Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?  
User currently offlineB17GUNNER24 From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9764 times:

i believe that it is we in the UK don't need the RAF to buy any ( the rest of the world don't as well)because we already have c-130's which in my opinion is a million times better than the a400m. Unfortunately in the UK we are stuck with them now but at this point when there is hardly any money in the budget for new planes anywhere in the world . why spend the money on something that is basically a modernised version of th c-130? I also think this way about the f-35! we should of kept the harriers and saved money. I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better and we are wasting our money on both aircraft!!


!what is your opinion on the a400m and the f-35?







Callum strong
Liverpool
united kingdom


The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2038 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9745 times:

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
why spend the money on something that is basically a modernised version of th c-130?

The A400M is a little bit bigger than your C-130. And can carry a little bit more payload.   



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineB17GUNNER24 From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9722 times:

@flyingturtle


That's what i mean a lot more money for a little bit more size



The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9727 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1):
The A400M is a little bit bigger than your C-130. And can carry a little bit more payload.

Nonsense,
The A400 is a more than just a bit bigger, it can carry a lot more over further distances at much higher speeds.
It is just too expensive (aqcuisition price) compared with the C17.
I think it is the equivalent when talking about price explosion and performance problems with the JSF, also something
that was sold with too much promise for too little money.



[edit post]
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2038 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9727 times:

You're still way off the mark. And I was quite sarcastic. 

C-130 payload: 20 tons
A400 payload: 37 tons

Well, but a.net is a place to learn fascinating stuff every day.  



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineB17GUNNER24 From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9662 times:

Thanks for replying guys but i still prefer the c-130 and well the raf dont have any money so we have to lease our c-17s and we have 1 operational aircraft carrier. Its not the best airforce=(


The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9563 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 4):
You're still way off the mark. And I was quite sarcastic. 

C-130 payload: 20 tons
A400 payload: 37 tons

I can see the sarcastic point... 37 tonnes      



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11926 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9525 times:

The A400M on its original budget, schedule and features would not have been a waste of money.

Now that it's no longer "half a C-17 for half the money" and now that the Euro crisis is in full swing, I'm sure its price tag is hard to justify.

If the Germans cancelled as many frames as they were allowed to (7), and have said they won't be operating many more (13).

It doesn't bode will if EU's richest country (tm) can't find the money to support the program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9489 times:

The A400M would work as a single transport fleet fulfilling both the tactical and strategic airlift roles. That said the competition is better at fulfilling those roles individually. The C-17 is a much better strategic airlifter and the C-130J is a much better tactical airlifter. With the UK fielding the C-17/C-130J mix, I don't see what role the A400M fills.

For Germany or France however, the A400M makes sense.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better

The harrier would get its ass handed to it if it came up against a modern 4th generation fighter, not to mention 4.5, or even 5th generation. The Harrier is old, subsonic, and its single saving grace it its V/STOL capacity, they need to be replaced.

The Harrier is out of production, so what do you buy? Ignoring the V/STOL capacity as the RN is now going CATOBAR with the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, what do you get? The RN could get a 4.5 gen Super Hornet, MiG-29K, SU-33, the Rafale M, or the F-35B/C. The Super Hornet is a decent fighter, but is not cheap. The Russian offerings will never happen, flying a French jet off a British carrier has a much better chance of that... but the Rafale M is between $90-124M dollars.

This leaves the F-35B/C. The B is a no go now that the QE carriers are CATOBAR. The F-35C is currently $139M, but that will come down significantly once production is streamlined. This will bring the F-35C into the price range of the other jets capable of CATOBAR usage.

So, you get a supersonic, stealth, modern fighter comparable in price to other offerings.

Sounds like you're preference for the Harrier is something like the bromance people have with the F-14 Tomcat. Great jets, but the need for them has come and past.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9281 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
Sounds like you're preference for the Harrier is something like the bromance people have with the F-14 Tomcat. Great jets, but the need for them has come and past.

