I guess the French were the cause of the A400M's political problems which inturn caused the creation of a significant number of thhe problems thar currently beset this aircraft.  So it is good to see the French government have seen the light and said it is the interests of the EU and the countries who have placed orders and no doubt paid a large deposit to proceed with the development of the A400M.  If they don't then the EU will forever be beholden to the USA for any military transport capability. 

Also, no doubt Germany and the UK as the other two major customers will also see the light and will confirm their commitment to this potentionaly brilliant aircraft.

I don't think there has ever been an aircraft of this size and complexity that wasn't overweight when the first prototype was physically weighed.  Certainly the C17 was overweight and probably still is when compared to the original design criteria, I also beleive the C5 suffered from similar problems.  The modern commercial aircraft have also suffered from the same sort of problems.

With the engine now being flight tested there should be some light at the end of the tunnel for the A400M and the team who are tasked with its design, manufacture, testing, carrying the required rectification work and finally delivering the production aircraft to the customers. 

This is an aircraft that cannot be allowed to fail as if it does then there will exist the posibility that EADS will eventually become an American company by being absorbed by Northrop Grumman. 

And now, according to Mr. M.A. Taverna of AW&ST, France is considering some options, including the "leasing of a few LM C-130Js or Boeing C-17s" .....

..... Committee member Jacques Gautier said France will be forced to resort to various stratagems to meet its own interim airlift needs until the A400M is ready. Among these are to prolong the life of some of its Transalls, where possible; pushing forward the acquisition of two A330s due to be purchased under a forthcoming tanker-transport buy; wet-leasing more An-124s; and acquiring a few Casa C212/235 light transports. Leasing a few Lockheed Martin C130Js or Boeing C-17s is also “not excluded,” he says, “as long as it does not threaten the future of the A400M.” .....

The simple answer to solve all this would be to re-start the Shorts Belfast production line again but with decent modern day engines! Now that was a beast. I bet Shorts could get a factory up running again whilst updating the specs on the Belfast and get one airworthy quicker than the A400M!

Lets start a campaign for new build Belfasts! You know it makes sense!

Not a bad idea .....

but ..... too long time elapsed .....

The A400M is simply a modernised version of the Short Belfast.  I wonder if Short ever proposed a mk2 version?

It is ironic that the saviour of the of the heavy lift military transport is the C-17A.  The role of this aircraft had to be changed changed considerably due to its inability to meet its design performance e.g. the payload was reduced 20,000lb because the engines were not big enough and the wing area were to small to carry the intended design payload. 

The AN-124 is the only true heavy lift military transport, there was simply not enough of them available on the commercial market to meet the current demand for heavy lift military transport.  

..... The A400M is simply a modernised version of the Short Belfast.  I wonder if Short ever proposed a mk2 version? .....

 According to "Jane's All the World's Aircraft" (1964-65 edition, pages 160-161) .....

Four versions of the SC.5 are offered currently, as follows:--

SC.5/10.  Initial version, powered by four 5,730 ehp Rolls-Royce Tyne RTy.12 turboprops and with "beaver-tail" rear-loading doors.  Design started in february 1959.  Construction of first SC.5/10 began in October 1959 and this aircraft flew for the first time on January 5, 1964.  Second SC.5/10 flew on May 1, 1964.  These aircraft form part of an order for 10 for RAF Transport Command and have the sevice name Belfast C.Mk 1.

SC.5/10A.   Commercial counterpart of SC.5/10, to carry wide variety of payloads, including freight pallets, large vehicles or 147 passengers in typical seating arrangement.  Major differences compared with military model are deletion of some military radio/navigation equipment, automatic landing system, flight refuelling equipment and auxiliary power unit.  The air-conditioning delivery system  is semplified.  The weight saved by these changes increases the capacity payload to 85,000 lb (38,555 kg), which could be carried 700 miles (1,125 km) with SBAC fuel reserves.  More than 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) could be carried 3,000 miles (4,825 km) with similar reserves.

An "air-bus" variant of the SC.5/10A has been entered for BEA's design study competition for this class of aircraft.  With two decks, 288 passengers could be carried six-abreast in four separate cabins, each with its own entrance and carry-on luggage facilities.  This version would be able to operate from 6,000 ft (1,825 m) runways on stages of up to 900 miles (1,450 km).

SC.5/13.   This version offers a substantial improvement in payload-range performance as a result of limited modifications which can be applied retrospectively to the SC.5/10.  The most important changes are the use of larger (18 ft 0 in = 5.50 m diameter) propellers to improve field performance, an increased max T-O weight of 250,000 lb (113,400 kg) to permit more fuel to be carried for a given payload, and the introduction of fuel tanks in the wings centre-section to increase fuel capacity from 80,720 lb (36,614 kg) to 96,000 lb (43,545 kg).   Max payload is 75,000 lb (34,020 kg):

A maritime patrol version of the SC5/13 has been proposed, with a weapon bay replacing the rear ramp.

SC.5/41.   Projected jet development of SC.5/10, with basically similar fuselage married to a new wing based on that of the Lockheed C-141AStarLifter and powered by four Rolls-Royce RB.178 by-pass turbojets in underwing pods.  Swing-nose loading.  New tail unit with tailplane mounted at tip of fin.   Max T-O weight of 420,000 lb (190.500 kg).  Payload: civil 123,000 lb (55,800 kg), military 119,000 lb (54,000 kg).   Cruising speed over 500 mph (800 kmh).

