Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Awesome Pics Of Grizzly!  
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6607 times:

http://www.businessinsider.com/airbu...et-for-july-deliveries-2013-6?op=1

Wooow 


Airbus SAS - Love them both
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12721 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6574 times:

Very complimentary article at AvWeek: Pilot Report Proves A400M’s Capabilities

Awesome plane. Too bad it costs so much and is coming to market amidst tight budgets in many places.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Thanks for sharing.

What i find interesting is the quote from the guest pilot Fred George:

Quote:
The Atlas has some of the most capable avionics and flight controls ever fitted to a military transport. Its turboprop engines are unprecedented for their blend of power and fuel efficiency. This agile performer feels more nimble than older heavy-lift transports.

I guess even with such statement plenty of people will deny the capabilities of the plane.  



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBigjKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 2):
I guess even with such statement plenty of people will deny the capabilities of the plane.

Anyone who denies that it is capable is fooling themselves. There are arguments to be made about the cost effectiveness of the aircraft though that are real issues with the overall program and denying those issues is also foolish. If the thing had been brought in at the initial cost projections it would be a great thing for almost everyone. It wasn't and as such it is in a somewhat awkward spot in the market in that it may be capable of doing certain tactical airlift things you would task a C-130 to but might be too expensive to risk in such operations.

If I could have an A400M for the cost of a C-130J or for that cost plus 30% it would be the worlds simplest decision. But I can't. That is a big part of why a lot of the rest of the world is buying C-17's and C-130's still. The situation is further complicated by the Germans stating they want to sell some of their aircraft. No one will buy new until they see what kind of deal they can shake the German government down for first.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

The C-17 is not a direct competitor comparing it is apples vs oranges comparison.

While the A400M is expensive, it's running cost will be similar to the C-130 trough features like the most efficient turboprop engines in the world, aswell a CFRP Wing which doesn't corrode,etc.

Similar to the F-35 where different needs were to be fullfilled by a single design, the development is much more extensive.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBigjKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):

While the A400M is expensive, it's running cost will be similar to the C-130 trough features like the most efficient turboprop engines in the world, aswell a CFRP Wing which doesn't corrode,etc.

I don't disagree with you but it is also pretty clear that plenty of nations believe they can get by with the C-130 given the cost difference. I would not make a direct C-17 to A400M comparison but they are part of the same procurement decision. I think there are two tiers of nations looking at transport.

Supply Haulers- These are the nations that have mostly gone for C-130J's or older variants that don't seem like they want to do more than shift supplies around with their aircraft and really don't seem to have a particular capability level they need in relation to that. For many of them you are really just looking at the cost of a C-130 vs an A400M. That price difference will pay for a lot of preventative work on a C-130. Like it or not the risk factor is probably seen as lower with the C-130 than it is with the A400M as well. For many of these nations airlift capacity is a token capability or a theater level supply solution. For most of that work they seem to be very cost conscious.

Strategic Mobility- These are nations that have ambitions to conduct operations on a regional or global basis on some level and have specific task they want aircraft for. This is where the equation becomes the cost vs capability one and there are suddenly a lot of questions to answer. While the direct question is not a C-17 vs an A400M that is part of what is evaluated. Am I better off with a handful of C-17's supplemented by tactical airlift assets like the C-130 or with a pure A400M fleet? For most nations so far the answer has been the former. It could further be broken down if you have decided you need C-17's on if you should buy A400M's or C-130's to go with it. Only one nation has decided to go the C-17/A400M route so far.

That is why I say it is in somewhat of an awkward market spot. Outside of the producer nations it really has not gained much traction so far. I think to do that it needed to be in the ballpark of a C-130 in terms of price. I think if other nations really looked at the A400M as solving their strategic mobility issues they would have bought them by now.


User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Nice airplane. However, the second picture, the one with the two guys standing by the nose, when I looked at it, my first thought was "gee, the front windshield reminds me of those high speed train noses". How it looks squared off from the radar dome to where it says "A400M". Like they just said lets use the ICE-1 windshield and not worry about it.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5470 times:

Quoting BigjKU (Reply 3):
If I could have an A400M for the cost of a C-130J or for that cost plus 30% it would be the worlds simplest decision. But I can't. That is a big part of why a lot of the rest of the world is buying C-17's and C-130's still.

Or flying what appears to be a VC-10 tanker refueling it in the final photo, rather than an A330 MRTT... that thing's at least 40 years old, right? I don't mean to derail this into an RAF tanker discussion, just to point out that military airframes go on forever.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 2):
What i find interesting is the quote from the guest pilot Fred George:

Quote:The Atlas has some of the most capable avionics and flight controls ever fitted to a military transport. Its turboprop engines are unprecedented for their blend of power and fuel efficiency. This agile performer feels more nimble than older heavy-lift transports.
I guess even with such statement plenty of people will deny the capabilities of the plane.