I've heard Harriers are very easy to fly. So easy that a secret agent with an Austrian accent can do so after a 15-year layoff. No Canopy? No problem.

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Thread starter):
I don't personally like the f-35 i think harriers are so much better and we are wasting our money on both aircraft!!

I personally think you need to education yourself about the F35 in general and stop reading MSM article with authors who don't associate themselves with military equipment. The F-35 is the only stealth fighter/attack aircraft in the world right now. If you think the Harriers are better, then you obviously don't have an understanding of the technology onboard the F-35.


User currently offlineB17GUNNER24 From UK - England, joined Apr 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9257 times:

I think u missed my point because ive typed it wrong. I mean we hardly have any money for the RAF to buy aircraft so im saying we should have saved money and kept our harriers instead of getting a new fleet of f-35's untl the RAF can get enough money to buy more aircraft carriers(The raf currently only have 1 aircraft carrier in service) then buy our a new aircraft fleet( F-35s). I admit that the F-35 is a leap forward in stealth/attack planes that are affordableand after watching videos of it and looking at the specs of it ive come around to liking it but i just think the harrier now was great for the falklands war and iraq but am now realising that harriers are very outdated and we need to invest in new technolgy because most new generation planes today could blow the harrier out of the sky with a machine gun . When we get are f-35s we will have 3 great fighter planes the eurofighter typhoon, tornado gr4 and the f-35. The raf have also retired our only survailence aircraft(i think) the Nimrod. The raf need to stop cutting down our airforce.

Thanks for your comments



The sky is a open space for the raw power of jets to roam free
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9252 times:

The f-35 has moderate stealth capabilities and only from the frontal aspect. It is not stealthy against L-band radar, which is being fitted to Russian frontline aircraft...as well as ground stations. By the time the F-35 enters service, its stealth will be further compromised.

The stealth comes primarily from the shape of the structure, the materials used for that structure and the final coatings applied...and still won't offer significant protection from any aspect except the front.

It has an IR signature just as intense as any jet fighter ever made...and more than most. It's vulnerable from ground fire, so it's ground support capabilities are limited. It's ground support will have to be from altitude...not particularly efficient or accurate, regardless of how smart its weapons are...weapons which can be fitted to any modern fighter.

At altitude, it's primarily frontal aspect stealth becomes less effective since the bottom and engine become visible to radar and IR. If it's not nose on, it's not particularly stealthy.

It will have very sophisticated electronics but those could be fitted to any aircraft.

Its price has at least doubled from the original $65 million per copy touted in the sales brochures.

Regardless, the F-35 will be a good plane but it won't be significantly better than 4.5 gen aircraft.

Drones, cruise missiles and advanced anti radar countermeasures supply most of any advantages the F-35 will have and for less.

So yes, it'll be a nice plane if it ever gets to front line service...which won't happen in this decade. It's just not as good as it's biggest fans seem to believe.



What the...?
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9232 times:

A lot of the above is paper airplane talk. Sure, the F-35 is not as optimized for stealth from other than the frontal aspect. However, it still has a significantly lower radar cross section than any 4.5 gen bird. And this is particularly the case when it's carrying a full internal payload, as it would do in a high air threat environment.

Internal carriage is not some minor detail. It allows the plane to go significantly faster, manoeuvre at higher speeds, and have a significantly lower RCS when loaded, which dramatically improves survivability in combat.

The problem with a lot of the press and hobbyist talk is that they compare brochure numbers (something very frustrating to the guys I know in the project office here in Canada) and the F-35s brochure numbers compare terribly to clean 4/4.5gen jets on Wikipedia. But clean jets are useless in combat. Compare real-life numbers and the picture is very different. Both on performance and cost (how much does an F-18E/F cost once you have buy sensor pods, more external fuel tanks, cost in maintenance on two engines and higher fuel burn for 20 years, etc.?).

