Why would they want to add two new types of aircraft... to replace what? 10 A/C or less?
"Would fit in nicely inbetween C130J and C-17 and provide tanker capacity for helicopters."
They are already flying 12 of the C-130J models and will be replaing only 2-4 C-130H models I believe?? If they needed additional tanker capacity for helicopters (does RAAF/Army currently even have air refuelable helicopters?) Wouldn't make more sense to replace the H's with KC-130J's??
And the C-27J seems a more logical choice to replace the Caribou's then the C-295... since they share the same engines and many systems with the C-130J. Clearly from training and maintenance point of view anyway...
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7849 times:
Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): They are already flying 12 of the C-130J models and will be replaing only 2-4 C-130H models I believe?? If they needed additional tanker capacity for helicopters (does RAAF/Army currently even have air refuelable helicopters?) Wouldn't make more sense to replace the H's with KC-130J's??
Well it would add capacity the C130 and C-17 strategic transports. It can move around two Tigers, a NH90 or Blackhawk in side, in flight refuel Hornets, F35, Wedgetails, C130s. Fly serious loads high, fast & smooth over serious distances and still land / take-off from dirt strips.
There is a reason Lockheed is studying a fat Herc and Boeing a shrink C-17.
Quote: "Australia and Lockheed Martin have begun preliminary talks over the purchase of additional C-130J tactical transports early in the next decade.
It is not clear how many aircraft could be bought to supplement the Royal Australian Air Force's current 12 C-130Js (one pictured below), bought in 1999, but industry sources say about six more may be required.
[.....]
Canberra has been happy with the performance of its existing C-130s, which provide it with medium- to long-range transport with a short, dirt runway capability. This allows the aircraft to perform tactical and strategic transport duties, search and survivor assistance roles, disaster relief and medical evacuations.
Lockheed plugged the C-130J and its capabilities at the Avalon 2009 international air show in Geelong, Victoria, where George Standridge, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' vice-president of business development, said 257 of the type have been ordered to date, and 171 delivered. These perform missions including air combat, air-to-air refuelling, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, weather reconnaissance, electronic combat and firefighting."
Quote: "Australia has approved an A$45 million ($40 million) upgrade to its air force's fleet of 12 Lockheed Martin C-130J military transports.
'The Block 7.0 Upgrade will enable Australia's fleet of C-130J to meet new global air traffic management requirements and continue to operate in global airspace,' says defence minister John Faulkner.
'These will address system obsolescence, maintain coalition compatibility and enable these aircraft to comply with global air traffic standards.'"
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7651 times:
Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): They are already flying 12 of the C-130J models and will be replaing only 2-4 C-130H models I believe??
There are 12 H to be replaced. They (DOD) are currently talking about 6 replacements, RAAF is NOT happy.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): And the C-27J seems a more logical choice to replace the Caribou's then the C-295... since they share the same engines and many systems with the C-130J. Clearly from training and maintenance point of view anyway...
The C-27J was rejected in the past, the C-295 I don't know. The next attempt to replace the Caribou will the third, the first two failed because no aircraft could do the job the 'Boo did. IF Viking can get their act together fast enough and they might on the time scale in the FI article, then a modenised DHC-5 must have a show.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7565 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 2): Well it would add capacity the C130 and C-17 strategic transports. It can move around two Tigers, a NH90 or Blackhawk in side, in flight refuel Hornets, F35, Wedgetails, C130s.
The A-400 may be able to refuel the F/A-18s, but that is what they are buying the KC-30s to do. The RAAF version of the F-35, the "A" model will be boom refuelable, not probe and drogue. Last I heard the A-400 will not carry a boom, and will not refuel receivers than need booms, like the F-35, Wedgetail, or F-111s.
As far as "adding capacity", any airplane ordered will do that. The RAAF is already considering more C-130Js, and they still could order another 2-3 C-17s to "add capacity" instead of introducing another new type.
Isn't Germany still having trouble with their Tigers?
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6836 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
The C-27J was rejected in the past
What was the basis for the rejection - price?
Quoting gemuser (Reply 4): the C-295 I don't know. The next attempt to replace the Caribou will the third, the first two failed because no aircraft could do the job the 'Boo did.
Was it big for the requirement? Maybe the CN-235 would be a better fit as it is roughly in the same capacity and performance range.....
Still pretty convinced there is no real opportunity here for the A400, likely it was included to raise the visibility of the C295 proposal as a 'bou replacement.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6659 times:
Talks with 36 countries about sales of the A-400? I just cannot imagine anyone seriously considering the A-400 at now an increased price per unit and reduced capabilities from the original contract with the EU countries.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6636 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): Talks with 36 countries about sales of the A-400? I just cannot imagine anyone seriously considering the A-400 at now an increased price per unit and reduced capabilities from the original contract with the EU countries.
