Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Production Of The A400M Has Begun  
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4164 times:

The production of the future European military transport plane has begun.
The first parts have been assembled at the Airbus facility in Varel next to Bremen.
The A400M will replace the C-160 Transall and the C-130 Hercules with most European air forces.

Here is a link -but it is in German : http://de.news.yahoo.com/050126/12/4e1sy.html

[Edited 2005-01-28 13:03:52]


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Great! The marketing slogan should be "Airbus A400M: Too big to be a tactical airlifter, too small to be a strategic airlifter."


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

"Great! The marketing slogan should be "Airbus A400M: Too big to be a tactical airlifter, too small to be a strategic airlifter."

Well, I wonder why the Russians and Ukrainians had a plane of a similar size like the A400M if it is the wrong one !! It seems that a lot of countries have a need for an aircraft that big or that small (see Malaysia and South Africa as likely A400M customers). Other countries are interested aswell.

So the slogan should be :"Suits your needs the best ". Besides not every country can a afford a C-17 or need a plane that big. Why buying a Chevy Suburbean if a Blazer is enough for your needs and a Geo Tracker is too small.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

"Well, I wonder why the Russians and Ukrainians had a plane of a similar size like the A400M if it is the wrong one !!"

Don't waste your time buddy. Here's a simple thing you need to know to understand N328KF:

Not American=Stupid.

After all, the An-70/A400M is not a copy of any American airplane (or is it?)! Now that is suspicious...  Insane


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3984 times:

LY744:

Whatever.

The A400M is like Galileo or the A380—it's a status project. The difference is that the A380 may actually be commercially successful. The A400M is already looking to be more expensive because of the infighting between the services, governments, and corporations involved over differing requirements, delayed orders, etc. And what's with granting the engine contract to a dark horse with an inferior and more expensive product, at the last possible minute?

The difference between Europe and the Russians is that the Russians already have airlifters on both sides of the size spectrum from the An-70.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

Not status, unless status is now a desire to do what the US does, that is protect vital national industries.
Not being subject to the whims of increasingly negative US administrations too, you want Europe to have a better airlift capability, but only if the supplier is from the US?

Tough luck, C-17 is way too expensive and fills a slightly different mission (the RAF will retain theirs after A400M is deployed), C-130J is not up to the task, ALM Antillean Airlines (Netherlands Antilles)">LM's fault, maybe despite the extra costs, they should have widened the fuselage somewhat, what is the point of buying a large fleet of new transports that have many of the limitations of the aircraft they are replacing?

I see a pattern here, anything that is not being done by the US is now a status project? Clearly A380 customers think not, tough luck again, Boeing had two shots at updating 747 in the last 8 years and flunked it both times.
Not for the first time, they did not rate the opposition.

A400M will be built in large numbers for contributing nations, collaboration might be a pain sometimes, the politics and resulting delays, however Europe is not the US, you are not dealing with one nation, but when you pull it off it pays dividends, economies of scale in production and all that.

C-130J is for the moment threatened not by A400M, but the ending of USAF orders, the C-130 originally was boosted by not just being a great design, but by the large US orders.
Why be surprised that the C-17 has not had, save the RAF, any exports? How many C-141's which it replaced were sold abroad?

Europe is often, and rightly, criticized for spending not enough on Defence, mainly in the area of power projection, well A400M will help a lot in fixing that, maybe F-35 will become a European mainstay, with Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale, but some attitudes will have to change to ensure this, promises on offset work and input in areas beyond metal bashing will not have to be broken as has been threatened, Norway for one might end up with Typhoon because of this.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12464 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A400M will be an excellent transport plane and will likely garner a good few export orders.

It seems to me that lots of Americans on a.net have real problems when it comes to Europeans designing and building their own planes. Their attitude seems to be "You should buy our planes, but don't expect us to buy any of yours, our defence is way too important for us to take the risk."  Insane



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3850 times:

I still think the Il-76 is a better option, An-70 still got serious problems.
New engines and better avionics and the Il-76 would be really great..


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7951 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Galileo is a status project?? Are you aware the US provides its European allies with less accurate information - and 24 hours late?

And when the Europeans build an arlifter bigger than the C-130 it's a status project, too? You know Airbus can build aircraft quite a bit bigger than the A400M, do you?

In fact, I wish the A400M would have an MTOW 10 ton higher than the aircraft actually has.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineMariscal35 From Ecuador, joined Jun 2004, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Does anybody knows other nations that are interested in ordering the a400m for their millitary, besides the eight already confirmed.