He was a guest pilot. He is not evaluating the A-400M for any military capability, nor is he qualified to do that. He just flew the thing, nothing more, nothing less.

Being the newest designed airlifter, it should have the newest, most advanced avionics. The same with the engines, they are also the most advanced.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12721 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

I guess we go with belittlement instead of denial?

IMHO we all gotta admit it's a kool bit of kit, despite huge schedule and budget overruns. Yeah, it can't haul MBTs around, or even some of the heavier APCs, but there is a lot one can do with it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Let me stir the pot here a bit. Ten years ago when the A400 was still just an idea the EU faced a choice of spending their tax dollars either in the US to buy C-17s and C-130s or in Russia to buy the AN-70. Neither was as appealing as spending the money at home to design something state of the art, gain that experience, pay the home based unions, and keep the money in the EU. Oh and they did get the airplane they wanted. Cost overruns are nothing new. Let he who is without sin in that area cast the first stone. America has her own whoppers in that respect, we can waste money better than anyone else on the planet. I see no reason why any government or corporation in the EU should buy any US built aviation product, they have their own designs and can keep the money in the community.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
He was a guest pilot. He is not evaluating the A-400M for any military capability, nor is he qualified to do that. He just flew the thing, nothing more, nothing less.

Or an experienced pilot, (they would not have let him near it otherwise), with prior experience of other transports.
Better yet, not in any way affiliated with Airbus.
He was there to fly, evaluate and report.
'Flying the thing' will give a good idea of it's capability. Being a flying machine.
If it handled not so well, in both the air and on the ground, that would affect it's capability.
If the avionics and systems were not up to much, that would affect it's capability.
If it was lacking in the power department, that would affect it's capability.
It sounds rather desperate to keep on with all this belittlement.

While the C-130J may have picked up orders due to the long and often difficult A400M development, you could say the exact same about the A330 picking up more orders due to the whole 787 saga.
So by your logic, the 787 is a load of crap too?

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 10):
Let me stir the pot here a bit. Ten years ago when the A400 was still just an idea the EU faced a choice of spending their tax dollars either in the US to buy C-17s and C-130s or in Russia to buy the AN-70. Neither was as appealing as spending the money at home to design something state of the art, gain that experience, pay the home based unions, and keep the money in the EU. Oh and they did get the airplane they wanted. Cost overruns are nothing new. Let he who is without sin in that area cast the first stone. America has her own whoppers in that respect, we can waste money better than anyone else on the planet. I see no reason why any government or corporation in the EU should buy any US built aviation product, they have their own designs and can keep the money in the community.

Very true.
Given what happened with the AN-70 they dodged a bullet there.
Wish this forum had been around when the C-17 had it's own severe problems in development and those attempts to cancel it way back then.
The hypocrisy on this with the serial A400M bashers on here is astonishing and gives the clue to what it's really about. Nasty Euro crap ugh! (How dare they enter OUR captive market!)
But what a great aircraft in the C-17 that came from it.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10109 posts, RR: 97
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigjKU (Reply 3):
If I could have an A400M for the cost of a C-130J or for that cost plus 30% it would be the worlds simplest decision. But I can't.

Maybe not today. But you should perhaps check what the cost of early C17's was compared to what they are today. A400M acquisition costs will fall.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 4):
While the A400M is expensive, it's running cost will be similar to the C-130 trough features like the most efficient turboprop engines in the world

In TLC terms the running costs will outweigh the acquisition costs, making the A400M a lot better value than its sticker price suggests

Rgds


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Awesome Pics Of Grizzly!
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...
Interesting Pics Of Mig-29 Operations..... posted Tue May 29 2012 17:02:59 by alberchico
Incredible Pics Of The Russian Space Shuttle! posted Wed Oct 10 2007 16:32:28 by Alberchico
Found Some Interesting Pics Of J-10 Fighter... posted Sun Oct 7 2007 16:32:45 by Alberchico
Any Pics Of Inside Air Force 1 posted Fri Jun 3 2005 08:55:19 by RootsAir
Any Good Pics Of Glenview Naval Air Station posted Thu Mar 24 2005 18:29:28 by 22right
C-5 Pics Of Engine Hit By Missle posted Sun Apr 11 2004 19:22:43 by Galaxy5
Pics Of Earth From A MiG-25 Foxbat @ FL800 posted Wed Feb 26 2003 10:39:34 by Gotairbus
"The Spirit Of Ronald Reagan" C-17 Pics Part 2 posted Sat Jan 14 2006 14:57:30 by Echster
"The Spirit Of Ronald Reagan" C-17 Pics posted Sat Jan 14 2006 14:54:35 by Echster
Government Orders External Review Of CH-148 posted Tue Jun 25 2013 21:41:48 by ThePointblank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format