The SC.5/13 and SC.5/41 are very interesting proposals.  In particular the /13 variation which if marketed properly could have had a production life similar to that of the C-130.

It could have and possibly would have if us Brits hadnt needed a big loan from the Americans back in the 50's! A couple of the conditions apparently were that we bought C-130s and F-111s!

..... and the cancellation of several outstanding british projects, such as the  P.1154, the HS.681 and the TSR.2 .....

and the F-111K was also cancelled some years later ..... 

Returning to the SC.5 .....

..... A maritime patrol version of the SC5/13 has been proposed, with a weapon bay replacing the rear ramp .....

Another very interesting proposal ..... and, possibly, a strong competitor for the Lockheed P-3 Orion .....

But .....

If only!

Hawker P.1154

HS.681

BAC TSR.2

 Why is it that the British seem to always stop where the Americans would have continued and succeeded?

Re: the HS681.

I believe the potential of the Pegasus VTOL engine was never fully explored.  Apart from being used in the Harrier the only other aircraft that actually tried to utilise its unique design was a German VTOL transport aircraft.  The HS681 could have been the aircraft that fully realised the potential of the Pegasus engine albeit only from dust/sand free landing and take off areas.

If only the "UK government" hatchet men (on orders from the US!!!!!!) had not destroyed the British aircraft industry some 40-50 years ago which was "taramount to handing the US military transport manufacturers a quasi-monopoly for the next 40 years" (1)

Re: The SC5/13

 I would imagine the 5.5m (18ft) propellors propose to be used on the variation would have been fairly noisy with the prop tips being close to in all liklehood exceeding the sound barrier.

(1) French Senate  foreign affairs, defence and armed forces committee investigating the A400M

..... the only other aircraft that actually tried to utilise its unique design was a German VTOL transport aircraft .....

Dornier Do-31 .....

Maybe an aircraft the size of the Northrop Grumman E-2 and or C-2 fitted with a pair of RR Pegasus's could be useful as support aircraft on the two RN aircraft carriers if they are not fitted with catapults.  The Do-31 without the troublesome and drag inducing tip pods looks to be around the correct size.

C-2 Greyhound .....

Needing to be replaced ..... and ..... ..... a Pegasus powered new aircraft might be the right answer .....

Probably because we seem to have had governments since the second world war who arent interested in Britain building things. Unlike the likes of the USA and France who like to support their industries. It is a total shambles these days when you look at our car industry where most of the car manufacturers in the UK are from Japan, our power industry is dominated by France, our only helicopter manufacturer is now Italian owned, our biggest defence manufacturer is as good as being American (BAE). We are having a new train manufacturing plant being built which will be Japanese! We dont build any passenger liners anymore! In terms of major manufacturing that are still British owned we only have Rolls Royce, JCB and GKN.

 I had no idea that JCB were British owned. So whatever is it that those three doing right?

Yes JCB is one of a few big goods manufacturers left in Britain that is still British and is a world wide known name. Whatever it is they are doing, along with Rolls Royce, other companies should have followed them.

What a about BAE Systems?

Some years ago the board of that company wisely concluded that the future lay in systems, rather than airframes and in 2008 they took in £18.5 billion of revenue and employed 96,000 people.

The A400M will go ahead, largely because of the sunk cost fallacy (good money after bad), but if we stuck to comparitive advantage (as we should) the air forces of the partner nations would now be accepting delivery of C-17s and C-130s.

British projects of the 60s, were very imaginitive paper projects,which if you look beyond the perceived wisdom would not have produced the capabilities provided by the eventual F-4K/M/ C-130K solution.

 The cancellation of CVA 01  however was myopic.

 BAE SYSTEMS (Yes, they insist that is is all capitals ) is more American the British now. It even went to lengths to remove any hint of britishness from its name.

 I think what you appear to advocate is about to happen .

 Interesting comments about the 60s projects. Could you elaborate a bit there?

 Do you think that perhaps the nature of post  WWII British projects was hamstrung by thinking that originated from when it was a more or less self sufficient empire?

The UK like all other aircraft manufacturers produce imaginative aircraft designs e.g. TSR2, Fairy Rotodyne to name but two that went beyond paper concept stage to actually fly in prototype form.  The USA have their own examples such as LM F16XL and LTV XC-142.  The problem is only the USA has the ability to mass produce aircraft for their own internal mass market and then to get a bonus by exporting them at a reasonable cost gained through the economics of scale.  

I think there is only one post WW2 UK built prototype that had the potentual to be a developed into successful mass produced aircraft and that was the Fairy Rotodyne and, in all liklehood if it had gone into production it would still being produced today albeit in a much modified state. The CH-47 and CH-53 would have been only imaginative paper designs only.

The A400M is basically a French design that has the potential to be as successful as the C-17 and or the C-130.  It is a case of throwing good money after bad but, the consequences of cancelling the project is to much for the EU, EADS and the customer nations to contemplate.

I  don't know what advantages were gained by the Spey engined F-4 and the C-130K which is simply an anglized variation on the basic C-130E.

The CVA 01 like many decisions made in 1966 re: defence were in hindsight mypopic 

 I see.

 Given that the A400M is largely French, then a British withdrawl will probably be inconsequential (for it, not for the UK) if the French realy want the aircraft. No?

News reports suggest the UK and German governments are both very close to making the decision to cancel their A400M orders.  This is a total of 85 aircraft removed from the order books (albeit less than 50% of total orders) which must make the continuation of the program doubtful.  I guess if the French want the aircraft they will continue with the program and they do seem to be very adament that they want the aircraft.