In the UKs case, it's a question of what to field for the carrier force. The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft. NoW that they've gone CATOBAR, the F-35C makes much more sense. It might work out cheaper, carries more ordinance (and brings it home), and performs much better than the F-35B. Compare the F-35C to the naval Rafale or a navalized Eurofighter. The first won't offer the same performance or survivability. The second would probably cost more to field and to operate.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9210 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 13):
The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft.

That's not entirely true. You can recover STOV/L aircraft in weather conditions that make Catobar recovery impossible. This has been proven several times in joint operations between RN and USN in the Indian and Pacific oceans. The same in the North Atlantic.The USN had to launch additional tankers to allow a full flight divert to land base. In a war situation thats as good as being shot down.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
I've heard Harriers are very easy to fly. So easy that a secret agent with an Austrian accent can do so after a 15-year layoff. No Canopy? No problem.

Harrier's are notoriously difficult to fly especially in STOVL mode...F-35 will be considerably easier to fly. The lift fan creates a screen of blown air that keeps the engine from sucking hot exhaust gas. When you suck hot gas - it is the engine turbine inlet temp that gets high- causing the engine to 'throttle-back' so the temp is not exceeded, creating a pop stall (which is very dangerous). And not to mention that pilot workload has decreased sharply compared in the F-35B because of better automation.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
It is not stealthy against L-band radar, which is being fitted to Russian frontline aircraft...as well as ground stations.

L-band radars are not designed to be a targeting system. They are only useful for search only; they can't tell the different between a 747 and a fighter jet because they lack resolution. There is a big magnitude of difference between aiming a weapon at a 747 sized target and a fighter jet.


User currently offlinekiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9095 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):

Harrier's are notoriously difficult to fly especially in STOVL mode...F-35 will be considerably easier to fly.

I see sarcasm is lost on you, also surprised you missed the reference to True Lies, the Austrian bloke would be Arnold.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9076 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
L-band radars are not designed to be a targeting system.

Along with this, there is a HUGE difference between simply detecting a stealth aircraft and actually shooting one down. The Ruskies have a long way to go in missile technology if they want to even match current US stuff.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8942 times:

Quoting B17GUNNER24 (Reply 11):
untl the RAF can get enough money to buy more aircraft carriers(The raf currently only have 1 aircraft carrier in service) then buy our a new aircraft fleet( F-35s).

I have to make the correction here, but the Fleet Air Arm and the carriers have nothing to do with the RAF - both are art of the Royal Navy. Also while HMS Illustrious is currently the only carrier in service for the RN, by 2020 you should have two between Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales so you're going to get the new carriers you mention. I guess I just don't understand your concerns here in terms of the inclusion of the F-35 in the future Fleet Air Arm?



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8712 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 17):

Detecting them is the first part of the targeting process. The F-117 shot down in Serbia was targeted using very long wavelength radar...and pinpointed by SA-3's when the bay doors opened...and that was a lot stealthier than the F-35.

Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find. Their huge IR signature makes them detectable and shows exactly where they are.

L-band also gets more accurate as the range closes, which is particularly useful on a fighter aircraft. Besides, if you can explode a missile at a 747 sized target, you have a very good chance of hitting the F-35 sized target. Shoot enough missiles, (which are a lot cheaper than F-35's), and the odds of a hit improve significantly.

Cruise missiles and UAV's make much more useful stealth options. They're cheaper and you can easily overwhelm defenses without putting pilots in danger.

The increased sophistication of jamming technologies has, to a larger than ever degree, rendered the entire question of stealth, moot.

When most of the known defenses have been neutralized, stealth isn't as important. The success of Canada's F-18 deployment history is proof that stealth isn't the panacea it's cracked up to be.

Unless Canada decides to become a first strike nation, (which somehow I doubt), stealth in it's fighter fleet is of very questionable usefulness.

It's a high price to pay for something that Canada has never needed and will very likely never be needed.



What the...?
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8655 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find.