A strong selling point for this modern 37t outsize tactical transport seems: no competition.
There is also a chance that it just meet/ exceeds its promised performance specs from the start, just like the A380 and A330F.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6634 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 8): Airbus holds talks with 36 countries interested in buying A400m military transport plane
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6596 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
There is also a chance that it just meet/ exceeds its promised performance specs from the start, just like the A380 and A330F.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6348 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 8): Priority seem to have Brazilië
I doubt Brazil would torpedo its own airlifter program especially after the FAB committed to it - despite the disparity in payload capacity.....
As you pointed out in the other thread, LM had that to watch out for. And it's not like Brazil would embark on a heavy expeditionary deployment anytime soon.
Quoting keesje (Reply 14): A400M #1 at ILA, with 17 tonnes "payload"
So, the A400M is resorting to the same flying antics as the C-27J does at airshows.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6212 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 14): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Talks with 36 countries about sales of the A-400? I just cannot imagine anyone seriously considering the A-400 at now an increased price per unit and reduced capabilities from the original contract with the EU countries.
A strong selling point for this modern 37t outsize tactical transport seems: no competition.
There is also a chance that it just meet/ exceeds its promised performance specs from the start, just like the A380 and A330F.
Or the A-400 low level capability, the 37 tonne capability (which is questionable), or years later tasnker capability?
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 17): Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
A400M #1 at ILA, with 17 tonnes "payload"
So, the A400M is resorting to the same flying antics as the C-27J does at airshows.
Doing that with 17 tonnes is a long way from doing it with 30, or 37 tonnes. Just what capability is that manuver suppose to show? I can think of no reason to go more than 90 degrees of bank in a big airplane, it gives you no tactical advantage, plus you expose your belly at more than 90 degrees.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6182 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): Just what capability is that manuver suppose to show?
From the position of the left hand aileron, whatever he was doing he is trying to undo real quick.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3132 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6086 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 19): From the position of the left hand aileron, whatever he was doing he is trying to undo real quick.
Or the photographer turned the camera. Without a horizon reference who knows what the actual manuver is.
santafejay From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 9 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5749 times:
I'm surprised they would consider the C-295 ahead of the C-27J unless it's part of an attractive deal. That being said it's hard to imagine that the A400M can come in at a reasonable price unless Airbus/EADS plans on taking a loss. The A400M's problems are well known and the engineers have thier work cut out for them if the plane is ever going to live up to expectations.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5585 times:
Quoting santafejay (Reply 22): That being said it's hard to imagine that the A400M can come in at a reasonable price unless Airbus/EADS plans on taking a loss. The A400M's problems are well known and the engineers have thier work cut out for them if the plane is ever going to live up to expectations.
It is a big hill for EADS to climb. I think many countries took notice when EADS refused to honor the original contreact wit its EU customers.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5522 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Just what capability is that manuver suppose to show?
From the position of the left hand aileron, whatever he was doing he is trying to undo real quick.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Or the photographer turned the camera. Without a horizon reference who knows what the actual manuver is.
Both correct assumptions.
It's a FBW aircraft. The aircraft measures all relevant parameters continuously and makes sure the aircraft stays within its flight enveloppe. In this case The pilot knows and just pulls the stick as far as he can because he knows the aircraft will stop at (pre programmed) 120 degrees and make sure the aircraft stays under control.
Quoting santafejay (Reply 22): I'm surprised they would consider the C-295 ahead of the C-27J unless it's part of an attractive deal.
I think they are two different aircraft, the C-295 being the smaller/lighter/cheaper one. What fits best depends on the requirements.
The contracted price for the launch customers was extremely low. Even price rises of additional billions will make it good value for money compared to bigger aircraft lacking its tactical performance.
About the "technical issue" haubting the program, I sense a lot of hope and little substance here. So lets bring up reliable sources. Not the usual cheap shots by folks with an agenda or politicians hating having to pay more.
26 KC135TopBoom: Rolling into 120 degrees of bank is not a normal manuver that pilots do in large aircraft. There are only two ways to recover from that, continue to
27 santafejay: If the Japanese intend to offer the Kawasaki C-2 for export the A400M will have a tough time competing. The A400M so far is 12 tons overweight and tra
28 oldeuropean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgALWWBg3qs and here filmed on another day (07:10): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kZCa9Asu8Y& Axel[Edited 2010-07
29 keesje: are you sure? The last I heard is the french mod was concerned the first A400M would miss their specified max payload, by a few hundred kg's.. http:/
30 santafejay: That's what I've read on Wikipedia as well as couple of other sources. Agreed, but that would be case the for any aircraft.
31 DEVILFISH: It may not have to if the fighter for tanker/airlifter arrangement between Brazil and France pushed through..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, 
.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