"El partido no estuvo ni bueno ni malo, sino todo lo contrario" Nixon Carcelen
User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Does anybody knows other nations that are interested in ordering the a400m for their millitary, besides the eight already confirmed
I've heard the RSAF (Singapore) is looking at it, but they'll probably wait till it flies,or maybe just upgrade their C-130s to J or X standard. Also, i'd think the rest of the european air arms that can afford it. But definitely not us Americans.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

The biggest problem with the current GPS is that it belongs to the US MoD and they have full control over it. Gallileo is seen as an alternative, which, since it is about 20 years younger, also includes improvements.

Jan


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

MD11Engineer:

You act as if GPS hasn't been receiving constant upgrades. I believe they are about to start launching GPS III satellites, which are just as sophisticated as the Galileo stuff, and with a far more powerful transmitter (to improve anti-jamming capability.)



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3766 times:

The problem is still that there is only one group in control of it, the US MoD and they can downgrade it or switch it off whenever they like it. This is e.g. one reason why GPS is not yet permitted for precision approaches in many countries. Gallileo would provide an alternative, especially with receivers, which can process both signals and reduce errors due to comparison.

Jan


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

There is no U.S. MoD. Perhaps you mean the Department of Defense.

Anyhow, that goal was mooted by the fact that the EU was basically told "allow us to degrade/disable when/where necessary or we will jam/intercept it ourselves" by the U.S. Government—and the EU complied. There is now a diplomatic mechanism for the U.S. to make the request.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

Sorry, I meant the DoD...
Got into British mode...  Wink/being sarcastic

Jan


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7951 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

Alessandro,

The width of the cargo box of the IL-76 is too small (3.45 vs 4 metres).



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A400 will be an excellent transporter for those nations that can afford them, and that need their capabilities. They are not strategic transporters in the sense that we are used to seeing, but they do have the ability to move large loads. I do not believe that they will eliminate the need for for chartering large cargo jets for movements, but they will lessen that need. This airplane will not enable the Europeans to move armored forces in bulk to other theaters, and their additional value that overcomes their additional cost is suspect. They are however a popular program with many and provide jobs for the user countries, which the C-130J does not for most.

The C-130J is still the penultimate intra-theatre transporter and will meet the needs of airforces it serves for the next 50 years. They can move most everything that needs moving in theatre and cost less than the A400.

Galileo is unnecessary and the fact that we can still block it eliminates most of the stated purpose. It is difficult to deny that the European governments do perform unnecessary duplication efforts in an effort to be able to use equipment made at home, and pass it off as effort to create jobs and industry at home.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

I don't see a problem with Galileo being launched. Same thinking (even more important, really) as the US not buying KC-330s.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

Ian,

GPs signals can be blocked just as easily, as was proven by some radio hams prior to the introduction of a GPS based autobahn toll system in Germany. They built a jamming transmitter out of $20 worth of electronic components and handed it in to a major TV station for testing, as a demonstrator to how easily this system can be sabotaged. This little box, about the size of a cigar box, can, if mounted in a suitable position, e.g. the top of a tower or the summit of a mountain or hill, block the GPS signals for a radius of up to 200 km.

Jan


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

YEah, that's true. Efforts have been made with replacement satellites to increase the transmission power and defeat jamming, but it becomes a game to some kids with access to a radio shack and $20 to monkey with the system.....just like hackers.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3400 times:

The "boom" in production of low cost GPS guided weapons is gonna ebb out the day some bad guy gets hold of some decent jamming equipment.

I guess the RAF is glad they have the dual capability in the Paweway IV.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Production Of The A400M Has Begun
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...
Italy Officially Out Of The A400M Programme posted Thu Dec 20 2001 10:44:24 by Steman
Report - Rafale Out Of The Running In Norway posted Thu Aug 31 2006 22:46:33 by Lumberton
Long Beach May Lose Production Of Another Aircraft posted Fri Aug 18 2006 01:24:02 by KarlB737
Panoramic Movies Of The Moon posted Sat Aug 5 2006 21:43:57 by NoUFO
What Is The A400M Airlifter? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:57:38 by Mlglaw
Speed And Altitude Of The ICBM? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 00:25:03 by Wardialer
Last Public Appearance Of The F-14 posted Wed Jun 14 2006 19:48:12 by LONGisland89
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 01:09:56 by 747400sp
What's The Status Of The F-22? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 17:37:34 by AviationAddict
First Shot Of The First French Air Force's A340 posted Fri Mar 31 2006 07:57:11 by LTU932

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format