Oh jesus, not the F117 incident again. It was shot down because they were flying the same flight path, run after run. The Serbs fired off a missile and it luckily hit the target. Compare that one extremely lucky incident to how many sorties the F117 flew through it's history without being detected and the odds are on the stealth side.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
It's a high price to pay for something that Canada has never needed and will very likely never be needed.

It is a high price and we will pay it. Saying what we will and will not need is ignorant. Did anyone predict we will be dropping bombs on Libya this summer? No. The world is a volatile place and no one can predict what will happen. On that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS3TsqySbw

[Edited 2011-12-05 14:06:15]

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8628 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 13):
In the UKs case, it's a question of what to field for the carrier force. The only reason they ever fielded Harriers was because they fielded a cheaper carrier that required STOV/L. This lead them to use precedent and plot a STOV/L carrier with STOV/L aircraft.

The Fleet air arm received the Harrier almost as an afterthought, the Invincible carriers were originally specced as "through deck cruisers" Their job was to operate ASW helicopters. The Harrier was a way for the Fleet air arm to keep a fixed wing capabilit, as it could operate from the new class of ships, even if they werent ideal (poorly shaped hangar, badly located lifts, initial ski jump angle too little, poor deck layout)
At the time of the Falklands war, many "experts" pointed out that the previous Ark Royal with its AEW Gannets, Phantoms and Buccaneers could have provided the fleet with a proper AEW screen, a strong offensive capability, plus a far better fighter screen for both the fleet and over San Carlos.

The problem with the Sea Harrier was that it was just good enough to beat a mediocre opponent, this then dictated UK carrrier aviation for the next 25 years. Yes it is unfortunate that we have nothing until the next decade, but we haven't had anything you would dare put in harms way since the Sea Harriers were retired in 2003. Since then we sent carriers to sea with a few mud movers on deck and no way of defending themselves.

So I can't agree with you on the Harrier, its day has passed and its time to move on.

Regarding the A400M, we don't need it, the collossal delays in the programme have resulted in the RAF operating a fleet of C17's which do all that the A400 could, but better, bigger, heavier and faster, and probably cheaper as well.
If we hadn't signed to buy them, a mix of more C130's and C17's would do the job far better.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8593 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 20):
Oh jesus, not the F117 incident again. It was shot down because they were flying the same flight path, run after run. The Serbs fired off a missile and it luckily hit the target. Compare that one extremely lucky incident to how many sorties the F117 flew through it's history without being detected and the odds are on the stealth side.

Oh jesus...not the, "it only happened once so it's not relevant", retort. The missile still had to track the target in order to hit the plane.

As it turns out, the F-117 was significantly more stealthy than the F-35. That significantly increases the odds of another 'lucky shot'.

Trust me...I don't question the usefulness of stealth in general, just the mediocre stealth on the F-35, specifically.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 20):
It is a high price and we will pay it. Saying what we will and will not need is ignorant. Did anyone predict we will be dropping bombs on Libya this summer? No. The world is a volatile place and no one can predict what will happen. On that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViS3T...qySbw

Not bothering to hear any voice but your own is ignorant. Saying what we will and will not need is free speech. Some of us can actually think for ourselves too.

Using Libya as an example is silly...since no stealth aircraft were involved in the campaign...and how many F-18's were shot down again? How many has Canada lost in any campaign using the F-18's?

Heck...the world is such a scary place, maybe we should get nukes too...or ICBM's...or strategic bombers...how about an aircraft carrier or two...then we can get the 'B' model F-35's...yay. We can get all sorts of stuff we don't need now, never have needed and most likely never will. Just screw the dumb schmuck taxpayers who have to pay for it.



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1554 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8564 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

Detecting them is the first part of the targeting process. The F-117 shot down in Serbia was targeted using very long wavelength radar...and pinpointed by SA-3's when the bay doors opened...and that was a lot stealthier than the F-35.

Once you know where to look, they are a lot easier to find. Their huge IR signature makes them detectable and shows exactly where they are.

