows that with a 20 tonne payload the A400M can fly from Waterkloof and just about reach Cairo in one go, which lays beyond Sudan (looking from Waterkloof.) With a 30 tonne payload things get a bit dicey for the Sudan haul and one refueling stop-over may be required. A fuel tanker stationed somewhere over Zim which can provide air-to-air refueling for any A400M enroute from Waterkloof to the Sudan may obviate the need for a refueling stop however.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 13:21 
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 11:40
Posts: 982
Location: Waterfalls , Harare south
i was calculating from cape town to sudan/somalia.
according to global security the range of the a400m when fully loaded is 2100nm (3889km). the air distance between cape town and khartoum is 5700km.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
taking off from pretoria subtract 1263km the result is not even enough to avoid landing/refuelling.
see how an-70 and il-76 are superior
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

_________________
"My dream is that somehow South Africans and Zimbabweans create relationships of such a nature that the Limpopo river is no longer a border, but is a source of water and food.” -Bishop Paul Verryn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEbv02k7Ag


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 13:40 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 739
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
skyhawk77 wrote:
i was calculating from cape town to sudan/somalia.
according to global security the range of the a400m when fully loaded is 2100nm (3889km). the air distance between cape town and khartoum is 5700km.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
taking off from pretoria subtract 1263km the result is not even enough to avoid landing/refuelling.
see how an-70 and il-76 are superior
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm


Exactly what the A400M website also said: when fully loaded (30 tonne payload), traveling from Waterkloof, you might need refueling along the way. A 20 tonne payload will allow you to get to the Sudan from Waterkloof apparently.

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 15:11 
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 11:40
Posts: 982
Location: Waterfalls , Harare south
so there is nothing wrong with the a400m whatsoever. there is no other strong contenders.
also the hawks and gripen are the best in their respective categories. why is it when i ask about the the hawk, gripen and a400m acqusitions everyone wants to prove me wrong? i think you all know the truth

_________________
"My dream is that somehow South Africans and Zimbabweans create relationships of such a nature that the Limpopo river is no longer a border, but is a source of water and food.” -Bishop Paul Verryn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEbv02k7Ag


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2009, 18:31 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 739
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
No Sky, it is actually desirable to have as many different opinions as possible to avoid a cosy thing called "Groupthink." So, don't be shy to post your opinions. Healthy debate is much more desirable than a lot of yes-men nodding their heads in unison, which is rather comical. Some leg-pulling from time-to-time cannot be resisted "peace".

It is difficult to compair aircraft and proclaim that x is the best because it depends on what your requirements are. If you want to drop a guided bomb on a specific target 300 km away, it is illogical to argue that a B52 is better than a Gripen or a Mig just because the B52 can haul more bombs further.

Maybe, compairing the An-70 with the A400M, the An-70 is better if they are intended for the same purpose, I don't know. Apart from performance, other things like reliability, availability of spares, operating cost, ease of maintenance, adaptability, etc. also plays a role. Can the An-70 also be configured for multiple purposes like air-to-air refueling as easlily as the A400M? Then again, it seems as if the chances are that the An-70 might not even be produced. Here are some stats from Wikipedia that proclaims that for a 20-tonne payload, the operational distances for the two aircraft are almost the same, keeping in mind that the actual stats will be different from these stats since I am sure that one can't rely on stats plastered all over the show on websites:

An-70
Crew: 3-5
Capacity: 300 troops or 206 wounded
Payload: 47 tonnes (2.25g) (103,620 lb (2.25g)) of cargo
Length: 40.7 m (133 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 44.06 m (144 ft 7 in)
Height: 16.38 m (53 ft 9 in)
Empty weight: 66,230 kg (146,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 108,860 kg (240,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 145,000 kg (2.25g) (319,725 lb (2.25g))
Powerplant: 4× Progress D-27 propfans, 10,350 kW (14,000 hp) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 780 km/h (420 knots, 485 mph)
Range: 6,600 km (3,600 nm, 4,100 mi) with 20 tonnes of cargo
Ferry range: 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (40,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 24.9 m/s (4,900 ft/min)



A400M
Crew: 3 or 4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
Capacity:

37,000 kg (82,000 lb)
116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,
up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Length: 45.1 m (147 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 2 in)
Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 141 tonnes (310,852 lb)
Powerplant: 4× EuroProp International TP400-D6[34] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each
Total Internal Fuel: 50.5 tonnes (111,333 lb)
Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)

Performance

Cruise speed: 780 km/h (420 kt, 485 mph Mach 0.68 - 0.72)

Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft))
Range: 3,298 km (1,780 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)

Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
Ferry range: 8,710 km (4,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,000 ft)
Maximum Operating Altitude: 12,000 m (40,000 ft)
Tactical Takeoff Distance: 980 m (3,215 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical Landing Distance: 770 m (2,526 ft) (as above)
Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2009, 12:12 
Offline

Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 20:03
Posts: 126
skyhawk77 wrote:
also the hawks and gripen are the best in their respective categories. why is it when i ask about the the hawk, gripen and a400m acqusitions everyone wants to prove me wrong?

This is the first time I'm hearing you say that the Gripen, Hawk and A400M are actually the right choice for the SAAF, to my knowledge you always think there is a better, cheaper option, isn't it skyhawk77?

Back to the topic or maybe off the topic, if its payload and range that you want there is no better option then the Antonov An-225 Mriya 'Cossack, I know this sounds very far-fetched but the aircraft has an operational take-off weight of 1,000,000lbs, a maximum take-off weight of 1,322,275lbs and can carry a payload of 551,150lbs with an optimum cruising speed at altitude of 700km/h, a fully fueled range of 15,400km and a range when fully loaded of 4500km.

If the SAAF were to acquire two or three of these Ukrainian giants, there would be nothing to big or too far to transport, although the disadvantages most probably outweigh the advantages and since there is only a single aircraft in service, the odds are about 10,000 to 1 that this aircraft will be inquired upon as a suitable replacement for the A400M, although its worth a thought/dream of seeing this aircraft in SAAF colours.

A picture of the Antonov An-225 Mriya 'Cossack:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2009, 20:13 
Offline

Joined: 26 Feb 2009, 11:40
Posts: 982
Location: Waterfalls , Harare south
i m afraid SAAF has to buy from russia. i support them

_________________
"My dream is that somehow South Africans and Zimbabweans create relationships of such a nature that the Limpopo river is no longer a border, but is a source of water and food.” -Bishop Paul Verryn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEbv02k7Ag


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2009, 21:01 
Offline

Joined: 23 Dec 2006, 06:12
Posts: 739
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
skyhawk77 wrote:
i m afraid SAAF has to buy from russia.

Why?

skyhawk77 wrote:
i support them

Why?

And why do we need an A400M or an AN70?

_________________
Stay foolish; stay hungry


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group