See the previous discussion regarding the F-117 shoot down. It was primarily due to very poor tactics and complacency that resulted in the shoot down.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

L-band also gets more accurate as the range closes, which is particularly useful on a fighter aircraft. Besides, if you can explode a missile at a 747 sized target, you have a very good chance of hitting the F-35 sized target. Shoot enough missiles, (which are a lot cheaper than F-35's), and the odds of a hit improve significantly.

L-band radars don't get more accurate as the range closes. Furthermore, the arrays for L-band radars are huge in order to get any decent resolution. The one they put of the T-50 is extremely small in comparison. X-band radars can be very small and still get excellent resolution.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Cruise missiles and UAV's make much more useful stealth options. They're cheaper and you can easily overwhelm defenses without putting pilots in danger.

Cruise missiles are still very expensive; you are talking about $2-3 million dollars for a one time use missile. UAV's can be hacked or jammed, rendering them useless.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
When most of the known defenses have been neutralized, stealth isn't as important. The success of Canada's F-18 deployment history is proof that stealth isn't the panacea it's cracked up to be.

Stealth is still very important after day one. There is always the possibility of not getting a SAM site after day one.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):

Unless Canada decides to become a first strike nation, (which somehow I doubt), stealth in it's fighter fleet is of very questionable usefulness.

Norway, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands are all buying F-35's, and never had a global first strike capability. The only nation that does is the US, and to a very limited extent, the UK.

[Edited 2011-12-05 19:08:03]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Heck...the world is such a scary place, maybe we should get nukes too...or ICBM's...or strategic bombers...how about an aircraft carrier or two...then we can get the 'B' model F-35's...yay. We can get all sorts of stuff we don't need now, never have needed and most likely never will. Just screw the dumb schmuck taxpayers who have to pay for it.

If the F35 cost was such a big issue, the Conservatives wouldn't be in a Majority right now. So people who voted for them either agree with the F35 or don't care. I'm just glad the left side can be pushed off into a corner for a bit, let Canada be run the way it's supposed to be, without interference from the 'clatter and noise'.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
since no stealth aircraft were involved in the campaign.

The B2 bomber was actively used for sorties, so you are wrong. If the F35 was already in service it's a guarantee it would be used, we'll just have to wait for Iran.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
.and how many F-18's were shot down again?

Just because none were shot down doesn't mean they weren't constantly tracked and targeted. We went through over 10,000 rounds of chaff/flare during that campaign, that speaks the need for stealth in itself. No pilot in their right mind would choose a non-stealth fighter over a stealth jet. Thankfully, the dumb schmuck taxpayers who don't know any better and confuse a F15 and F18 won't be playing with the lives of Canadian, and allied for that matter, pilots just to save a buck.


25 Post contains images MoltenRock : Do you have any cites / sources that show / prove that any UAV has been "hacked", and thus did not accomplish its mission? I'm curious.... I don't re
26 ThePointblank : The Iranians have claimed to have done so recently, but there have been a number of instances where we have lost contact with a UAV.
27 MoltenRock : The Iranians have claimed Allah is on their side too. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Again, I asked for cites / sources of UAVs failing their missio
28 Post contains links ThePointblank : It was reported a few years ago that Predator drone feeds were hacked by Iraqi insurgents. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html If
29 GDB : If you want the capability, be it in transport (the RAF were never going to get the 10 C-17's they wanted, the C-130J really has some limitations as f
30 ebj1248650 : Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the RAF end up buying those C-17s? They leased them initially and then turned around and bought them.
31 Post contains links Revelation : Seems they are getting there, one frame at a time... Yes, the original 4 were leased then purchased at the end of the lease. The UK owns 7 C-17s as o
32 GDB : Yes it was a lease, that was turned into an outright buy. But they are getting no more than 7, last years cuts saw to that. I based the figure of 10 a
33 Post contains images Autothrust : How can you say that? The A400M is not even in service. As much as people want to play down the A400M here on A.net, they have to realize that the A4
34 XT6Wagon : I have a funny story to tell you. Once opon a time, several kings got together and decided they were tired of importing thier wagons. So they would p
35 GDB : What about all those vehicles, from combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are upgraded, up armoured? Of the ones purchased for urgent opera
36 Post contains images Powerslide : Irony at it's finest. You defend the A400M for the same reasons you hate the F35. Watch this: 'How can you say that? The F35 is not even in service.
37 wvsuperhornet : With evident design flaws ! To asnwer the intial post A400M: Maybe (depends on how the countries purchasing it actually use it and not everybody need
38 YTZ : You didn't get the gist of my comment. A C-17 is a significantly better strategic airlifter than an A400M. And a C-130J is a better tactical airlifte
39 GDB : Which they'd never get, or never asked for. C-17, the original lease of 4 was intended as a stop gap before the then FLA, later A400M, was developed
40 Post contains links Arniepie : Not wanting to start a new thread because of this A400M related news; http://www.aviationnews.eu/2011/12/1...ture-cooperation-with-south-afric/
41 Post contains links and images Devilfish : The RAAF's choices make a good combination then..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art..._27j-transporters-for-%24950m.html
42 Revelation : Yes, many here made much of it's soft field landing characteristics, but don't seem to understand that a commander isn't going to plop a $200M+, 122,
43 YTZ : Yeah. I actually think that would be a good combination for the RAAF. The C-27J would have made an tactical airlifter for a place like Afghanistan. Th
44 XT6Wagon : I think increasingly that heavy lift helicopters will replace conventional "tactical" lift. With the very large size of the modern armored cars used
45 jollo : Schedule delays, for sure (years!). But did EADS actually ask South Africa for more money ? How much more?
46 Post contains links and images Revelation : Seems the UK operates ~60 Chinooks and the US Army should end up with 450+. Some googling reveals: Ref: http://www.helis.com/60s/CH-47_Chinook.php
47 Max Q : Before you completely discount the Sea Harrier you should do a little more research. In the Falklands war there were many days that the weather was s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus A400M Export Campaigns posted Tue Jun 22 2010 07:19:56 by keesje
Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects posted Tue Nov 17 2009 01:13:44 by Keesje
Herschel & Planck And The Origins Of The Universe posted Thu May 14 2009 11:05:20 by NoUFO
YF-23, F-117, And The Future Of Fighter/bombers posted Wed Feb 4 2009 20:44:23 by PanAm788
F 22 And F 35: Computer Hacked? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 08:09:36 by Mortyman
Airbus A400M - No Room For Mistakes. posted Mon Jun 11 2007 20:50:25 by WINGS
Airbus A400M posted Fri Dec 16 2005 14:22:08 by AirbusA346
Portugal Drops The A400M And.... posted Fri Feb 21 2003 05:46:28 by CV990
Iran Forbid Overflight Of German Air Force Airbus posted Mon May 30 2011 23:09:43 by wilco737
Chances Of Usaf Ordering A400M? posted Sat Sep 11 2010 00:29:10 by 747400sp
Airbus A400M Export Campaigns posted Tue Jun 22 2010 07:19:56 by keesje
Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects posted Tue Nov 17 2009 01:13:44 by Keesje
Herschel & Planck And The Origins Of The Universe posted Thu May 14 2009 11:05:20 by NoUFO
YF-23, F-117, And The Future Of Fighter/bombers posted Wed Feb 4 2009 20:44:23 by PanAm788
F 22 And F 35: Computer Hacked? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 08:09:36 by Mortyman
Airbus A400M - No Room For Mistakes. posted Mon Jun 11 2007 20:50:25 by WINGS
Airbus A400M posted Fri Dec 16 2005 14:22:08 by AirbusA346
Portugal Drops The A400M And.... posted Fri Feb 21 2003 05:46:28 by CV990
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format